Living to work... on reelection
April 7, 2023 1:11 AM Subscribe
Congress Today Is Older Than It's Ever Been - "OK, boomer? More like boomer, OK!"[1]
Why Are There So Many Boomers In Congress? - "In 1981, the median age was about 49 for a representative and about 52 for a senator. In 2023, those numbers are 58 and 65! And this has major implications for the issues the legislature cares about."
-Ages of the Founding Fathers on July 4, 1776
-Older - They Might Be Giants
Why Are There So Many Boomers In Congress? - "In 1981, the median age was about 49 for a representative and about 52 for a senator. In 2023, those numbers are 58 and 65! And this has major implications for the issues the legislature cares about."
It’s the boomers, man. Baby boomers, as the name suggests, are a really big generation. According to the 2020 census, they make up slightly more than 20 percent of the population. But they have a much bigger role in Congress: Almost half of all senators and representatives are baby boomers!meanwhile:
Boomers are now between roughly 58 and 77 years old. And they’ve built up the wealth and resources that make it easier to win elections. On top of that, incumbents usually win reelection. So once they’ve gotten into office, most boomers have stuck around for a while. Add to that the fact the average lifespan has mostly increased over time, and you get a really old Congress.
So, why does this matter? Well, we know that members of Congress are influenced by their identity and background, and older members are more likely to be attuned to the concerns of fellow older Americans thanks to shared worries, experiences and values. And that can be a good thing as seniors are a vulnerable group due to health care and assisted-living challenges.
But that also means that they may focus less on issues that are especially important to younger people, like housing, student debt and climate change. Also, many of the big issues being decided by Congress involve technology. Things like regulating social media, or artificial intelligence, or cryptocurrency. And while sometimes it’s a stereotype that older people are less tech-savvy, sometimes … it’s not.
- Aging Boomers Explain Shrinking Labor Force, NY Fed Study Says - "Take people between the ages of 60 and 69, for example. The share who are retired averaged 39.7% in 2018 and 2019, and 40% in the second half of 2022. For people aged 70 to 79, some 77.5% were retired before the pandemic, compared to 78.8% at the end of last year. And for workers above age 79, the share who are retired rose from 88.5% to 90.5%."
- Would Life Be Better if You Worked Less? - "Lawmakers stateside have taken notice, proposing legislation that would cut the standard workweek here to 32 hours. It's hard not to look around and wonder: Would my life be better if I worked less?"[2,3]
- Why Americans Care About Work So Much - "Workism is rooted in the belief that employment can provide everything we have historically expected from organized religion."
-Ages of the Founding Fathers on July 4, 1776
-Older - They Might Be Giants
And now they're even older,
And now they're older still.
posted by JDHarper at 4:38 AM on April 7, 2023 [15 favorites]
And now they're older still.
posted by JDHarper at 4:38 AM on April 7, 2023 [15 favorites]
As a Boomer, I can sympathize. I waited 50 years for those guys who were older than television started to get out of the way.
Jesse Helms took forever. And Feinstein's still in there, among others.
posted by MtDewd at 4:42 AM on April 7, 2023 [6 favorites]
Jesse Helms took forever. And Feinstein's still in there, among others.
posted by MtDewd at 4:42 AM on April 7, 2023 [6 favorites]
Democrats skew older than Republicans. There could be various reasons.
posted by BWA at 4:58 AM on April 7, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by BWA at 4:58 AM on April 7, 2023 [4 favorites]
As a Boomer born in 1947, there are plenty of Boomers who are old farts and do not understand what a progressive society could be. In fact they actively fight against progressive trends. We live in a time where stale reactionary values seem to energize the worst in people. Yes we have a high standard of living but what we have gained technologically speaking has come at a great cost. As someone much more wise than I said in a letter to his spouse dated 1909 "this country already carries the germ of its own destruction".
posted by DJZouke at 5:21 AM on April 7, 2023 [11 favorites]
posted by DJZouke at 5:21 AM on April 7, 2023 [11 favorites]
there are plenty of Boomers who are old farts and do not understand what a progressive society could be.
For some topics, especially social issues, there is real generational change, and younger people certainly tend to be more liberal, but generalizing entire generations tends to overstate things. There is much more variation within generations than between them.
For example, in 2020 58 percent of young voters (18-29) voted for Biden, whereas 48 percent of those 65+ did. That gap was smaller than many others: 66/33 for urban/rural; 43/92 for White/Black; 57/33 for White college grad/White non-grad. Even the male female difference (48/55) was similar to the old/young.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 6:54 AM on April 7, 2023 [7 favorites]
For some topics, especially social issues, there is real generational change, and younger people certainly tend to be more liberal, but generalizing entire generations tends to overstate things. There is much more variation within generations than between them.
For example, in 2020 58 percent of young voters (18-29) voted for Biden, whereas 48 percent of those 65+ did. That gap was smaller than many others: 66/33 for urban/rural; 43/92 for White/Black; 57/33 for White college grad/White non-grad. Even the male female difference (48/55) was similar to the old/young.
posted by Mr.Know-it-some at 6:54 AM on April 7, 2023 [7 favorites]
I'm at the upper end of Gen X and worry that my generation, to the extent that it ever gets any significant power, will be regressive. So many of our bright lights were snuffed by AIDS and COVID and we're now at the age where progressives start dying early of poverty, lack of health care, stress, etc. Gerontocracy is inherently conservative, even reactionary, because old folks are people who have benefitted by the existing and previous systems to get the resources to make it to old age.
posted by gentlyepigrams at 6:59 AM on April 7, 2023 [34 favorites]
posted by gentlyepigrams at 6:59 AM on April 7, 2023 [34 favorites]
I'd be interested to see this same graph set against net-worth adjusted for inflation.
posted by es_de_bah at 7:01 AM on April 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by es_de_bah at 7:01 AM on April 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
Incumbency is probably the best predictor of re-election, so once a seat is held, geezers are really pushed to stay in it.
posted by theora55 at 7:03 AM on April 7, 2023 [4 favorites]
posted by theora55 at 7:03 AM on April 7, 2023 [4 favorites]
I'd be interested in the urban/rural split as well, and how that might have evolved over the years.
posted by gimonca at 7:27 AM on April 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
posted by gimonca at 7:27 AM on April 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
It's also why millennials are poorer. Boomers? Their silent generation parents died in their 50s and early 60s. Boomers bought a house that was easily affordable, got a huge cash injection when they hit 40, accumulated untold wealth with property, and now living to god knows how long. If a Boomer hits 75 they have at least another 10 years of life expectancy ahead of them because we're so good at keeping rich Boomers alive. Their kids are putting Gen Z through college on no family wealth because it's all locked up in the family home which is now worth 7 figures because what was on the outskirts of town in 1968-1980 is now prime real estate.
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:57 AM on April 7, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by Your Childhood Pet Rock at 7:57 AM on April 7, 2023 [13 favorites]
I hope we can all be careful not to say dumb ageist shit here and exhibit compassion toward individuals of all ages while making fair points about systemic issues like gentlyepigrams pointed out. It’s less that the people in power are old and more that the old people wield power. If our lawmakers could come from poverty as easily as from wealth, age wouldn’t be much of an issue.
posted by rikschell at 8:17 AM on April 7, 2023 [20 favorites]
posted by rikschell at 8:17 AM on April 7, 2023 [20 favorites]
Their kids are putting Gen Z through college on no family wealth because it's all locked up in the family home which is now worth 7 figures because what was on the outskirts of town in 1968-1980 is now prime real estate.
And as they die none of that wealth is going to filter down to anyone else in the family, it’s all going to get vacuumed out of the economy by private healthcare costs and end of life care that ultimately lands in the bank accounts of CEOs and other executives. And the homes will get rented back to the younger generations at absurd markups and the college loan interest payments are also vacuumed out of the economy. It’s really an efficient system.
posted by mikesch at 8:17 AM on April 7, 2023 [25 favorites]
And as they die none of that wealth is going to filter down to anyone else in the family, it’s all going to get vacuumed out of the economy by private healthcare costs and end of life care that ultimately lands in the bank accounts of CEOs and other executives. And the homes will get rented back to the younger generations at absurd markups and the college loan interest payments are also vacuumed out of the economy. It’s really an efficient system.
posted by mikesch at 8:17 AM on April 7, 2023 [25 favorites]
Democrats skew older than Republicans. There could be various reasons.
My interpretation is that the Democrats have been more effective at suppressing internal challenges to their leadership. The Republicans have repeatedly been disrupted by challenges from the right since the '80s, recently by the Tea Party and then by Trump's coterie. This brings new blood into the leadership.
For reasons I don't completely understand, the Democrats have been much better at turning the barbarians -- that is, aspirants to power from their left flank -- away from the gates, and haven't had to incorporate them into the power structure. As a result, the national Democrats are still dominated by people who rose to power in reaction to Reagan in the '80s. It shows in their age and it shows in their politics, too.
posted by grobstein at 9:03 AM on April 7, 2023 [16 favorites]
My interpretation is that the Democrats have been more effective at suppressing internal challenges to their leadership. The Republicans have repeatedly been disrupted by challenges from the right since the '80s, recently by the Tea Party and then by Trump's coterie. This brings new blood into the leadership.
For reasons I don't completely understand, the Democrats have been much better at turning the barbarians -- that is, aspirants to power from their left flank -- away from the gates, and haven't had to incorporate them into the power structure. As a result, the national Democrats are still dominated by people who rose to power in reaction to Reagan in the '80s. It shows in their age and it shows in their politics, too.
posted by grobstein at 9:03 AM on April 7, 2023 [16 favorites]
I'm technically a young boomer, but tend to relate culturally more as an X-er (ie: The Beatles broke up before my eleventh birthday, the movie Slacker felt almost too real).
One thing I've noticed about a conservative/regressive anti-progress mindset (not to be confused with having a conservative political viewpoint; not that the two aren't related) is that the regressive perspectives tend to start kicking in while one is in their thirties, and they really start to get pronounced by one's forties. By which I mean, one starts bemoaning the styles and attitudes etc of "kids today" and otherwise locks in to a worldview that leans toward seeing the threat in various positive social, cultural, technological (and other) evolutions.
I noticed it in many of my peers when they hit that age (and myself for that matter, though I made a conscious decision to mostly shrug it off). And since then, I've seen it happening with younger acquaintances as they make that somewhat imperceptible shift from growing to aging, which is what much of this is about, I think.
My point being that yes older heads can tend toward frustratingly regressive attitudes toward the future (and the now). But those attitudes have locked in long before one hits the age bracket where the boomers currently find themselves. So to get all wound up hating on them for their old-fart, anti-progressivism is to blind oneself to a whole other younger, more vital (more dangerous?) generation (or two) who are more or less committed to the same sort of values. And they're not going to be dying off anytime soon.
And it overlooks the fact that very many of our elders are not at all regressive in their thoughts or their actions. Whatever changes they went through as they matured did not tip them into fear of the future but rather an embracing of it -- a commitment to making the right kind of changes.
posted by philip-random at 9:55 AM on April 7, 2023 [6 favorites]
One thing I've noticed about a conservative/regressive anti-progress mindset (not to be confused with having a conservative political viewpoint; not that the two aren't related) is that the regressive perspectives tend to start kicking in while one is in their thirties, and they really start to get pronounced by one's forties. By which I mean, one starts bemoaning the styles and attitudes etc of "kids today" and otherwise locks in to a worldview that leans toward seeing the threat in various positive social, cultural, technological (and other) evolutions.
I noticed it in many of my peers when they hit that age (and myself for that matter, though I made a conscious decision to mostly shrug it off). And since then, I've seen it happening with younger acquaintances as they make that somewhat imperceptible shift from growing to aging, which is what much of this is about, I think.
My point being that yes older heads can tend toward frustratingly regressive attitudes toward the future (and the now). But those attitudes have locked in long before one hits the age bracket where the boomers currently find themselves. So to get all wound up hating on them for their old-fart, anti-progressivism is to blind oneself to a whole other younger, more vital (more dangerous?) generation (or two) who are more or less committed to the same sort of values. And they're not going to be dying off anytime soon.
And it overlooks the fact that very many of our elders are not at all regressive in their thoughts or their actions. Whatever changes they went through as they matured did not tip them into fear of the future but rather an embracing of it -- a commitment to making the right kind of changes.
posted by philip-random at 9:55 AM on April 7, 2023 [6 favorites]
For example, in 2020 58 percent of young voters (18-29) voted for Biden, whereas 48 percent of those 65+ did. That gap was smaller than many others: 66/33 for urban/rural; 43/92 for White/Black; 57/33 for White college grad/White non-grad. Even the male female difference (48/55) was similar to the old/young.
The generation gaps might be larger if you do crosstabs of age cohort vs. race (Black vs. White vs. Everyone Else). I don't have the exact references, but most of the literature on generational cohorts that I used to read in the sociology journals suggests that generation gap politics is primarily a White people a phenomenon. After all, you don't have Biden getting 92% of the Black vote, unless he has a lot of cross-generational appeal in that constituency. In fact, if I remember the polling numbers on Biden during the primary season, Biden's popularity with older Black Democrats was a major factor in helping him win the South Carolina primary and close the gap against Bernie Sanders.
posted by jonp72 at 10:44 AM on April 7, 2023 [5 favorites]
The generation gaps might be larger if you do crosstabs of age cohort vs. race (Black vs. White vs. Everyone Else). I don't have the exact references, but most of the literature on generational cohorts that I used to read in the sociology journals suggests that generation gap politics is primarily a White people a phenomenon. After all, you don't have Biden getting 92% of the Black vote, unless he has a lot of cross-generational appeal in that constituency. In fact, if I remember the polling numbers on Biden during the primary season, Biden's popularity with older Black Democrats was a major factor in helping him win the South Carolina primary and close the gap against Bernie Sanders.
posted by jonp72 at 10:44 AM on April 7, 2023 [5 favorites]
According to the UNDP Global Parliamentary Report the worldwide average age of a legislator is 53. Looking more closely at the report, for bicameral systems we see average age 52 for lower chambers, 59 for upper chambers. In that context, the numbers for the USA are quite high but not extreme outliers.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 11:57 AM on April 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 11:57 AM on April 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
My interpretation is that the Democrats have been more effective at suppressing internal challenges to their leadership. The Republicans have repeatedly been disrupted by challenges from the right since the '80s, recently by the Tea Party and then by Trump's coterie. This brings new blood into the leadership.
The Democrats run their party for the benefit of their elected officials while the Republicans run their party for the cause. Compare the massive freakout when AOC primaried a conservative, do-nothing Democrat with sway in the local party with the total lack of resistance put up when David Brat primaried Eric Cantor.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:03 PM on April 7, 2023 [7 favorites]
The Democrats run their party for the benefit of their elected officials while the Republicans run their party for the cause. Compare the massive freakout when AOC primaried a conservative, do-nothing Democrat with sway in the local party with the total lack of resistance put up when David Brat primaried Eric Cantor.
posted by Pope Guilty at 12:03 PM on April 7, 2023 [7 favorites]
The generation gaps might be larger if you do crosstabs of age cohort vs. race (Black vs. White vs. Everyone Else)
2020 CCES data among anglos:
2020 CCES data among anglos:
. tab cohort, summ(biden) Summary of biden cohort Mean Std. Dev. Freq. 20s .69887334 .45882597 2,929 30s .6734375 .46900803 4,480 40s .58306538 .49310472 4,665 50s .49005911 .49993475 7,444 60s .51772954 .49971925 7,417 70s+ .45415517 .49793199 6,522 Total .54499806 .4979785 33,457posted by GCU Sweet and Full of Grace at 12:26 PM on April 7, 2023 [4 favorites]
I heard on the Revolutions podcast that some Mexicans a century or so ago used to refer to their legislature as "the Museum of Natural History."
posted by doctornemo at 12:31 PM on April 7, 2023 [13 favorites]
posted by doctornemo at 12:31 PM on April 7, 2023 [13 favorites]
For some topics, especially social issues, there is real generational change, and younger people certainly tend to be more liberal, but generalizing entire generations tends to overstate things. There is much more variation within generations than between them.
I agree and should have clarified what I wrote a bit better.
posted by DJZouke at 12:56 PM on April 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
I agree and should have clarified what I wrote a bit better.
posted by DJZouke at 12:56 PM on April 7, 2023 [2 favorites]
"I heard on the Revolutions podcast that some Mexicans a century or so ago used to refer to their legislature as "the Museum of Natural History.""
As presently we refer to ours as "Jurassic Park".
posted by Chitownfats at 11:40 PM on April 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
As presently we refer to ours as "Jurassic Park".
posted by Chitownfats at 11:40 PM on April 7, 2023 [1 favorite]
I am a boomer (1959). I would like to think that (in part, thanks to Metafilter) I am less racist, sexist, etc. than I've been in the past. I have been a life-long Democrat but am now leaning more towards the progressive end of the political spectrum.
I really didn't want another old white guy as President, so I supported Kamala and then Elizabeth Warren. But when the choice became Bidan/Trump there was no question of voting for anyone but Biden. I was OK with him for the very reason that he has been serving in Washington for so long. My reasoning was that we have a stupid, arcane, boys club system in place that he is very good at negotiating (and Bernie is not--he does not have the political currency to get anything of substance done--plus, old white guy). Same reason I voted for DiFi as problematic as she's been (but I've also written her asking her to resign based on her current issues so her replacement can have time to develop "incumbent" status").
I am not in support of term limits within the current system. It takes time to build up the war chest, favor-trading, back-scratching, contact-cultivating banks needed to negotiate the Byzantine labyrinth that is politics today. I would be all for a total re-thinking of how we do things. The first part being removing money from our system. Since the Supreme Court says that money is speech, we need to be able to equalize the ability of politicians to access platforms to share their ideas, policies, etc. Providing each campaign with equal resources from public funds and requiring "fair share" access to news outlets, etc. might be a start (no, this is not a new idea or a well-thought-out idea). There is value in being a multi-term politician within the current system. I am supporting the Democracy for All amendment that was proposed by Adam Schiff and others this past January to start helping to equalize the system and get rid of Citizens vs United.
But we also have to get religion out of our politics. We have blurred that line way too much and while I fully support any person's right to have whatever spiritual practice they wish (or none at all), I am really disgusted by other's beliefs (i.e. fundamentalist Christians) driving policy. I am seeing more politicians who are willing to share that position openly (my local House member, Jared Huffman is the only "out" atheist in Congress (or as he says, non-religious Humanist) and though he is part of the Democratic party, he is definitely more progressive than our other representatives have been.
I support (financially and philosophically) Trans rights, women's rights, immigrants' rights, gun-control, re-focusing police training on serving their communities and mandatory training in de-escalation of violence (also de-militarization of police forces). I think police officers need screening to ensure they are not members of racist or nationalist organizations.
It is frustrating that our "representatives" are not as representative as they should be. I do what I can with voting, letter-writing, campaign support, and cause support to turn this enormous clumsy "Ship of State" to a more inclusive and functional path. But this is more of a marathon than a sprint. Maybe one day we'll have to have that revolution, but I hope we can fix what's broken without burning it all down.
posted by agatha_magatha at 10:21 AM on April 8, 2023 [2 favorites]
I really didn't want another old white guy as President, so I supported Kamala and then Elizabeth Warren. But when the choice became Bidan/Trump there was no question of voting for anyone but Biden. I was OK with him for the very reason that he has been serving in Washington for so long. My reasoning was that we have a stupid, arcane, boys club system in place that he is very good at negotiating (and Bernie is not--he does not have the political currency to get anything of substance done--plus, old white guy). Same reason I voted for DiFi as problematic as she's been (but I've also written her asking her to resign based on her current issues so her replacement can have time to develop "incumbent" status").
I am not in support of term limits within the current system. It takes time to build up the war chest, favor-trading, back-scratching, contact-cultivating banks needed to negotiate the Byzantine labyrinth that is politics today. I would be all for a total re-thinking of how we do things. The first part being removing money from our system. Since the Supreme Court says that money is speech, we need to be able to equalize the ability of politicians to access platforms to share their ideas, policies, etc. Providing each campaign with equal resources from public funds and requiring "fair share" access to news outlets, etc. might be a start (no, this is not a new idea or a well-thought-out idea). There is value in being a multi-term politician within the current system. I am supporting the Democracy for All amendment that was proposed by Adam Schiff and others this past January to start helping to equalize the system and get rid of Citizens vs United.
But we also have to get religion out of our politics. We have blurred that line way too much and while I fully support any person's right to have whatever spiritual practice they wish (or none at all), I am really disgusted by other's beliefs (i.e. fundamentalist Christians) driving policy. I am seeing more politicians who are willing to share that position openly (my local House member, Jared Huffman is the only "out" atheist in Congress (or as he says, non-religious Humanist) and though he is part of the Democratic party, he is definitely more progressive than our other representatives have been.
I support (financially and philosophically) Trans rights, women's rights, immigrants' rights, gun-control, re-focusing police training on serving their communities and mandatory training in de-escalation of violence (also de-militarization of police forces). I think police officers need screening to ensure they are not members of racist or nationalist organizations.
It is frustrating that our "representatives" are not as representative as they should be. I do what I can with voting, letter-writing, campaign support, and cause support to turn this enormous clumsy "Ship of State" to a more inclusive and functional path. But this is more of a marathon than a sprint. Maybe one day we'll have to have that revolution, but I hope we can fix what's broken without burning it all down.
posted by agatha_magatha at 10:21 AM on April 8, 2023 [2 favorites]
The intergenerational transfer of power is one of those issues every society needs to deal with. Except America, where we've decided not to bother with that and instead have decided to have our government run by retirees who are often obviously senile.
Term limits sound like a bad idea, but I'm increasingly of the opinion that we need a mandatory retirement at 65 for anyone in government, elected or appointed, from dog catcher to Supreme Court Justice and explicitly including President.
I look at the governments of other nations and I'm always shocked at how YOUNG their representatives are, except they aren't young. They're just not elderly.
posted by sotonohito at 10:49 AM on April 9, 2023 [2 favorites]
Term limits sound like a bad idea, but I'm increasingly of the opinion that we need a mandatory retirement at 65 for anyone in government, elected or appointed, from dog catcher to Supreme Court Justice and explicitly including President.
I look at the governments of other nations and I'm always shocked at how YOUNG their representatives are, except they aren't young. They're just not elderly.
posted by sotonohito at 10:49 AM on April 9, 2023 [2 favorites]
I think it should be that you can't stand for election once you're sixty-five. But if you're already elected, you get to serve out your term, or perhaps terms ... assuming you keep passing your physicals.
If this lands as ageist, well I'm almost sixty-four if that counts for anything. And bluntly, I don't view it as grim that I'm almost at the point where (for reasons of caution basically) I'm almost at the point where I should not wield power over the lives of others. This doesn't mean I can't consult for someone who does. This doesn't mean I can't continue to manage my own affairs or be a boss.
Just as you need to be a certain age before you can become President or a member of Congress or the Senate, I see no great wrong in doing the same for the other end of the spectrum.
posted by philip-random at 12:16 PM on April 9, 2023 [2 favorites]
If this lands as ageist, well I'm almost sixty-four if that counts for anything. And bluntly, I don't view it as grim that I'm almost at the point where (for reasons of caution basically) I'm almost at the point where I should not wield power over the lives of others. This doesn't mean I can't consult for someone who does. This doesn't mean I can't continue to manage my own affairs or be a boss.
Just as you need to be a certain age before you can become President or a member of Congress or the Senate, I see no great wrong in doing the same for the other end of the spectrum.
posted by philip-random at 12:16 PM on April 9, 2023 [2 favorites]
Kylie Cheung: Dianne Feinstein Is MIA, and Her Absence Is Holding Up Judicial Confirmations
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 12:37 PM on April 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
Feinstein, who was hospitalized in early March for shingles and has remained in her San Francisco home since March 7, has missed 60 votes of the 82 taken in the Senate in 2023, per the San Francisco Chronicle. And as the Senate, which has been on recess since March 31, prepares to return on April 17, Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said on Monday that Feinstein’s absence from the Senate—and the Judiciary Committee specifically—will impede Democrats’ ability to confirm judicial nominees.It's also worth noting that Durbin (who is 78) has been helping to hamstring the process by bringing back the outdated, anti-democratic "blue slip" nonsense, even though the Republicans already did away with it when they controlled the Senate.
“I can’t consider nominees in these circumstances, because a tie vote is a losing vote in committee,” Durbin told CNN. He continued, “We still have some nominees left on the calendar that we can work on. … But we have more in the wings that we would like to process through the committee.”
Feinstein’s team has been tight-lipped about when, if at all, she’ll return to D.C. Her spokesperson told the Chronicle this week that the 89-year-old “continues to work from home in San Francisco as she recuperates.” Earlier this year, Feinstein announced she won’t seek reelection in 2024 as a handful of Democratic House members vie for her seat. But she intends to serve out the rest of her term, which is set to end in January 2025. That’s close to two years from now, and it’s troubling to consider all the key votes and confirmation processes that could be stalled by Feinstein’s absence—either now or in the future, if she becomes ill again—given Democrats’ razor-thin 51-49 majority.
posted by Glegrinof the Pig-Man at 12:37 PM on April 11, 2023 [4 favorites]
« Older waydowntown | Victor Wembanyama’s trading card market is... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by BiggerJ at 3:48 AM on April 7, 2023 [3 favorites]