Even the Indiana Republican Party itself didn’t know.
"It is our understanding that, that is accurate," said Griffin Reid, Press Secretary and Digital Director for the Indiana Republican Party. Asked whether the state party knew how Pace died, Reid responded: "We do not."
She died in "early March" per the article, how the fuck was there *no one* in the party that thought that maybe they should have at leaste some contact with their top name in the *two months* leading up to an election?
My guess is due to it being a Indiana house race in a presidential election year nobody really gave a shit. Especially because it’s just a primary.
I imagine most years the state party mostly focuses on national races.
Not to mention local news has been gutted most places and most couldn’t name their national representative much less their state representative
Makes it kinda sad that someone, who’s running in a race to be a politician representing thousands of people, can Die and No One Notices.
Like, I fail to believe her Family wouldn’t have tried to let people know… but it’s very believable people heard and went “very nice… but what are your thoughts on Bidenomics and the Hush Money Trial?”
They noticed if you read the article. The real story is practically in the first sentence.
> A candidate who reportedly passed away **after the deadline to remove names from the ballot**
The deadline is there to give them time to print ballots, mail ballots to absentees, etc. You can't really make an exception when the ballots are already out there
Then they need to send out a letter or something to inform people...if they don't count their votes for the new person, it's like throwing a vote out. Which isn't fair obviously
Generally the options (which should be codified in law ahead of time) are either a special election being held or the party selecting a new candidate in their place. However, this being a primary the process might just be to pretend like the person never registered to run and just ignore any votes they receive.
For the whole party, I could see it kind of like a bystander effect. "Oh, I haven't heard from so-and-so in ages, oh well she must be busy with other things and people."
Did she not work in an office? Did she not have aides to help her with things? These people should have known 100%.
For everyone's information, local news coverage in general is on life support or already dead. This is the type of stuff that can happen (and much worse!) when there are no newspapers paying reporters to cover local governments.
When readers and watchers won’t pay for news and rely on social media, journalism stops. Subscribe to your local paper. Contribute to public radio in your area. Tik Tok and Reddit aren’t news sources.
Good ideas in theory, but the reality is that so many local [news stations and channels are now owned by large conglomerates like Sinclair](https://youtu.be/aGIYU2Xznb4?si=xPDr25HW8q4sQvQw)
Or when politicians demonize the media, or when police attack members of the media while reporting, or when media is allowed to be purchased and consolidated by billionaires who only allow stories flattering to them and their ilk.
Intentional headline manipulation. Even with the deceased candidate "The Associated Press has yet to declare a winner at the time this article was published." Is in the article
It's possible the Republicans who knew kept the news quiet because then if she's elected they can just shoehorn in another Republican. Since that's what the people voted for and all.
It sounds dishonest (because it is), but it's [happened before and worked](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/dennis-hof-brothel-owner-who-died-last-month-wins-election-n933366).
There was a study a few years ago that showed baby boomers will not vote for someone younger than them, despite them wanting Congress to be younger overall. It's related to how they refused to retire to make way for a new generation, they cannot refuse to give up power, it the power is going to someone younger than them.
This will sort itself out due to a younger voting populace, and the linear realities of time coming for the boomers.
Honestly I'm not surprised. The field I work in has a decent number or Boomers and I feel that a lot of the time my opinion isn't respected because I'm in my late 20s. It's also a shame they won't vote for someone who's younger and would actually care what happens in the next 30 years instead of just focusing on lining their pocketbook.
I'm in my 40s now and I feel like I've been fucked my entire life.
for the last 20 years I've been dealing with aging boomers who cannot treat anyone younger than them with respect and won't take me seriously and give me any responsibility
But now that some of them are getting out of the way (by choice or otherwise) and I'm trying to move up in the world, I get looked at by younger HR Dept recruiters and hiring managers like "How come you are still working entry-level jobs with a college degree at your age old man? There must be something wrong with you." and it feels like the world has already passed by and skipped my generation entirely
Yeah that's my concern too. Although I'm 28 so I've got time the agency I work for is very Boomer heavy with not a whole lot of upward mobility, except for when someone retires or takes a new job. So basically I have to hope that I can get a promotion that will allow me to gain the experience I need to get a promotion. I hate how, at least with my organization, they want someone who already has 1-2 years of experience to do the job they are hiring for. And yet it's almost impossible to get the needed experience at the lower position. 🙃
also makes it nearly impossible to change fields.
Many of the jobs I've looked at recently want workers who will hit the ground running and performing on day 1, not people who will need weeks or months of training. There is no consideration for that aspect. They complain that they can't find enough workers, but they can't even try to meet people halfway and provide a basic level of on-the-job training: they are only considering workers who already do this EXACT same job somewhere else.
I've applied for jobs where I've got ~10-20 years of relevant and semi-relevant experience showing I've been a good worker, all they need to do is give a meager few weeks giving me the necessary training I need to get up to speed with the way they do things. You ask what you need to do to get consideration and they give bonkers responses like, "I dunno, I guess maybe go take a class and get a job somewhere else for a year so you meet the experience requirement and THEN call us back and we'd be happy to reconsider you for the position... if we are still hiring at that time"
I had this exact conversation recently, no job wants to train anyone, and then complains that there isnt anyone who can do the job they want. Doesnt help that they also only want to pay entry level for all jobs these days
Actually I'm fine with it. Since boomer's lean conservative this probably means there is less room for younger conservatives to enter the political scene, thus creating a bottleneck for future generations of conservative politicians.
That's ... not what the SS trust fund being exhausted means.
The SS trust fund formed when payroll tax collections exceeded benefits paid when the baby boomers were in the workforce (i.e., relatively more workers supporting relatively fewer retirees). Now that excess is being used because benefits paid currently exceed payroll tax collections.
Using money from the trust fund is more of a timing exercise where we'd like the trust fund to last until that boom of retirees has shrunk, relatively speaking, so that current collections equal current benefits paid.
When the trust fund is exhausted, all it triggers is that benefits paid can no longer exceed payroll taxes collected, unless Congress makes a change.
Of course, right about the time Gen X is coming up for retirement is when the "Trust fund" is about to run out.
Another shining example of the "Me generation" (i.e. Boomers) making sure they have everything until the last possible second.
A lot of people don't understand SS is just a retirement insurance policy and is disproportionately contributed to by lower middle class and below. If I remember correctly once you exceed 168.6k of income you no longer have SS withdrawn from your income past that point. Someone making 168.6k or below is paying 6.2% SS tax but someone making 200k is paying closer to 5%.. You see where this is going? If your income is 1 million you're paying a paltry 1% tax towards SS. Oh and they still qualify for SS too, even though they didn't contribute 6.2% of their income to the program like the poors. Fun stuff ain't it?
In short, they could just raise the income cap and make everyone pay 6.2% and the program would be flush with cash.
Absolutely. They won't be here to see the consequences of their actions so, they don't care. They just want to have all the money and power until they literally cannot wield it anymore, which will be their deaths.
They are scared to death that they ***might*** be forced to answer for thier choices before that time comes.
My statement that social security has been ruined for future generations isn't contradicted by your comment.
Within a decade benefits will be slashed by at least a 1/3rd and the number of elderly in poverty is expected to rise precipitously. And it will only get worse from there since congress isn't going to make a change anytime soon, the gop want to cut benefits and the dems want to increase them.
If we don't have money to fund it and we don't have the political will to make changes before it's too late, how is it not ruined for future generations?
> benefits will be slashed by at least a 1/3rd
A story was published yesterday [saying 17% reduction](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/social-security-benefits-cut-2035-trust-fund-trustees-report/). I won't paint that as great, but we shouldn't frighten each other to death talking about 33+%. It's anxiety inducing enough as it is.
>the gop want to cut benefits
Ultimately they want to hand it to wall street. it's what they've wanted since GWB. I'm seriously unnerved by it, irrespective of historical market returns.
I believe the term is ‘silver wave’ for the massive incoming flux of retirees that can’t be adequately supported by benefits
Not arguing, just adding a tidbit
Do you know if there is a projected date at which the number of Boomers collecting SS has shrunk enough to establish a new equilibrium where payroll taxes will be able to fund current retirees at the level that we are at now.
The most recent projection I can find with a few minutes of Googling (from 2010) is ... wait for it ... 2035.
> "This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman. Importantly, this shortfall is basically stable after 2035..."
I wouldn't even say its breaking. Essentially its just reverting to how it originally worked before the baby boomers entered the workforce and built up a surplus - a pay as we go system.
Really is amazing that we all knew what would start happening this decade with the boomers, and yet instead of handing over the torch and going gently into the night these selfish motherfuckers are intent on taking the entire world with them.
They also have a weird obsession with authority. Couple this with they think they deserve respect from everyone younger than them and you end up in a place where they only view authority as those older than them. That's why they do this. It's not necessarily about their generation holding power, as a conscious thought anyway, it's more they only view those older as authority figures. They view the government as authority so it naturally follows they want people older than them in those positions.
I wonder about this a lot. My dad is a boomer and you’ve done a great job of explaining his temperament. I know his grandfather was in WW1 and had a really traumatic experience. I can’t help but wonder how that shaped him as a father and role model for his son and then his son’s son. The cruelty toward children that my parents and in-laws have described in their childhood experiences really is hard for me to wrap my head around.
A lot of dads of boomers went from high school to brutal war to fatherhood really fast. And, their Depression Era granddad's didn't have it easy either.
Not a surprise that being raised by someone who learned to how be a man in the trenches of WWII leads to the expectation of total obedience to arbitrary authority.
I know this to be true, it still makes me laugh. My primary doctor was surprised I had no problem with her when I first started seeing her in NC. When she was starting out, so many people said they wanted another doc because she was too young. I’ve had her as my primary for a decade and she’s been awesome, all that you’d expect from someone with fresh knowledge and energy to tackle new ideas. Boomers love hurting themselves with their stupid ideas.
>but all the top vote getters, including the deceased woman, are retirees.
It's almost as if having elections in the middle of the work-week whilst ensuring no middle-to-low-level employees at any company have any sort of PTO is a great way to keep young people from voting.
I would imagine a big part of it, for state and local positions, you need to have money and free time to campaign. Either that or really be willing to risk it all, like AOC did, since it's difficult to hold down a day job and manage a campaign. So you end up with a bunch of retirees running.
People don't actually research candidates and vote based on name recognition. Older people have been around longer and those just naturally pick up more votes from these people.
Older people are more likely to vote. For example, a lot of 70 yo don't really have a problem voting for a 68 yo
Younger people don't have money/time to run until they have accumulated enough wealth, experience, and respect in their field that running for office doesn't completely kill them financially and their career outside of politics. Very few people can be an exception to this (born extremely wealthy) or take on substantial risk.
Lastly, how many people that complain about the quality/age of the candidates have never voted in a primary? I hear people complain all the time and I ask them if they have ever voted in a primary and it's basically always no.
The same thing is happening in NJ. There is a dead man on the Democrat ballot, and they are not going to update it because the ballots were already printed.
In some cases the election laws don't allow it to be changed after a certain date, no matter the reason. There is a process for who is selected in the deceased's place, often (I'd like to say always but that's never true) by the winning party's leadership.
And there was little notice given that she had died. No obituary, no notice on her website, etc. Apparently unless you happened to catch the local news when she died you probably didn't know.
That doesn't really have anything to do with the party, it's a matter of the law. [Happens all the time.](https://www.newsweek.com/list-dead-people-who-won-2022-midterm-elections-1758448)
Darn! I thought it was Indiana, but it was Missouri that elected a dead senator
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/missouri-elects-dead-man-as-senator-623222.html
It was. I lived in MO at the time. Just hate that it freed up Ashcroft to go to his next appointment which basically set american civil liberties back 60 years. But at the end of the day that was more of a Cheney Bush thing. They could've found any AG to push that shit through during the 9/11 fever pitch
The unlikeable asshole he beat went on to become Attorney General under Dubya. [His “accomplishments” in that role are a litany of awfulness.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft#United_States_Attorney_General)
Atleast in this case he died 3 weeks before the election instead of two months, and there was already a replacement ready (the candidate’s widow)
Plus the opponent was John Ashcroft, I would gladly take a corpse over that guy
I'm from Missouri and my parents were very good friends with and big supporters of Mel Carnahan. When I was a kid he would stay at our house occasionally when traveling around the state while campaigning.
He was a genuinely good man and politician and was very well liked. It was an absolute tragedy what happened to him, his son and campaign advisor.
I've always believed if Mel had not died, he very likely would have eventually been a strong Democratic contender for President.
[North Dakota also elected a dead state legislator.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-who-died-coronavirus-wins-election-north-dakota-state-legislature-n1246393)
Same reason I always say William Henry Harrison was the greatest president America ever had. He was only in the job for 31 days so the amount of evil fuckery he could inflict upon the nation in that time was necessarily quite limited. (Worst thing about him was having John Tyler as Vice President, which more or less would ensure our entry into the Civil War.)
> I was gonna say, she’s probably doing more good than most politicians by just not being able to say whatever crosses her mind.
I voted for her yesterday. I'm not a republican, and in Indiana you can only vote for one party in the primaries. Most of our democratic options are running uncontested so I thought I'd do my part by voting for the least garbage republicans, which was difficult because all of them are either far right or neo-fascist. My district will be won by the democratic incumbent anyway, but she was the only republican on the ticket that wasn't talking about borders, abortion, or fellating trump.
But yea. I didn't hear about this until I woke up today.
Chuck Webb is a seven-term Congressman who, as chairman of not one but two Commerce sub-committees, has taken money from companies he regulates. He's on the board of the NRA and once challenged another Congressman to a fistfight on the floor over an amendment to make stalkers submit to background checks before buying AR-15s, AK-57s, Street Sweepers, Mac-10s, Mac-11s. He's joined protests designed to frighten pregnant women.
What's your point?
There are worse things in the world than no longer being alive.
>There are worse things in the world than no longer being alive.
I think about this line from time to time... well, whenever races like these pop up around the country.
> “My parents instilled that limiting government overreach is the republican way to protect individual freedom,” his daughter said (paraphrased).
“Now, about your uterus….” she added.
Also the so-called "government overreach" Republicans care about are the laws that protect the average American from environmental pollution, unsafe labor practices, and even outright fraud in the form of quack medicine and MLMs.
She died in ~~late~~ EARLY**** (thanks /u/walflour my mistake) MARCH. Lol. I figured it'd be like a week ago or a couple days ago, not over a month ago.
How do they pick a replacement?
Could it be that the Republican party knew and just preferred to not acknowledge it until after the election, because scrambling together a different candidate last minute would be difficult?
So they let the dead person get elected and then they pick the replacement after? Or does it just spawn another special election for all parties to compete in again?
You're right it won't make any difference, because she won the Republican primary in the Indianapolis congressional district that is D+19. Our Democratic representative André Carson has won it 7 times in a row and his grandmother won it 3 times before that.
We joke but if Biden dies the day before the November election, I'm still voting for him. I'd much rather his VP take over than give the Whitehouse back to Trump.
In the case of Indiana, was he running against a Democrat or a Republican? If he was running against a Democrat I could see how he could still win since voters there rather he be replaced by another republican than let the Democrat win. If he was running against another republican, then it's dumb. Most of them are pretty interchangeable
>We joke but if Biden dies the day before the November election, I'm still voting for him.
This is the issue in American politics now. Voting based on the D and R on their boxes and not about the candidate's merits (or aliveness) is only getting worse on both sides.
I agree though and also will be voting for Biden just to not have Trump, but when you take a step back and look at the situation, you realize conservatives are blindly doing the same thing.
Didn't used to be this way, at least not to this extent.
/me laughs in Missourah
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel\_Carnahan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Carnahan)
specifically: In [2000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri), he ran for the [U.S. Senate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate) against incumbent [John Ashcroft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft) in a hotly contested election. During the final weeks of the campaign, Carnahan was killed in a plane crash while on his way to a campaign event. He was posthumously elected to the U.S. Senate, and his widow, [Jean Carnahan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Carnahan), was appointed to serve in the Senate until a [special election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Missouri) was held in 2002.
Edit: sometimes I really hate mobile. I didn't intend all those links, iOS copied them over from the Wikipedia article.
Well in 2000 the people of Missouri voted for Carnahan (D) over Ashcroft (R) for the Senate. This was AFTER Carnahan died in a plane crash. MO basically said "anyone but Ashcroft".
Then Bush made Ashcroft Attorney General. Yes, the guy who lost his senate seat to a dead man was the best AG he could find, I guess.
Misunderstood this at first and thought that this was a general. Is understand if that were the case; I’d vote for a dead Biden over a living Trump this November, but this is just a primary. That’s just voter ignorance/stupidity at that point.
This seems really shady to me. The article says her death wasnt reported on widely before the election, and a quote from someone local who did research before they voted and didnt know or find any reports that the candidate she voted for had been dead.
Does that not read like somebody intentionally withholding information? Shouldnt the republican party she represents have put out a statement? Her family had nothing posted on social media? Is there no law that says 'hey if a candidate dies in the middle of the election the party theyre in has to say something'?
I realize weird situations can happen but the timing of this feels way too perfect. Thats not even mentioning that shes been dead since March, thats a LOT of time. Either this is a massive failure of local news reporting or someone is hiding something. Based on the info provided, its not adding up
It seems most politicians start at state level, and at least in VA it’s a part time position. You’ve gotta have income from somewhere to support that. I don’t know how we’re gonna get younger people involved if they don’t have the necessary support.
She's a stiff! Bereft of life, she rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed her to the ballot she'd be pushing up the daisies!
Her metabolic processes are now 'istory! She's off the twig!
She's kicked the bucket, she's shuffled off her mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!!
THIS IS AN EX-REPUBLICAN!!
This is going to be a future Glenn Beck uni-party rant because he won't understand the state rules about the party nominating someone after the candidate died.
I think it’s important to point out to non-Americans that a primary is to decide who will run from one political party. She was running only running against other republicans.
Like it matters. Would her policy positions as a living person be any more coherent than they are now?
Do Republicans actually *have* policy positions anymore beyond “Donald Trump is our King” or “we hate [trans | immigrant | brown] people”?
They don’t even talk about reducing taxes anymore. I have no idea what they stand for these days other than Donald Trump and hating others.
Well this just confirms to me that Republican voters don’t pay attention to anything politics and just go vote R because that’s what Fox News tells them to do
"Local media failed again.". Ah, some more of that personal responsibility. See, I check out candidates I vote for and make sure they are among several things, alive.
"No one knew she was dead. Last week I researched the candidates online. I read their websites and questionnaire responses. I googled them. No mention of her death. No obituaries,"
Not great that she died and no one bothered to mention it in local news. Can't tell if that's intentional or just really bad news coverage.
Even the Indiana Republican Party itself didn’t know. "It is our understanding that, that is accurate," said Griffin Reid, Press Secretary and Digital Director for the Indiana Republican Party. Asked whether the state party knew how Pace died, Reid responded: "We do not."
She died in "early March" per the article, how the fuck was there *no one* in the party that thought that maybe they should have at leaste some contact with their top name in the *two months* leading up to an election?
My guess is due to it being a Indiana house race in a presidential election year nobody really gave a shit. Especially because it’s just a primary. I imagine most years the state party mostly focuses on national races. Not to mention local news has been gutted most places and most couldn’t name their national representative much less their state representative
Makes it kinda sad that someone, who’s running in a race to be a politician representing thousands of people, can Die and No One Notices. Like, I fail to believe her Family wouldn’t have tried to let people know… but it’s very believable people heard and went “very nice… but what are your thoughts on Bidenomics and the Hush Money Trial?”
They noticed if you read the article. The real story is practically in the first sentence. > A candidate who reportedly passed away **after the deadline to remove names from the ballot**
There's gotta be a stipulation that accounts for if they literally die.
The deadline is there to give them time to print ballots, mail ballots to absentees, etc. You can't really make an exception when the ballots are already out there
Then they need to send out a letter or something to inform people...if they don't count their votes for the new person, it's like throwing a vote out. Which isn't fair obviously
Generally the options (which should be codified in law ahead of time) are either a special election being held or the party selecting a new candidate in their place. However, this being a primary the process might just be to pretend like the person never registered to run and just ignore any votes they receive.
Reading articles? No! No! No! No!!!!
>Reading? No! No! No! No!!!! FTFY, this is the Republicans.
Plausible deniability
For the whole party, I could see it kind of like a bystander effect. "Oh, I haven't heard from so-and-so in ages, oh well she must be busy with other things and people." Did she not work in an office? Did she not have aides to help her with things? These people should have known 100%.
[удалено]
This says they don’t know **how** she died, not that they didn’t know she died
Finally, someone else that can actually read.
I always assume that republicans are lying. This seems like a good bet.
For everyone's information, local news coverage in general is on life support or already dead. This is the type of stuff that can happen (and much worse!) when there are no newspapers paying reporters to cover local governments.
When readers and watchers won’t pay for news and rely on social media, journalism stops. Subscribe to your local paper. Contribute to public radio in your area. Tik Tok and Reddit aren’t news sources.
Good ideas in theory, but the reality is that so many local [news stations and channels are now owned by large conglomerates like Sinclair](https://youtu.be/aGIYU2Xznb4?si=xPDr25HW8q4sQvQw)
Exactly, you said news stations and channels, that alone is the issue if you're not talking about random local newspapers, local NPR affiliates, etc
Print media isn’t faring much better tbh, is your issue with me specifically calling out Sinclair since they are a broadcasting company?
A lot of people straight don't have the income to subscribe to anything that isn't free.
Or when politicians demonize the media, or when police attack members of the media while reporting, or when media is allowed to be purchased and consolidated by billionaires who only allow stories flattering to them and their ilk.
Not sure anymore. People have either gotten really corrupt or completely incompetent lately
¿Por que no los dos?
You’re right. Or both
Why even bother having the skillset for the job if you're just there to shove cash in your pockets?
The continued enshitification of everything is well underway.
Why not both?
In my experience from behind the scenes at a lot of large organizations, it’s 90% incompetence.
I believe it
John Ashcroft lost to a dead man.
He fuckin' deserved it, too. I'd still vote for the corpse of Mel Carnahan over Ashcroft.
Local news (especially newspapers) are pretty gutted at this point. Something like 60%+ of "local media" is owned by Sinclair.
Intentional headline manipulation. Even with the deceased candidate "The Associated Press has yet to declare a winner at the time this article was published." Is in the article
It's possible the Republicans who knew kept the news quiet because then if she's elected they can just shoehorn in another Republican. Since that's what the people voted for and all. It sounds dishonest (because it is), but it's [happened before and worked](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/elections/dennis-hof-brothel-owner-who-died-last-month-wins-election-n933366).
we complain about the elderly running politics, but all the top vote getters, including the deceased woman, are retirees.
There was a study a few years ago that showed baby boomers will not vote for someone younger than them, despite them wanting Congress to be younger overall. It's related to how they refused to retire to make way for a new generation, they cannot refuse to give up power, it the power is going to someone younger than them. This will sort itself out due to a younger voting populace, and the linear realities of time coming for the boomers.
Honestly I'm not surprised. The field I work in has a decent number or Boomers and I feel that a lot of the time my opinion isn't respected because I'm in my late 20s. It's also a shame they won't vote for someone who's younger and would actually care what happens in the next 30 years instead of just focusing on lining their pocketbook.
I'm in my 40s now and I feel like I've been fucked my entire life. for the last 20 years I've been dealing with aging boomers who cannot treat anyone younger than them with respect and won't take me seriously and give me any responsibility But now that some of them are getting out of the way (by choice or otherwise) and I'm trying to move up in the world, I get looked at by younger HR Dept recruiters and hiring managers like "How come you are still working entry-level jobs with a college degree at your age old man? There must be something wrong with you." and it feels like the world has already passed by and skipped my generation entirely
Yeah that's my concern too. Although I'm 28 so I've got time the agency I work for is very Boomer heavy with not a whole lot of upward mobility, except for when someone retires or takes a new job. So basically I have to hope that I can get a promotion that will allow me to gain the experience I need to get a promotion. I hate how, at least with my organization, they want someone who already has 1-2 years of experience to do the job they are hiring for. And yet it's almost impossible to get the needed experience at the lower position. 🙃
also makes it nearly impossible to change fields. Many of the jobs I've looked at recently want workers who will hit the ground running and performing on day 1, not people who will need weeks or months of training. There is no consideration for that aspect. They complain that they can't find enough workers, but they can't even try to meet people halfway and provide a basic level of on-the-job training: they are only considering workers who already do this EXACT same job somewhere else. I've applied for jobs where I've got ~10-20 years of relevant and semi-relevant experience showing I've been a good worker, all they need to do is give a meager few weeks giving me the necessary training I need to get up to speed with the way they do things. You ask what you need to do to get consideration and they give bonkers responses like, "I dunno, I guess maybe go take a class and get a job somewhere else for a year so you meet the experience requirement and THEN call us back and we'd be happy to reconsider you for the position... if we are still hiring at that time"
You hit the nail on the head. And they just keep complaining that nobody wants to work anymore.
Or the position sits empty for a year or more.
I had this exact conversation recently, no job wants to train anyone, and then complains that there isnt anyone who can do the job they want. Doesnt help that they also only want to pay entry level for all jobs these days
43 here. I felt this so hard - hugely accurate.
Boomers were called "the me generation" by their elders for a reason.
Actually I'm fine with it. Since boomer's lean conservative this probably means there is less room for younger conservatives to enter the political scene, thus creating a bottleneck for future generations of conservative politicians.
Well it needs to sort itself out much fucking faster. Vote people, the boomers are going to hang on for dear life.
Take heart, the same lead exposure that is helping them make decisions will be removing them from voter roles soon.
Not that soon with how much longer people are living, and within 10 years social security will be ruined for future generations
That's ... not what the SS trust fund being exhausted means. The SS trust fund formed when payroll tax collections exceeded benefits paid when the baby boomers were in the workforce (i.e., relatively more workers supporting relatively fewer retirees). Now that excess is being used because benefits paid currently exceed payroll tax collections. Using money from the trust fund is more of a timing exercise where we'd like the trust fund to last until that boom of retirees has shrunk, relatively speaking, so that current collections equal current benefits paid. When the trust fund is exhausted, all it triggers is that benefits paid can no longer exceed payroll taxes collected, unless Congress makes a change.
Of course, right about the time Gen X is coming up for retirement is when the "Trust fund" is about to run out. Another shining example of the "Me generation" (i.e. Boomers) making sure they have everything until the last possible second.
A lot of people don't understand SS is just a retirement insurance policy and is disproportionately contributed to by lower middle class and below. If I remember correctly once you exceed 168.6k of income you no longer have SS withdrawn from your income past that point. Someone making 168.6k or below is paying 6.2% SS tax but someone making 200k is paying closer to 5%.. You see where this is going? If your income is 1 million you're paying a paltry 1% tax towards SS. Oh and they still qualify for SS too, even though they didn't contribute 6.2% of their income to the program like the poors. Fun stuff ain't it? In short, they could just raise the income cap and make everyone pay 6.2% and the program would be flush with cash.
Of course. But think of the poor rich people... SMH
To be fair Gen X has been screwed over and over again so this is nothing new.
If there is one thing millennials and gen x have in common it is being fucked over by the boomers
Absolutely. They won't be here to see the consequences of their actions so, they don't care. They just want to have all the money and power until they literally cannot wield it anymore, which will be their deaths. They are scared to death that they ***might*** be forced to answer for thier choices before that time comes.
My statement that social security has been ruined for future generations isn't contradicted by your comment. Within a decade benefits will be slashed by at least a 1/3rd and the number of elderly in poverty is expected to rise precipitously. And it will only get worse from there since congress isn't going to make a change anytime soon, the gop want to cut benefits and the dems want to increase them. If we don't have money to fund it and we don't have the political will to make changes before it's too late, how is it not ruined for future generations?
> benefits will be slashed by at least a 1/3rd A story was published yesterday [saying 17% reduction](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/social-security-benefits-cut-2035-trust-fund-trustees-report/). I won't paint that as great, but we shouldn't frighten each other to death talking about 33+%. It's anxiety inducing enough as it is. >the gop want to cut benefits Ultimately they want to hand it to wall street. it's what they've wanted since GWB. I'm seriously unnerved by it, irrespective of historical market returns.
I believe the term is ‘silver wave’ for the massive incoming flux of retirees that can’t be adequately supported by benefits Not arguing, just adding a tidbit
And Congress can always raise or eliminate the cap on taxable SS income.
Do you know if there is a projected date at which the number of Boomers collecting SS has shrunk enough to establish a new equilibrium where payroll taxes will be able to fund current retirees at the level that we are at now.
The most recent projection I can find with a few minutes of Googling (from 2010) is ... wait for it ... 2035. > "This increase in cost results from population aging, not because we are living longer, but because birth rates dropped from three to two children per woman. Importantly, this shortfall is basically stable after 2035..."
...so it will break and fix itself at the same time?
I wouldn't even say its breaking. Essentially its just reverting to how it originally worked before the baby boomers entered the workforce and built up a surplus - a pay as we go system.
Really is amazing that we all knew what would start happening this decade with the boomers, and yet instead of handing over the torch and going gently into the night these selfish motherfuckers are intent on taking the entire world with them.
Boomers are already outnumbered as a voting block. Younger people just don't vote, or vote third party as a "protest".
Not if I can help it! \*cocks shotgun\*
*cocks shovel*
How did a bullet casing come out of your shovel just now?
It’s a bolt action shovel
I told you the hood always got your back!
They also have a weird obsession with authority. Couple this with they think they deserve respect from everyone younger than them and you end up in a place where they only view authority as those older than them. That's why they do this. It's not necessarily about their generation holding power, as a conscious thought anyway, it's more they only view those older as authority figures. They view the government as authority so it naturally follows they want people older than them in those positions.
I wonder about this a lot. My dad is a boomer and you’ve done a great job of explaining his temperament. I know his grandfather was in WW1 and had a really traumatic experience. I can’t help but wonder how that shaped him as a father and role model for his son and then his son’s son. The cruelty toward children that my parents and in-laws have described in their childhood experiences really is hard for me to wrap my head around.
A lot of dads of boomers went from high school to brutal war to fatherhood really fast. And, their Depression Era granddad's didn't have it easy either. Not a surprise that being raised by someone who learned to how be a man in the trenches of WWII leads to the expectation of total obedience to arbitrary authority.
I know this to be true, it still makes me laugh. My primary doctor was surprised I had no problem with her when I first started seeing her in NC. When she was starting out, so many people said they wanted another doc because she was too young. I’ve had her as my primary for a decade and she’s been awesome, all that you’d expect from someone with fresh knowledge and energy to tackle new ideas. Boomers love hurting themselves with their stupid ideas.
Yes but a lot of politicians are actively trying to steal this now from the future voters.
Do you have a source for that? I don't doubt it, but if you have a link to the actual study it sounds interesting as hell.
I mean to be fair she was 59, not even retirement age yet.
Yeah, according to republicans that still leaves a good 15-20 years left to be active in the workforce.
And a good 25-30 years occupying a seat in Congress
Honestly, the deceased in the article was 59 years old. I was shocked she was that young.
>but all the top vote getters, including the deceased woman, are retirees. It's almost as if having elections in the middle of the work-week whilst ensuring no middle-to-low-level employees at any company have any sort of PTO is a great way to keep young people from voting.
I would imagine a big part of it, for state and local positions, you need to have money and free time to campaign. Either that or really be willing to risk it all, like AOC did, since it's difficult to hold down a day job and manage a campaign. So you end up with a bunch of retirees running.
People don't actually research candidates and vote based on name recognition. Older people have been around longer and those just naturally pick up more votes from these people. Older people are more likely to vote. For example, a lot of 70 yo don't really have a problem voting for a 68 yo Younger people don't have money/time to run until they have accumulated enough wealth, experience, and respect in their field that running for office doesn't completely kill them financially and their career outside of politics. Very few people can be an exception to this (born extremely wealthy) or take on substantial risk. Lastly, how many people that complain about the quality/age of the candidates have never voted in a primary? I hear people complain all the time and I ask them if they have ever voted in a primary and it's basically always no.
From the party that brought you "dead people are voting" Dead people are running (and winning) !!
Weekend at Bernie's election
Bernie, ironically, seems to be very much alive.
And infinitely more competent and capable than either of the shitstains running for Oval Office.
Honestly a corpse would represent a bold new shift in a better policy direction for Republicans.
Only proving that the Republicans are a zombie party.
runnin' like bern, like bern
A Vote for AI Reagan is a vote for real America!
Have you played Wasteland 3?
I have not actually. Is this a story point?
A quite hilarious one.
Jarhead Nixon is the only guy for me. Pokemon Arooooo to the polls!
The same thing is happening in NJ. There is a dead man on the Democrat ballot, and they are not going to update it because the ballots were already printed.
In some cases the election laws don't allow it to be changed after a certain date, no matter the reason. There is a process for who is selected in the deceased's place, often (I'd like to say always but that's never true) by the winning party's leadership.
Maybe the dead voted for one of them?
The zombie party is rising!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Souls
if you looked at the article, the top sentence states she died after the deadline to remove a candidate from the ballot
deadline...
And there was little notice given that she had died. No obituary, no notice on her website, etc. Apparently unless you happened to catch the local news when she died you probably didn't know.
And she was only 59 so it’s not like she was particularly old like the president candidates…
59? Clearly too young to be doing politics in murica
If you read my top sentence, you'll see "dead people voting" is the exact same thing. Thanks for playing.
Just because she was on the ballot didn't mean Republicans had to vote for her though.
That doesn't really have anything to do with the party, it's a matter of the law. [Happens all the time.](https://www.newsweek.com/list-dead-people-who-won-2022-midterm-elections-1758448)
A dead person won a seat in the senate in 2022 (Tony DeLuca)
Darn! I thought it was Indiana, but it was Missouri that elected a dead senator https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/missouri-elects-dead-man-as-senator-623222.html
And I proudly voted for Carnahan over Ashcroft.
I'd vote for the corpse of Mel Carnahan over every Republican we've had since, *especially* Hawley.
And he beat John Ashcroft so let that sink in.
Haha it was hilarious.
It was. I lived in MO at the time. Just hate that it freed up Ashcroft to go to his next appointment which basically set american civil liberties back 60 years. But at the end of the day that was more of a Cheney Bush thing. They could've found any AG to push that shit through during the 9/11 fever pitch
The unlikeable asshole he beat went on to become Attorney General under Dubya. [His “accomplishments” in that role are a litany of awfulness.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft#United_States_Attorney_General)
Atleast in this case he died 3 weeks before the election instead of two months, and there was already a replacement ready (the candidate’s widow) Plus the opponent was John Ashcroft, I would gladly take a corpse over that guy
A dead Democrat, at that.
I'm from Missouri and my parents were very good friends with and big supporters of Mel Carnahan. When I was a kid he would stay at our house occasionally when traveling around the state while campaigning. He was a genuinely good man and politician and was very well liked. It was an absolute tragedy what happened to him, his son and campaign advisor. I've always believed if Mel had not died, he very likely would have eventually been a strong Democratic contender for President.
lmao damn imagine losing to a dead man
[North Dakota also elected a dead state legislator.](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/man-who-died-coronavirus-wins-election-north-dakota-state-legislature-n1246393)
Least harmful Republican politician
I was gonna say, she’s probably doing more good than most politicians by just not being able to say whatever crosses her mind.
Same reason I always say William Henry Harrison was the greatest president America ever had. He was only in the job for 31 days so the amount of evil fuckery he could inflict upon the nation in that time was necessarily quite limited. (Worst thing about him was having John Tyler as Vice President, which more or less would ensure our entry into the Civil War.)
Fun fact: John Tyler is the only US President to not have a vice president
> I was gonna say, she’s probably doing more good than most politicians by just not being able to say whatever crosses her mind. I voted for her yesterday. I'm not a republican, and in Indiana you can only vote for one party in the primaries. Most of our democratic options are running uncontested so I thought I'd do my part by voting for the least garbage republicans, which was difficult because all of them are either far right or neo-fascist. My district will be won by the democratic incumbent anyway, but she was the only republican on the ticket that wasn't talking about borders, abortion, or fellating trump. But yea. I didn't hear about this until I woke up today.
Probably didn’t hear her talking about those issues since she couldn’t these past two months lol
I hope they just leave her decaying corpse in her seat in congress. Keep asking her opinions, and giving her the floor to make speeches
This one’s rare ‘cause she’s dead out the outside, as well as inside.
Someone call Sam Seaborn
I was about to ask whether Will Bailey is the campaign manager.
Chuck Webb is a seven-term Congressman who, as chairman of not one but two Commerce sub-committees, has taken money from companies he regulates. He's on the board of the NRA and once challenged another Congressman to a fistfight on the floor over an amendment to make stalkers submit to background checks before buying AR-15s, AK-57s, Street Sweepers, Mac-10s, Mac-11s. He's joined protests designed to frighten pregnant women. What's your point? There are worse things in the world than no longer being alive.
>There are worse things in the world than no longer being alive. I think about this line from time to time... well, whenever races like these pop up around the country.
Need Will Bailey, gotta get him on the phone, gotta get him...
I had the exact same thought. Glad to see some other West Wing fans in the comments
Wasn't it Will Bailey who ran the dead guy's campaign?
I had to scroll too far to find this.
> “My parents instilled that limiting government overreach is the republican way to protect individual freedom,” his daughter said (paraphrased). “Now, about your uterus….” she added.
Also the so-called "government overreach" Republicans care about are the laws that protect the average American from environmental pollution, unsafe labor practices, and even outright fraud in the form of quack medicine and MLMs.
"And now about your right to divorce...." she also added.
“And now about your voting rights...”, she then added
She died in ~~late~~ EARLY**** (thanks /u/walflour my mistake) MARCH. Lol. I figured it'd be like a week ago or a couple days ago, not over a month ago.
> She died in ~~late~~ early MARCH. almost 2 months ago
They just noticed? Guess the perfume wore off.
How do they pick a replacement? Could it be that the Republican party knew and just preferred to not acknowledge it until after the election, because scrambling together a different candidate last minute would be difficult? So they let the dead person get elected and then they pick the replacement after? Or does it just spawn another special election for all parties to compete in again?
Its the district for Indianapolis so its a Dem stronghold. They probably just didnt care enough to stay invested in a candidate they know will lose.
"Did anyone check in on her lately?...Oh God, what's that smell?"
Weekend at Bernie's III: Reppin' For the G.O.P.
Probably the best solution. At least she won’t be voting to destroy america.
She'll just be replaced by another boomer, won't make any difference whatsoever.
You're right it won't make any difference, because she won the Republican primary in the Indianapolis congressional district that is D+19. Our Democratic representative André Carson has won it 7 times in a row and his grandmother won it 3 times before that.
We joke but if Biden dies the day before the November election, I'm still voting for him. I'd much rather his VP take over than give the Whitehouse back to Trump. In the case of Indiana, was he running against a Democrat or a Republican? If he was running against a Democrat I could see how he could still win since voters there rather he be replaced by another republican than let the Democrat win. If he was running against another republican, then it's dumb. Most of them are pretty interchangeable
Primary, so republicans.
>We joke but if Biden dies the day before the November election, I'm still voting for him. This is the issue in American politics now. Voting based on the D and R on their boxes and not about the candidate's merits (or aliveness) is only getting worse on both sides. I agree though and also will be voting for Biden just to not have Trump, but when you take a step back and look at the situation, you realize conservatives are blindly doing the same thing. Didn't used to be this way, at least not to this extent.
/me laughs in Missourah [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel\_Carnahan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Carnahan) specifically: In [2000](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_Senate_election_in_Missouri), he ran for the [U.S. Senate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Senate) against incumbent [John Ashcroft](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ashcroft) in a hotly contested election. During the final weeks of the campaign, Carnahan was killed in a plane crash while on his way to a campaign event. He was posthumously elected to the U.S. Senate, and his widow, [Jean Carnahan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Carnahan), was appointed to serve in the Senate until a [special election](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Missouri) was held in 2002. Edit: sometimes I really hate mobile. I didn't intend all those links, iOS copied them over from the Wikipedia article.
The Candidate was less braindead than her* voters
HER voters
Thanks I fixed it
They're all ghouls anyway, how would you tell?
One of the people running for president has a dead brain worm as his running mate. lol
this is not unheard of. in '22 anthony deluca won a pennsylvania house seat by a landslide having died about a month earlier
She can't do any wrong.
Well in 2000 the people of Missouri voted for Carnahan (D) over Ashcroft (R) for the Senate. This was AFTER Carnahan died in a plane crash. MO basically said "anyone but Ashcroft". Then Bush made Ashcroft Attorney General. Yes, the guy who lost his senate seat to a dead man was the best AG he could find, I guess.
Misunderstood this at first and thought that this was a general. Is understand if that were the case; I’d vote for a dead Biden over a living Trump this November, but this is just a primary. That’s just voter ignorance/stupidity at that point.
Not surprising. Put a pair of glasses and a tie on a pile of dog crap and label it with the (R) and their base would still vote for it.
They’re finally running their best representatives. Glad it’s starting to turn around.
In fairness, the dead ones are less likely to try to take your basic human rights away…
This seems really shady to me. The article says her death wasnt reported on widely before the election, and a quote from someone local who did research before they voted and didnt know or find any reports that the candidate she voted for had been dead. Does that not read like somebody intentionally withholding information? Shouldnt the republican party she represents have put out a statement? Her family had nothing posted on social media? Is there no law that says 'hey if a candidate dies in the middle of the election the party theyre in has to say something'? I realize weird situations can happen but the timing of this feels way too perfect. Thats not even mentioning that shes been dead since March, thats a LOT of time. Either this is a massive failure of local news reporting or someone is hiding something. Based on the info provided, its not adding up
It seems most politicians start at state level, and at least in VA it’s a part time position. You’ve gotta have income from somewhere to support that. I don’t know how we’re gonna get younger people involved if they don’t have the necessary support.
That's the best kind of politician
Youngest Republican candidate
She's a stiff! Bereft of life, she rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed her to the ballot she'd be pushing up the daisies! Her metabolic processes are now 'istory! She's off the twig! She's kicked the bucket, she's shuffled off her mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-REPUBLICAN!!
This is going to be a future Glenn Beck uni-party rant because he won't understand the state rules about the party nominating someone after the candidate died.
Best kind of republican politician, really.
This isn't the first time this has happened. A couple of years ago, a dead pimp got elected.
Wow it really is that easy to get elected in the US of A
This isn't news. McConnell has been doing this for decades
The Walking Dead
I thought dead people only voted in elections, I didn't realize a dead person could win an election.
This happens a lot
I think it’s important to point out to non-Americans that a primary is to decide who will run from one political party. She was running only running against other republicans.
Well.. can't be any worse than any other Indiana officials.
Another reason to hate this damned state.
Massive epidemic of stupid. Not just in the USA but they are the best at advertising it.
Oh my god. Are we not satisfied with electing almost dead people? Now we're just electing dead people? Also imagine losing to a dead person.
Finally, a republican I could vote for
He's not just winning... he's killing it!
Like it matters. Would her policy positions as a living person be any more coherent than they are now? Do Republicans actually *have* policy positions anymore beyond “Donald Trump is our King” or “we hate [trans | immigrant | brown] people”? They don’t even talk about reducing taxes anymore. I have no idea what they stand for these days other than Donald Trump and hating others.
I see,,, but please, do go on about democrats “stealing election”
Well this just confirms to me that Republican voters don’t pay attention to anything politics and just go vote R because that’s what Fox News tells them to do
"Local media failed again.". Ah, some more of that personal responsibility. See, I check out candidates I vote for and make sure they are among several things, alive.
"No one knew she was dead. Last week I researched the candidates online. I read their websites and questionnaire responses. I googled them. No mention of her death. No obituaries,"
Someone didn't actually read the article...