In the GOP field or what do you mean?
By '28 Harris would be 64 and Pritzker 63. Newsom would be 61. I don’t see how any of their ages would be problematic. They would be young compared to the last couple of elections.
Shapiro will be 55 in '28, Beshear will be 51 and Buttigieg 46 for crying out loud. None will be “old” in any way at all. AOC will be 41 so she has plenty of time left too.
Leaders this far out often end up irrelevant when the actual race begins.
But the last couple elections were bizarre outliers which shouldn’t be used as precedents. If they served two terms, those three would be 76, 75, and 73 when they left office.
I think the sweet spot is between 48 years, three months, and seventeen days and 53 years, eight months and twelve days.
Seriously, under 45 seems a bit young, much over 60 is too old.
72, 72* and 69. I’m not seeing a problem there.
I really don’t care if the next Democratic candidate is 35 or 105 or 50. Someone has to step up and lead by the summer of 2027 or this country is screwed.
And the entire concept of ‘generations’ is mindless nonsense not even worth consideration. There was a increase in the birth rate in the U.S. post WW2. That’s it. Nothing uniting someone born in '48 with someone born in '62. All the rest of it is arbitrary groupings of a diverse population by age. Bullshit, in other words.
*Pritzker would turn 72 one day before the inauguration in 2037.
It’s not a matter of generations, it’s that they’re just too old. People in their 70s can do a lot of things, but in my opinion they can’t govern a country.
Honestly, if someone were to suggest a mandatory retirement age of 65 for all elected officials, I’d be in favor.
I think that’s maybe a bit low, but I’d rather 65 than no limit at all.
Yes. In the GOP field.
The more this is said, the less relevant it becomes. Yes, true, this is only really measuring name recognition, but it is interesting that Newsom has national name recognition, not just CA.
People are staying “younger” now, 75 is no longer ancient and ready for the Old Folks home. People have better medical care and are smoking less. Reagan was 77, Ike was 70.
I concur.
Are you thinking that your preferred age range is best able to beat defeat a Republican, or that they are better at governance?
Personally, I think defeating MAGA is super important, and all else equal that means young, both because of, hate to say it, looks, but more because they have a shorter history of what will prove, in a general election, to have been gaffes.
As for people in your preferred age range having greater wisdom, and thus would be better presidents, it’s plausible but so highly uncertain.
Much more important than age is of course what they have been doing during their adult years. Have they won tough elections, and with what kind of constituencies?
I’m thinking purely in terms of ability to do the job well, not of electability.
Huh? <scratches head>
Electability is first and foremost.
If they don’t get elected, it doesn’t make any difference how well they might have done the job.
Did I miss something?
Young people are more electable - or at least, young Democrats are more electable. My proof: Obama, Clinton, JFK, even Carter and FDR, all of them under 55 when first elected. Youthful, energetic leaders are more inspiring and more likely to bring people out to vote than old farts.
As for wisdom, in my experience it tends to level out at a certain age. A fool at 40 will still be a fool at 70.
True. And TR and JFK both did quite well for whippersnappers their age.
Biden showed this is wrong.
Yep.
I dont think it matters how old you are, as long as you are able to step down gracefully. Now Biden wasnt senile or anything like that, but his health was getting worse. Biden- and Reagan should have stepped down after one term.
Barely. 2020 should have been an easy Democratic victory. Instead, it got much, much too close for comfort.
I don’t buy this. I’m not saying Biden was the only one who could win, but Trump motivated something like 10 million voters who didn’t vote for him in 2016 to come out and support him in 2020. I don’t believe that’s because of Democrats’ failings. It’s because Trump actually tapped into something in the US that hadn’t been tapped into in recent times. If it hadn’t been for Trump’s disastrous handling of COVID, I think he would have sailed to easy reelection.
I’ve also maintained this since 2020.
In hindsight, that may have been better than the shitshow in which we now find ourselves.
Plus, Trump was also a septuagenarian.
When I review possible Democratic nominees in 2020 compared to 2028, I see something very good for 2028. Half of the eight 2020 candidates Wikipedia lists as “major” were over age 70. And not a single one was from a purple state. One, Buttigieg, was from a red state, but he was never tested in a statewide race there.
Contrast that to 2028, where I am only seeing one senior citizen being talked up even a little – Rahm Emanuel – and he just turned 66. Plus about half those being talked up won a statewide race in a year where Trump carried their state. The Democrats have a dream team to pick from in 2028.
Oh please no. Everything I’ve heard about him sounds terrible.
You don’t need to worry. He’s not even going to run, never mind win anything.
Somewhat interesting article over the jockeying for the scheduling of the 2028 primaries. https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/12/us/politics/state-vote-democrats-president-2028.html?smid=nytcore-android-share