Is the fact that we have elderly contenders for the Presidency a reflection of demographics or is it a function of participation in the political process?
Why are we seeing this? There are plenty of other younger electable politicians? I have no problem voting for someone that age, but it is curious that we don’t have younger nominees in the Democratic and Republican parties. Has anyone ever done a study of this?
I look forward to your feedback.
Marco Rubio ran as a Republican this year at age 45. Ronald Reagan was almost 70 when he became president. JFK was 46 when he became president. I don’t think presidential candidates are necessarily getting older, I just think we tend to want someone in that office who has a lot of life experience.
There were indeed some younger candidates in the primaries this year. As to whether they were electable, well, the primary voters didn’t think so.
Age isn’t everything - Bill Clinton was 46 when elected, JFK was just 43. Intelligence and charisma count for a lot with voters, and those guys had it, but experience matters, too, and a candidate who is pushing 70 has had an extra ~25 years to work and live and learn and develop policy ideas. Those are assets during a campaign, just as much as intelligence and charisma.
If there’s any deep-seated voter sentiment, it’s probably that our last three Presidents were all on the younger side when elected. Bill Clinton 46, George W Bush 54, Barack Obama 47. In an election when everyone seems to want something different, an older President does represent change.
I think it’s a little silly to see a pattern in a sample of one election. After all, whichever candidate is elected will be succeeding a man who’ll be finishing his eight year term at the age of 55.
The candidates reflect the current state of celebrity culture. They are the two most recognizable media names in their respective parties.
That both of them happen to be at the extreme edge of presidential candidate ages is most likely happenstance. My guess is that it’s not a good predictor for future elections.
It’s true that the previous two oldest candidates in modern history, Eisenhower and Reagan, also happened to be celebrities. Ages helps, but doesn’t determine. We would have seen many other examples if that were true.
What might happen is that more celebrities run for the presidency in the future, but that doesn’t imply they’ll all be older. Or that they’ll win.
Candidates aren’t getting old, we just happened to nominate two elderly ones, so no one talks about age. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if the next election without an incumbent features young candidates. Say, Booker vs. Rubio in 2020?
Sorry, bad math. 2024 is what I should have said. Rubio certainly has another chance, but he’s got to work hard. He wasn’t ready. Can’t let your ambition get ahead of your skills.
And that was just a hypothetical. There are other youngish folks who could run in 2024, although a lot more Republicans than Democrats. Democrats seriously need to rebuild their bench. They’ve got Cory Booker and, well, a couple of nice looking twins who haven’t done anything and have no prospects of doing anything unless they move out of Texas.