When one analyzes the two major political parties in the past forty years, it has been a general reality that the Republican Party has run Presidential candidates who tend to be much older than the Democratic Party nominees for President.
Witness Richard Nixon, nine years older than George McGovern in 1972; Gerald Ford eleven years older than Jimmy Carter in 1976; Ronald Reagan thirteen years older than Jimmy Carter in 1980; Reagan seventeen years older than Walter Mondale in 1984; George H. W. Bush eight years older than Michael Dukakis in 1988; Bush twenty two years older than Bill Clinton in 1992; Bob Dole twenty three years older than Clinton in 1996; John McCain twenty five years older than Barack Obama in 2008; and Mitt Romney fourteen years older than Obama in 2012. Only in 2000 and 2004 did we see George W. Bush older than Al Gore by only two years and in 2004 actually younger than John Kerry by three years.
This phenomenon is maybe just a coincidence, but it has often been said that the Democrats go for youth and the Republicans for experience in their Presidential nominees.
Well, if that is the case, it is about to be switched dramatically in 2016 if one assumes that either Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden are the likely front runners for the Democratic Presidential nomination, as Hillary will be 69 in 2016, and Joe will be 74 in 2016. Clinton would be the second oldest first time nominee, behind Ronald Reagan, and Biden would be the oldest first time nominee.
The Republicans are certain to nominate a candidate decades younger, such as Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Nikki Haley, Bobby Jindal, or Ted Cruz, all born in the early 1970s, being therefore mid 40s in 2016. If you consider Chris Christie, Scott Walker, or John Thune, they were born in the 1960s, so would be in the mid 50s. Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann all were born in the 1950s, so would be in their late 50s or in the 60s. There is no candidate born in the 1940s seriously mentioned, unless one expects Newt Gingrich to try again for the Presidency, being just a year younger than Joe Biden and four years older than Hillary Clinton.
The Democrats have alternative possible candidates in Martin O’Malley and Amy Klobuchar born in the early 1960s, so either would be mid 50s in 2016, but Andrew Cuomo and Mark Warner, born in the mid 1950s would be nearing or at the age of 60 when running in 2016, and Elizabeth Warren, born in 1949, would be 67 in 2016, only about two years younger than Hillary Clinton.
So we are seeing a likely switch from an older to younger Republican nominee, and a younger to an older Democratic nominee, and the difference in years could be massive, as it was in the past forty years in most Presidential elections.
A final thought: In the nine elections between 1972 and 2012 when the GOP nominee was always older than the Democratic nominee, the Republicans won the election four times, and the Democrats five times, so basically, trying to determine whether age or youth are an advantage is clearly a pure guessing game!
It’s really early to talk Election 2016.
I can say this: Since the 1950s, there has been just one occurrence in which a major party won the presidency beyond two consecutive election cycles. This happened with the Republicans winning all three from the 1980s. But if you go back to when the GOP was born in the 1850s, there were streaks where the Republicans won six in a row (1860, 1864, 1868, 1872, 1876, 1880) and the Democrats won five in a row (1932, 1936, 1940, 1944, 1948).
My thoughts, in advance of 2016, is whether the Democrats will pull off a threepeat. I don’t necessarily assume they would run Hillary Clinton as the party nominee. She would match Ronald Reagan, if nominated and prevailing in the general election, as the oldest commander in chief elected to a first full term. (Reagan was born in 1911 and was age 69 when he unseated Jimmy Carter in 1980. Clinton was born in 1947 and would be 69 in 2016.)
The average seems to be the 50s when it comes to the last two decades of first-time victors. Dating back to the 1990s, Bill Clinton was 46 with his first win in 1992. George W. Bush was 54 with his first win in 2000. And Barack Obama was 47 with his first win in 2008. Clinton and Obama were re-elected at ages 50 and 51. Bush was 58 with his re-election in 2004. For a first-term victory, the average age between these three two-term presidents was 49. For re-election, the average age was 53. All in all, that would indicate age 51 being in the middle of what seems to be a pattern. Of course one cannot just consider presidents 42, 43, and 44 as “the” age standard of what to anticipate and/or expect. But if it were to manifest again for Election 2016, look to someone born between 1965 and 1967 as a continuation of what Clinton, Bush Jr., and Obama have established.
A very well thought out analysis. I must say. The closest to what you say would be Martin O’Malley of Maryland and Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, both born in the 1960s, although not the mid 60s–Klobuchar in 1960 and O’Malley in 1963. I think O’Malley, particularly, is someone to watch!