When we talk about the age of presidential candidates as an historic factor in their electability, we probably should differentiate between pre- and post-television eras. I don’t think it helped Ulysses S. Grant that he was 11 and 12 years younger than his two opponents. On the other hand, it probably helped Bill Clinton that he was 22 and 23 years younger than his.
If Hillary Clinton is the Democrats’ nominee, she could easily match her husband’s age advantage in reverse. For example, she’s roughly 23 years older than Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio. She’s 20 years older than Scott Walker, 15 years older than Rand Paul, and eight years older than Mike Huckabee. As for Jeb Bush, he was born in early 1953 while Clinton was born in late 1947.
FDR and Truman were about 20 years older than Thomas Dewey and defeated him anyway.
In the television era, the record in mixed. Ronald Reagan won two landslide elections despite being much older than his opponents, but Carter, Clinton, and Obama came out on top as younger, less experienced candidates.
I’m not convinced that the historical record is helpful here. For one thing, Hillary Clinton has some unique advantages. Most obviously, she’s a woman. But she’s also a woman of an age that matches the rise of professional women, meaning that she has symbolic importance to a whole generation that is now old enough to skew Republican. There are a lot of people who would see in Clinton’s election a kind of acceptance and validation for themselves and the choices they made as mothers and in their careers. In this sense, being a bit older actually helps Clinton with a cohort that might be less receptive to a male Democrat. This factor might be strengthened if her opponent is a much younger man who is perceived as not having yet paid his dues. After all, Clinton hasn’t just been put through the media and political ringer, she’s also been a First Lady, a senator, a strong presidential candidate, and a popular Secretary of State. She’s built the resume, so some freshman senator in his forties might seem presumptuous to challenge her credentials. This was a factor that strengthened Clinton against Obama even if it wasn’t strong enough to put her over the top. In other words, a gender advantage might counteract an age disadvantage.
Another factor helping to mitigate Clinton’s age is the positioning of the two parties on some key issues. Younger Americans might find it easier to visually identify with Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz than with Clinton, but they’ll find it hard to choose their side on issues like climate change, gay marriage or the proper role of religion in public life in general. And, as long were talking about visuals, there are least as many Americans who will have a problem electing a Cuban-American as there are reluctant to vote for a 69 year old white woman.
There could be some areas where Clinton shows her age in a cultural sense or that a younger Republican might be better able to connect with younger voters, but if she has the more tolerant, progressive platform, she should do very well with them.
Rand Paul has more potential to threaten her on this turf by getting to her left on national security, prison reform, and marijuana. He’s really the only Republican in the race that I can see getting some kind of advantage on the age issue.
The Money won’t let Rand get the nomination. And he’s a walking gaffe machine.
It will be Walker or Bush most likely and they won’t be able to differentiate themselves from their platforms to appeal to younger voters.
Plus, I have to think when the GOP unleashes the puke funnel on Hillary, that is going to enrage a lot of women, the way African Americans were enraged at the way Obama was treated.
Well, but Rand Paul is on the wrong side on climate change, gay marriage, and the role of religion as well. If he and Clinton are the candidates, the abortion debate is going to be brutal for him.
So I would say the issues mitigate the age question with regard to any potential Republican.
Yes, for a whole variety of reasons, I cannot see Paul getting anywhere close to the nomination. Too many of his positions are unacceptable to Republicans. Others are unacceptable to Democrats. He’s a flake who’s made enough crazy comments to make one’s head spin. He scares those with the money. And he’s a disgusting person to boot so, while he may fool a few young people with his “ideas,” more than enough will be turned off by his positions on things like voting rights, equal rights and due process.
My husband’s clientele is primarily wealthy women past retirement age. They are a key Republican demographic. And they are very enthusiastic about voting for Hillary Clinton. My daughter-in-law is a 30 year old Asian immigrant and the first thing she said on becoming a citizen was, “Now I can vote for Hillary!”
I don’t think she’s going to have a problem either with age or with gender.
Rand Paul is only 15 years younger? Peter Pan syndrome? I can’t see his age being an advantage for him.
Regardless of his age, his propensity for petulance seems to be a fatal flaw.
maybe that’s why it’s so hard to absorb the fact that he’s 52 (and I don’t mean that in a nice way). he’s got a 6 year old mentality, though it sounds like Finn is showing greater maturity. Or maybe it’s the strange creature on Rand Paul’s head? a relative of the animal on Donald Trump’s head?
Her non-ideas bother me more than her age.
It’s the few ideas that she has had that bother me more than her non-ideas.
The data set is admittedly limited for the record of senior citizens (age 65+ as of election day) winning presidential elections. At 65 in 1800, Adams was defeated for re-election. Jackson was re-elected when he was 65. Harrison was 67, but died a month after being inaugurated. Buchanan was 66 and wasn’t renominated in 1860. The next one was Ike in ’56. Reagan was the oldest ever to win at age 69 in 1980 and 73 in 1984. The senior citizen nominees in 1992, 1996, and 2008 lost. As did the two that were a year short of being senior citizens.
In the age of TV campaigns would the 67 year old Harrison have defeated the 58 year old Van Buren? The Reagan v. Carter election suggests that he could have. Would the 66 year old Buchanan have defeated the 43 year old Fremont?
Overall, the odds of a general election win are better when the nominee is less than 64 years old. But the odds for the 64 year old GW Bush winning a third term for the GOP in 1988 were also low. So, if the GOP nominates their version of Dukakis, Clinton’s age will be a minor factor.
Why do you think younger voters will have problems with Rubio or Walker’s positions? If there’s one thing I’ve learned about the GOP (and honestly pols of both stripes), there’s no reason to stick with any position if it’s not popular. Hell, W sold us that he was the champion of the Patient’s Bill of Rights, and John McCain was all about fixing the health care system…
So many of us on the left project our values on to the right in this regard: we think things like truth matter, that things you’ve repeatedly said on camera can be used against you, that you’re stuck with your record, etc., The GOP simply doesn’t see it this way — and judging by their results, they’re onto something.
because they’re not positions that the majority of young people in the USA espouse.
I’m referring to cultural issues for starters, but also the GOP efforts to disenfranchise students, warmongering (not popular with those who would be on the front lines), refusal to deal with environmental crisis, and as far as economic issues go focus on cutting taxes for the wealthiest instead of supporting middle class and job creation.
Worked for Ronald Reagan twice.
and I guess, re: your main point, they won’t be persuasive saying they’ve “evolved” on any of these issues that they’ve been so hard core about for so long. (and if they do, they risk losing their base)