The Age of Presidential Candidates

[Garrett78]

The age of the last 5 Democratic presidents, upon taking office, were 47, 46, 52, 55 and 43.

Only 3 of the 45 presidents (Harrison, Reagan and Trump) have been over 65 when taking office. One died shortly after taking office. Another developed alzheimer's in office. And Trump, who holds the record at 70 years and 220 days, is nuttier than squirrel shit.

Sanders would be 79. Biden would be 78. Kerry would be 76. Warren would be approaching 72. Holder would be 70. Inslee would be just shy of 70. Hickenlooper would be approaching 70. Brown would be 68.

The vast majority of presidents have been 60 or younger when taking office.

Harris would be 56. Garcetti would be on the verge of turning 50. Klobuchar would be 60. Booker would be 51. O'Rourke would be 48. Gillibrand would be 53. Kennedy, like Swalwell, would be 40. Buttigieg would be 39. Murphy would be 47. Landrieu would be 60. Schiff would be 60. O'Malley would be 58. Bullock would be 54. Delaney would be 57. Julián Castro would be 46.

The in-betweens: Kaine (nearly 63), Merkley (64), Patrick (64), McAuliffe (nearly 64), Tester (64), Cooper (63)

It's a fact of life that with age comes mental and physical deterioration. There's no fountain of youth, even if some remain remarkably healthy well into their 70s and beyond. This is less of a concern with members of Congress than it is with the presidency.

And history suggests there's a preference for young-ish presidents.

Plus, our electorate is very diverse. And we are in the Me Too and Black Lives Matter era. Movements that are long overdue and must continue. This shouldn't be ignored when nominating our next president.

[guillaumeb]

1. Trump and Reagan were elected due to illegalities.

Both colluded with foreign powers.

[Caliman73]

12. So did Nixon

Nixon won by sabotaging the Vietnam Peace process.

[Sherman A1]

2. This guy is in his 40s

https://www.yang2020.com

[Hermit-The-Prog]

3. I could vote for Harris / Booker

[Moostache]

4. I WILL vote for the Democratic nominee...

Be they Harris or Booker or anyone else that wins the nomination...just to be clear.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

7. but what if it's Jarvanka!

[brush]

5. Winning Dem candidates have been in their 40s or 50s. Take note Dems for 2020.

[Garrett78]

8. Yep. Harris-O'Rourke works for me.

[brush]

21. That would be a good ticket. Since O'Rourke came on the scene he has to be considered...

Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2018, 12:01 AM - Edit history (1)

he makes an attractive pairing with others as well.

[Garrett78]

22. I was and still am against the Beto for President idea, but I'm fine with Beto for VP.

Beto can run in 2028. It's rare to have the White House for more than 2 consecutive terms, but Beto has some serious star power...and hopefully still would after 8 years as VP. The kind of star power we will need in order to keep the White House.

Anyway, Beto won me over with his answer to a question about kneeling during the anthem.

[brush]

23. I like him for VP as well. On a winning ticket in 2020 would establish him as a winner...

which he will need for 2028.

[BaileyBill]

6. Is Jimmy Carter eligible for another term?

[maxsolomon]

9. Thanks for this post

I've been called an Ageist every time I bring this issue up.

The next Democratic presidential candidate should project energy and vigor, in contrast to old man Trump.

[Garrett78]

14. There's nothing ageist about this.

Those wanting Sanders or Biden to be president are grasping at straws. Sanders has no shot at the nomination anyway. As for Biden, his history with the Thomas-Hill hearing and penchant for gaffes are additional reasons why I'm against his nomination.

[LakeArenal]

61. Totally ageist.

[Garrett78]

62. Mental and physical deterioration happens with age. No avoiding that reality.

Nobody is saying old people suck.

[cynatnite]

10. My brother-in-law died of sudden cardiac death at 30 yrs old...

Age won't be a consideration for me on who I support.

But if I remember 2008 correctly, much of the reason McCain didn't win was because many voters felt he was too old.

Yes, mental and physical deterioration is a fact of life, but it also varies from person to person. I've known people in their 80's who could best those half their age both mentally and physically. That came from a life of taking care of themselves and staying active.

I've also seen some that are my age who has made me wonder how they even get out of bed.

Those folks you mentioned could outlive a lot of us by at least a few decades.

[Garrett78]

11. Exceptions prove the rule.

[maxsolomon]

16. Please share the particulars of the 80 year old you know

who could "best" a 40-year old physically. Please forgive me if I express doubt.

Vigor and health at 80 is also, to a large degree, pure genetic luck, not self-care. Contrast my 82-year old father, who plays golf 3x/week, with your departed Brother in Law. My dad's entire exercise routine for the last 30 years is 1. golf using a cart & 2. mow the lawn. More than Trump, but not exactly a regimen.

Age and vigor should be a consideration if you want the Dem to win.

[llmart]

51. I disagree with you...

when you say it's pure genetic luck, not self-care. That is just not true.

Have you seen the statistics on obesity in the younger generations? I have seen many, many 40-somethings who are morbidly obese and can barely get out of their chairs/cars. It is a known fact that statisticians say the younger generations may be the first to not live as long as their parents.

[Garrett78]

57. It's both luck and self-care. And experts don't all agree regarding your comment about today's kids.

See here: https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-28191865.

Anyway, when we're talking about relatively healthy 40- or 50-somethings and relatively healthy 70-somethings, the former are further removed from unavoidable and substantial mental and physical deterioration. There's just no getting around that fact of life.

[maxsolomon]

60. I didn't say it was JUST luck. that's Trump who says that.

it's both, but luck sure plays a big role.

jim fixx dropped dead while running at 52, and he was a running guru.

[JI7]

26. the biggest reason mccain didn't win was because of the economy . it's why almost any republican

would have lost .

[LakeArenal]

63. Where was all this mental deterioration talk

When Hillary who will be 77 in six more years, was running?

Oh, that was trump saying she didn’t have the stamina. We had a fit about it then.

Suddenly, men who are the same age, pretty damned qualified for the position as she, are too old.

Not only ageist but sexist as well.

[Garrett78]

64. Clinton would have been 68 when taking office. Biden will turn 78 in 2020.

Not to mention women live longer than men. More importantly, Clinton was competing against Sanders in the primary and Trump in the general, 2 people who are older than she is.

[LakeArenal]

65. But she wouldn't have stayed 68.

Your generalization of people over 60 is ageist. Plus you can only speculate about anyone’s mental condition. Which is unfair as well.

[Garrett78]

66. I'm not generalizing about people over 60.

I pointed out that the vast majority of presidents have been under 60 when taking office. And that the average age of the last 5 Democratic presidents, upon taking office, is 48.6. Those are facts, as is the reality of physical and mental deterioration. The search for a fountain of youth continues.

There's a big difference between 68-76 and 78-86. But, yes, Clinton would have been the 2nd oldest president to take office. The alternative was a man who would be the oldest to ever take office.

[LakeArenal]

67. You most certainly are generalizing.

[Garrett78]

68. If you say so.

[DFW]

13. I remember Carl Hayden as Senate President Pro Tem

He was 90 years old when I worked at the Senate, and had to be helped up to the presiding chair on the Senate floor.

He was a powerhouse in his day, so I hear, but the feeble old guy who could barely make it across the Senate floor bore little resemblance to the guy with a "make it happen" reputation he had enjoyed 40 years before.

Everyone's time comes sooner or later. Not everyone recognizes it when the time comes.

[StevieM]

15. You left out one of the "in-betweens": Tom Steyer. He will be 63.

And I will be supporting him for president.

[Garrett78]

17. I left off him and Bloomberg, as I don't take either seriously.

[StevieM]

18. Maybe you will take him seriously after he wins the presidency.

I hope President Steyer can count on your full support.

And I think it is very unfair to compare him to Bloomberg. Tom Steyer did not support George W. Bush for re-election--Michael Bloomberg did.

[Garrett78]

19. I don't take either, along with Avenatti, seriously for different reasons.

I'm not equating them.

[StevieM]

20. OK, fair point. You didn't equate them. I just don't like the comparison between Bloomberg

and Steyer because it downplays how outrageous it is to consider nominating someone who supported George W. Bush for re-election. I fear that we are so angry at Trump that we are forgetting how bad Bush was.

But you are right, you didn't make that comparison.

I think Steyer will surprise a lot of people and go on to be a great president.

[Garrett78]

24. What makes the hedge fund manager and philanthropist qualified to be POTUS?

[StevieM]

25. He is a great environmentalist who will prioritize climate change.

Al Gore isn't running. I want Steyer.

I will ultimately support whoever wins the nomination, of course.

[Garrett78]

31. There are many environmentalists. The only reason Steyer's in the conversation is...

...because he's wealthy. We don't need a billionaire with zero experience in public office.

[StevieM]

32. Steyer is in the conversation because he has led the charge to impeach Trump.

I think he is what we need. He has the right values and will pursue the right policies.

And he has experience leading an environmental organization. That is public policy experience, even it is wasn't in public office.

[Garrett78]

37. He's in position to do so because of money. Many want to impeach but can't buy TV ads.

[StevieM]

38. Fair enough. But I like what he has done with his money and I like him.

So he gets my vote. Obviously, you can vote for someone else if you choose.

I assume that, like me, you plan on supporting whoever the nominee is?

[Garrett78]

39. Of course.

[Doreen]

27. If age is going to be such a big thing in this and I was to play along

I would go for a Beto/Biden ticket. A young president with an older experienced vice to help him navigate. If Biden started to show signs of mental issues then they could work from there and if Beto needs to appoint someone new he could and he would have the choice of who.

[delisen]

28. Changes in longevity average age, makeup of candidate pool, American health

social prejudice make most statistics you are citing almost meaningless.

We now have a greater pool of viable candidate than at any time in our history. Our pool includes more older candidates than in the past, our Democratic electorate is far less prejudiced and this increases the likelihood that our candidates will be older and different from past candidates.

We can now take advantage of a more diverse, better prepared, and more experienced pool of candidates-and we will.

We are not bound or hobbled by our past in seeking leadership.

[Garrett78]

30. It remains a fact of life that with age comes mental and physical deterioration.

And it's evident that our electorate has favored younger candidates. Some who are considered candidates aren't just a little older than average. They'll be as old as Reagan when Reagan *left* office. Individuals who will be 30(!) years older than the average age of the last 5 Democratic presidents.

By the way, part of the reason average length of life has gone up is due to there being fewer childhood deaths. Even a century or two ago, you had a good chance of living a long life so long as you survived childhood.

[Freddie]

29. Our opponent will be 74 in 2020

We NEED a young-ish candidate. Thank you for saying what needs to be said.

[Garrett78]

33. And someone who will turn out the Obama coalition in a big way.

48.6 is the average age of the last 5 Democratic presidents. It's silly to think we should run someone who is 30(!) years older than that.

[MurrayDelph]

34. I still love my Jeff Merkley

who ran an Iron Man event last year. But I understand. Besides, he's up for re-election in the Senate in 2020, and I don't want to risk losing him completely.


Joe Biden is a great guy, and would have been a great candidate two years ago. But with the death of his son, his heart wasn't in it (perfectly understandable), and that window has closed. Whoever we do nominate and hopefully elect, however, would be well-served to have him as Secretary of State.

I am still very impressed with Kamala Harris, and am glad the last time I voted as a Californian, before moving to Oregon, was to vote for her as Attorney General. The Senate would miss her, but she would be a great President.

The only way I could see myself supporting Kirsten Gillibrand in the primaries (in the general I'll vote for whoever the Democratic candidate is) is if she promised to run with Al Franken.

[WeekiWater]

35. I am not big on putting a candidate forward who is 70+.

I don't think it is going to be a problem as we will have more options this time around.

[Garrett78]

36. At least 15 people will run, and perhaps as many as 30.

It'll be a bit of a circus for a while, and some will just be looking to boost their public profile or angle for VP or a cabinet post. The risk is that some really strong candidates will get drowned out by the noise. I guess we just have to trust the process.

[StevieM]

40. I will be surprised if 20 people don't run. I think it may hit 25.

But I also think that by the time South Carolina is over it will be down to 3 candidates heading into Super Tuesday.

[Garrett78]

43. I don't think we'll be down to 3 that quickly.

Even in 1992, with a smaller field to start and no clear front-runner, we weren't down to 3 that quickly.

[StevieM]

45. In 1992 the race was down to Clinton, Brown and Tsongas by Super Tuesday.

Kerry and Harkin were out by then.

Of course, there was a Junior Tuesday back then. I remember that Bill Clinton won Georgia, which was a pivotal victory, one that people forget about. It was his first win a primary or a caucus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries

[Garrett78]

46. And both Kerrey and Harkin were still around for Junior Tuesday.

Clinton's strong showing in New Hampshire is what saved him. Without that, Tsongas might have won. Clinton cleaned up in the South and it was all over after March 10.

Anyway, the 1992 field was tiny compared to what we're likely to see in 2020.

2004 started with a pretty large field, but Kerry dominated. I don't see that happening this next time around.

[StevieM]

49. Agreed about New Hampshire. People would later make fun of him for saying

Last edited Wed Dec 5, 2018, 05:27 PM - Edit history (1)

that he was the Comeback Kid after he lost, but people at the time understood what he meant. He may not have beaten Tsongas, but he destroyed Bob Kerrey. There had been a lot of talk that Kerrey would start surging in New Hampshire and ultimately become one of two finalists, along with Paul Tsongas.

There was widespread belief that Tsongas could never win the nomination and that whoever became his fellow finalist would go on to win the Democratic nomination.

Also, with Tom Harkin running the Iowa Caucuses were not competitive that year. And so the two finalist out of New Hampshire were going to look like very strong candidates, even if one of them did not win the Iowa caucuses. Historically, the two finalists had been the winners of Iowa and Hew Hampshire.

In 1984 Gary Hart took second to Walter Mondale in Iowa, and then won NH, with Mondale coming in second. They went on to compete for the nomination. In 1988 Dukakis took a top 3 showing in Iowa, with Richard Gephardt winning, and then won New Hampshire, with Gephardt coming in second. Senator Paul Simon of Illinois took 2nd in Iowa, third in New Hampshire, and then faded. Al Gore and Jesse Jackson had what you might call a late-state strategy. It didn't get them nominated, although they certainly did better with it than Rudy Guiliani did in 2008. Of course, people forget that Guiliani's late-state strategy was born of neccesity when he collapsed in NH, IA and SC.

Taking Iowa out of the equation helped Clinton a lot. If Harkin hadn't been running then Bob Kerrey might have won Iowa. Even if Clinton had taken second ahead of Paul Tsongas--which is not at all clear--that still probably would have propelled Kerrey to a second place finish in New Hampshire. That would have left Clinton pursuing Al Gore's strategy from 1988 in which he hoped to win big in the south and then make a late surge for the nomination. It didn't work for Gore. Of course, Clinton was in better financial circumstances in 1992 then Gore had been in, while Kerrey was in worse financial circumstances than Dukakis had been in.

[Garrett78]

50. It's not hard to envision a scenario where Sanders wins IA and NH but doesn't win the nomination.

I expect Harris to be in good shape after March 3.

[StevieM]

54. I could easily see Sanders winning IA and NH and then fading.

I think Nevada will be a good state for Steyer. And if Harris emerges I could see her doing well there too. Biden and Harris both look like strong candidates in South Carolina.

Sanders definitely benefits from the calendar. IA and NH are the perfect states for him to start the race in, in Iowa's case in part because it is a caucus. That will give him some momentum moving forward. But I still think he will ultimate fade.

[Garrett78]

55. The demographics of IA and NH favor Sanders. But winning the more diverse states is key.

[StevieM]

71. So here are the two dozen people who I think will run:

Joe Biden
Michael Bloomberg
Corey Booker
Sherrod Brown
Steve Bullock
Juilian Castro
John Delaney
Eric Garcetti
Kirsten Gillibrand
Kamala Harris
John Hickenlooper
Eric Holder
Jay Inslee
Amy Klobuchar
Mitch Landrieu
Jeff Merkley
Chris Murphy
Richard Ojeda
Martin O'Malley
Beto O'Rourke
Tim Ryan
Bernie Sanders
Tom Steyer
Elizabeth Warren

[Garrett78]

72. At least a handful of those on your list probably won't run.

But it's anyone's guess as to how many not on your list will run.

Who announces and when they announce will undoubtedly influence some who are considering it. Swalwell, for example, may not want to compete against fellow Californians who have better odds. But that's pure speculation on my part.

[StevieM]

73. LOL, the most unbelievable thing just happened.

I realized that I had made a list like this before, about 6 months ago. I thought it would be interesting to search for the old post and show it to you, if I could find it. I figured it would be cool to see how my predictions as to who will and won't run have changed from what they were the last time I made this list.

It turns out that the poster who I was writing to 6 months ago was you. I wouldn't have guessed that.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210712162#post55

[Garrett78]

74. Ah yes, we've been here before. :)

[WeekiWater]

41. I do think you are right about the number of candidates.

I am confident it will be over 12. I think the risk is that one person already has a full campaign structure in place and it will only take Biden a short period to ramp up. I think some other solid choices might be drown out by larger "machines". The ground work will be harder for others. It will be interesting if we move past Iowa with 12+ candidates. 15% could win the day and I know one person right now who will pull 30% no matter what. That is my opinion, of course.

[Garrett78]

44. Much will depend on who they surround themselves with and when they get started.

Announcements may come earlier than usual, as candidates will want to build the infrastructure ASAP.

Sanders has no chance of winning the nomination but he'll hang around, especially if he does well (as one would expect) in Iowa and New Hampshire.

I don't think Biden will have as much success as some predict, but he could certainly change the dynamics.

Steyer, Bloomberg and Schultz have loads of money, but that can only take them so far.

Others will probably have a tough time getting much attention (I'm thinking O'Malley, Hickenlooper, Kaine, etc.) and drop out early. Some may even recognize that likelihood ahead of time and decide not to run, ego be damned. In fact, we could end up seeing - for that very reason - a much smaller field than many of us predict, but I'm not holding my breath.

[WeekiWater]

47. I like your thinking going in. Seems sound.

Though I do think Sanders early success will put him in a pretty strong position. Specially if the field stays large through Super Tuesday. Thank you for mentioning O'Malley. He is high on my list. I don't see myself voting for him this time around but do like having him out there speaking for us.

[Garrett78]

48. I like O'Malley fine, but his speaking style bugs me. And I think he lacks charisma.

Sanders should benefit from the fact that we start off with a caucus in a state that lacks diversity and a primary in a state that neighbors Vermont and also lacks diversity, but if he doesn't win both of those contests, it will be a clear sign that he's lost some of his following.

I don't think IA and NH should kick things off given that they don't reflect our electorate, but that's a whole other discussion. At least some states are moving away from caucuses.

[LanternWaste]

42. It's a non-issue to me.

Something I will most certainly ignore when nominating our next president.

[LongtimeAZDem]

52. If they stuck to the plan, I'd like something like Biden/Steyer with Biden mentoring for

four years and out.

And I mean mentoring, involving the Veep as a replacement in training, not just warming a chair as a life vest.

[AlexSFCA]

53. I happen to think that Beto would have the most chance in the general

given that Sharrod Brown is not running (alledgedly). Beto may be the only dem politician with 2008 Obama appeal. He generates more enthusiasm and excitement that most and can easily fill the largest stadiums, IMO. I don’t think Biden would be able to generate enough enthusiasm. I think Beto will have plenty of options for VP. I think we are too set in old thinking here on DU that trump is just an aberration. I hope that most of you here realize that our country has fundamentally changed and it will never be the same again. It also means that politics as usual may no longer work. Beto’s star power will eclipse all media markets and platforms. And you should know by know that the one who controls the narrative is going to win. While Biden is the most qualified candidate by a mile to be president, it is not the same as to say he is the most likely to win the presidency. As it so happens, the most qualified and experienced candidates rarely become presidents. Remember, we need to focus on winning no matter who.

[Garrett78]

56. Change is constant. I don't think there's been any fundamental change, per se.

Now, if Tom Steyer or Oprah becomes our nominee in 2020, I may have to re-think things. Unlike them and Trump, O'Rourke has been in public office for the last 13 years, so considering him as a candidate isn't really an indication of fundamental change. He's an experienced politician.

Beto is certainly a rising star, but I'd like to see him as VPOTUS and then POTUS.

[elocs]

58. I'll be 68 then and I'm really, really looking forward to voting

for a Democratic candidate for president who is much younger than me. Hopefully not even in their 60s at all.

[Garrett78]

59. You've got pretty good odds, given that 34 of the 45 presidents were 58 or younger...

...when taking office. 25 of the 45 were 55 or younger.

[Polybius]

69. Many people said Dole was too old in '96

He’s still alive and kicking, 22 years later. I’m voting for Biden, providing he runs. Age isn’t a factor for me.

[Garrett78]

70. I don't think Dole's doing much kicking these days, and he got his ass kicked in '96.

Anyway, my issue with nominating Biden goes well beyond his age, but the fact that he'd be as old as Reagan when Reagan *left* office is most certainly a factor for me. And I think it's telling that the average age of the last 5 Democratic presidents was just 48.6 upon being sworn into office. And that 34 of the 45 presidents have been 58 or younger.

We should recognize and appreciate the moment we're in, the movements that are afoot, and the diversity of our electorate as well as the diversity and youthfulness of our incoming Democratic members of Congress.