As the Presidential race begins, and it has started already, like it or not, it is clear that Hillary Clinton, who will be 69 in 2016, and Joe Biden, who will be 74 in 2016, are the frontrunners, and that Hillary is using up most of the oxygen in the room, way ahead of Biden in polls, with other potential Democratic candidates in single digits.
But despite the confidence and optimism about Hillary and even Joe as a backup, there is a growing case for the argument that the Democratic Party should bypass both Hillary and Joe, no matter how much one may love or admire either of them, and go for a new generation of Democrats, as was done in 1960 with John F. Kennedy, in 1976 with Jimmy Carter, in 1992 with Bill Clinton, and 2008 with Barack Obama!
All of these successful Democratic Presidential winners were young–43, 52, 46, and 47 respectively at the time of the inauguration. All were younger than their GOP opponents, although Richard Nixon was only four years older, but represented a continuation of Dwight D. Eisenhower, our oldest President at the time when he retired in 1961!
But Jimmy Carter was eleven years younger than Gerald Ford; Bill Clinton 22 years younger than George H. W. Bush; and Barack Obama 25 years younger than John McCain!
The fact is ONLY three Presidents were inaugurated at age 65 or older—William Henry Harrison at age 68 and dying a month later; James Buchanan at age 65 but only 50 days short of age 66, and rated by many historians the worst President in American history; and Ronald Reagan, inaugurated at just weeks before his 70th and 74th birthday, and judged by many to have deteriorated mentally, with early Alzheimers in his second term of office!
And we have seen Bob Dole defeated at age 73 in 1996; John McCain defeated at age 72 in 2008; and Mitt Romney, defeated at age 65 inn 2012, but also about 50 days short of age 66 if he had been inaugurated, the same exact age as Buchanan was when he won in 1856!
Meanwhile, the Republican Party future is clearly in the hands of young politicians, including Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and others, with these candidates being mostly in their 40s and 50s, and all younger than Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden!
Historically, in most elections, the younger candidate wins, and the party of the President usually does not do well if it utilizes someone connected with the administration leaving office, no matter what level of popularity reigns when that President leaves office, as witness:
Richard Nixon lost after Eisenhower
Hubert Humphrey lost after Lyndon B. Johnson
Gerald Ford lost after Richard Nixon
Walter Mondale lost after Jimmy Carter
Al Gore lost after Bill Clinton
If Hilary Clinton runs, she represents Obama’s foreign policy record, for good or for bad, and also brings back the good and the bad of the Presidency of her husband, Bill Clinton.
If Joe Biden runs, he represents what happens to a Vice President under a President, that the negatives of that President harm the Vice President, as with Nixon, Humphrey, Ford, Mondale, and Gore.
Only George H. W, Bush was able to overcome this hex, and succeed Ronald Reagan in 1988, although then losing reelection in 1992, the greatest percentage loss of any President in American history, except William Howard Taft in 1912!
It is reality that Democrats will be heavily favored in the Electoral College in 2016, no matter who runs, but it would be easier for a “New”, younger Democrat to be the Presidential nominee, such as Martin O’Malley, Andrew Cuomo, KIrsten Gilllibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Deval Patrick, Mark Warner, John Hickenlooper, or Elizabeth Warren, all of whom are much younger than Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, with the exception of Warren, who would be 67 in 2016, which makes her a less ideal candidate based upon age!
It is important for Democrats to think carefully before they decide for a continuation of the Obama Presidency through Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden, as nominating someone younger and separated from the Obama Administration would be preferable, and easier for the grueling campaign ahead!
Ronald writes, “It is reality that Democrats will be heavily favored in the Electoral College in 2016, no matter who runs, but it would be easier for a “Newâ€, younger Democrat to be the Presidential nominee, such as Martin O’Malley, Andrew Cuomo, KIrsten Gilllibrand, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, Deval Patrick, Mark Warner, John Hickenlooper, or Elizabeth Warren, all of whom are much younger than Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden, with the exception of Warren, who would be 67 in 2016, which makes her a less ideal candidate based upon age!”
Let’s write off Andrew Cuomo, Cory Booker, Mark Warner, and John Hickenlooper. That is, if one wants a nominee (and Democratic president) who is liberal … forget much of that group!
As for the rest on the list, the most worthy are Martin O’Malley and Elizabeth Warren. Warren isn’t who the Establishment would want, because she’s not craven like so many from the party, but I found her favorable and optimistic polls recently to be encouraging. That there are actual Democratic voters who would go for her. In the case of O’Malley, he was on board for marriage equality before Establishment Democrats like President Obama … and, though I don’t reside in Maryland, I like him a lot.
Looking back, I think it’s awfully unfortunate that, from the 1980s and 1990s, California governor Jerry Brown didn’t win the nomination. He has been progressive, has been forward-thinking, and he has been smart in his leadership. Right now, I’m not thrilled with either of the two major parties (the Republicans I won’t even consider a vote of support unless it is to nominate someone the GOP truly deserve—like Rick Santorum).
I would like Democratic primary and caucuses voters to become more informed. Perhaps taking the first vote out of Iowa (and the second in New Hampshire) may be the way to go. At last.
I find your comments interesting, D, as usual! 🙂
I also like Martin O’Malley a lot, and have stated so in the past, and I am NOT a personal fan of Andrew Cuomo, who is not, as I see it, like his dad, Mario Cuomo, who I liked a lot.
I also like Elizabeth Warren a lot, but her age could be a disadvantage.
I also think Amy Klobuchar and Kirsten Gillibrand deserve attention.
I have had this thought that O’Malley is the one to watch, but again, there is such a monopoly of oxygen by Hillary, with the leftover for Joe, that I wonder if anyone can challenge them if they run. But I do think the age issue is a negative for both of them, and that it would be better, as stated above, for a “new generation” of leadership as with JFK, Carter, Clinton, and Obama!
Hello Professor,
The lawyer who is a co-author on the other blog site I contributors to, went to U. Maryland to get his law degree together with O’Malley. The lawyer was a British Officer / Solder serving as an attache in D.C. He practices law in Britain and Scotland now after serving his time with the British Army.
Through him and another co-author who lives in the Bordeaux region of France, I keep my thumb on the pulse of what is really going on in Europe.
As O’Malley goes, Good man / straight shooter from what I know of him. Of course the Teabaggers in Maryland can’t stand him so I take this that he is doing something right.
Another thing, Engineer, we can agree upon–Martin O’Malley! 🙂
In the McAuliffe vs. Cucinelli campaign, the only thing both sides are showing so far are attack ads, calling each other untrustworthy. Absolutely nothing shown so far about where they stand on the issues.
It could be a woman in 2016 for the Democrats. Hillary aside, they have strong crop of potential female candidates like Sens. Gillibrand and Klobuchar.
If I had to pick someone who is likely to be on the ticket – VP or Pres – it would be Mark Warner. Being the popular Senator and former Governor of Virginia is a plus, when carving out an electoral college strategy.
I am so happy to see, Sammy, that you have contributed immediately a second time, as I was welcoming you to the blog! 🙂
Yes, I have mentioned that alternatives to Hillary include Senators Gillibrand and Klobuchar, with Klobuchar my favorite!
Mark Warner is more moderate than most in the Democratic Party, but being from Virginia makes him a good choice for gaining the electoral votes again of a swing state, and “balancing out” the ticket, either as Presidential nominee or Vice Presidential nominee, as he is a very qualified and decent and competent.