The Dems haven't nominated anyone as old as Hillary in yonks. The Dems love their youthful conquerors.
Kerry was ancient by Dem standards at age 61.
Gore was only 52.
Clinton was sworn in at age 46.
Dukakis was turned 55 right around election day in 1988.
Mondale was 56 in 1984.
Carter was a youthful 52 in 1976. (And a decrepit 56 in 1980, of course.)
McGovern was 50 in 1972.
Humphrey was only 57 in 1968. And the Dems really had the hard-on for that little twerp RFK, who was 42.
The one that surprised me was LBJ in 1964: only 56!
JFK was only 43 when he was elected in 1960.
Adlai Stevenson was only 52 and 56 for his runs in '52 and '56.
gets us all the way back to Truman, who was 64 when he ran in 1948. But
his circumstance (like LBJ's) was complicated by the fact that he was
running as a sitting President, having assumed office on the death of
When FDR ran in 1932 he was only 50 years old.
Al Smith was only 54 when he ran for office back in 1928.
John W. Davis was only 51 when he ran in 1924.
James M. Cox was only 50 when he ran in 1920.
Back to 1912, when we get Woodrow Wilson, who was 55.
William Jennings Bryan was only 48 when he ran in 1908.
In 1904 the Dems nominated Alton B. Parker, who was only 52.
In 1900 it was William Jennings Bryan again, this time only 40.
1896 William Jennings Bryan ran at age 36! It was a weird year, and the
Dems had two candidates, of which Bryan was the regular. The gold one
was a golden oldie, the 79 year-old John M. Palmer! But Palmer was part
of a splinter group. The actual nominee was the very young Bryan.
you get Grover Cleveland, who ran three times, in 1884, 1888 and 1892.
He won the first time, at age 47. He was only 55 for the last run.
Winfield Scott Hancock was 56 when he ran in 1880's closely disputed election.
the way back to 1876, when the Dem nominee was Samuel J. Tilden, who
was 64! It was another closely disputed election. (It came down to a
controversial count in ... wait for it ... wait for it ... FLORIDA!)
the way back to 1876, and only two men (Kerry and Tilden) over 60 were
nominated to be President. (I don't count presidents who were already
holding office, which excludes Truman.)
I'll keep looking back at the records, but Dems just don't like old people.
Horace Greeley would have been 60 on election day 1872. Another
ancient. Just as well he didn't get elected - his wife died shortly
after the election, then he went mad and died before the electoral votes
had been cast! That would have been a total freakin' nightmare.
Horatio Seymour ran in 1868. He would have been 58 at the time.
McClellan would have been 37(!) on election day in 1864.
1860 we had two Democratic candidates, Stephen A. Douglas from the
North (age 47) and John C. Breckinridge (age 39) from the South. Douglas
died in June of 1861, by the way, of typhoid fever.
Surely in 1856 we must have gotten some old fart from the Dems. James Buchanan Jr. age 65! Woohoo!
Franklin Pierce was only 47 on election day 1852.
Lewis Cass lost in 1848, at age 64.
James Knox Polk was the winning candidate in 1844, age 49 on election day.
Martin van Buren would have been 53 on election day 1836.
we get all the way back to the Founder of the Party, Andrew Jackson. He
was 61 on election day in 1828. He won that election. But it was a
grudge match from four years before, when he would have only been 57.
all of those candidates in the old days of the 19th Century probably
were in a bit worse shape than we might expect for their ages. But
still, going all the way back to the founding of the Democratic party,
we only have a handful of Dem nominees who were 60 or older when
nominated for their first run. Only seven by my count (it's late, I'm
tired, if I miscounted someone correct me) and several of those were
prior to the Civil War.
Not counting Truman (anomalous because
of how he was chosen President) or the splinter party candidate Palmer,
there is a huge gap of 128 years between Tilden getting nominated at 64
and Kerry getting the nod at 61. One-hundred and twenty-eight years! And
let's face it, Kerry was a somewhat youthful 61.
So only six regular first-time non-sitting candidates over age 60 since
the party was founded. There have been 10 under 50! That includes the
last two that actually won the Presidency for the Dems.
will be 69 on election day 2016. She would be the oldest regular
Democratic nominee ever, by 4 years. She couldn't beat a back-bench-er
of a state senator who barely did anything with his then current job
when she was only 61 and had the backing of a large swath of the
Democratic party, name recognition, and all the money in the world. Why
should we think she'll be able to do better now that she's eight years
older and has more record for opponents to chew up?
What's really bad is that a few of the 60+ candidates for the Dems can be dismissed from consideration.
I've mentioned in the previous two comments, Truman was in his 60s but
was running as an incumbent, having been selected for the job in 1944.
Palmer was a splinter candidate.
Greeley was the candidate more or less by default, as no one with more credibility wanted to run against Grant in 1872.
And Andrew Jackson himself had been in his fifties when he first ran, losing a hotly disputed election in 1824.
you get right down to it, the Dems have really only picked first time
nominees over age 60 on four occasions: in 2004 (Kerry, lost), 1876
(Tilden, lost), 1856 (Buchanan, won) and 1848 (Cass, lost). And again,
they've gone under 50 either nine times (if you only count Bryan's three
runs as one run) or eleven times (if you count all three). And yes, I
apparently miscounted in the prior post.
Still, Hillary would
appear to have missed her shot. Dems do not nominate people as old as
she'll be in 2016, and only rarely people as old as she was in 2008.