Newt Gingrich's 2012 candidacy was declared all but dead a few months ago. After briefly flirting with a number of other pretenders including Tim Pawlenty, Donald Trump, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain, the Republican Party seems to have settled on the "Un-Romney," if recent polls are to be believed. The new favorite? A former Congressman from Georgia who left public office in disgrace over a decade ago.
There remains considerable doubt amongst the GOP establishment whether Gingrich can mount an effective challenge to defeat President Barack Obama in the 2012 Election. It is said that he is undisciplined, tempestuous, petulant, ethically challenged, prone to making serious gaffes, lacking "family values," and has considerable personal baggage to make him a serious presidential nominee. Since resigning as Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives in 1998, his intricate financial dealings have yet to be examined closely and additional scrutiny by the media may well result in embarrassing financial disclosures.
None of this may matter. Little noted is another historical reason which might derail his candidacy and end his quest to become his party's nominee before all is said and done in the Republican primaries.
In some of the Republican debates this year and in other venues, I have heard Gingrich assert that he has been active in politics since 1958. And I've scratched my head and said to myself on more than one occasion, "Even if it were true, should he be emphasizing this?" The reason is simple: if nominated and elected next year, Gingrich would (almost) be the oldest person to be elected President of the United States. He would only be four months younger than Ronald Reagan who was, also at 69 years old, the oldest President ever. Unlike Gingrich, one can argue that Reagan was a much more popular figure who had not only run before for President but was also beloved by many in the Republican Party. Gingrich might be acceptable to the various warring factions within the GOP but he is beloved by almost no one.
Is age really that much of a factor in determining who is elected President of the United States? Let's look at the historical record. Beginning with the 1960 Presidential Election, television was a major factor and one which saw the first televised presidential debates between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon. These debates also provided voters with a visual comparison between the two major party candidates.
I have presented two tables below: the first one lists all elections from 1920-1956 and the second one from the "television age" onwards, i.e., 1960-2008.
U.S. Presidential Elections, 1920-1956
The two tables looks at all U.S. Presidential Elections since 1920. Why 1920? That was the year when women secured the right to vote as the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified earlier that year.
The columns list the winning and losing candidates, their political parties, and ages on election day as well as the age difference between them. For example, in 1920, the winning candidate was Republican Warren Harding and was 5 years older than his Democratic opponent, James Cox. The + sign in the last column (+5 years for Harding) represents their age difference, indicating that Harding was older than Cox by 5 years. A - sign in the last column indicates the number of years by which the winning candidate was younger than his opponent.
For the purposes of this diary, I have not listed third party candidates even though, in a few instances, some of them played a fairly significant role in the election.
|
Election Year |
Winning Candidate/Political Party/Age |
Losing Candidate/Political Party/Age |
Age Difference for Winning Candidate |
1. |
1920 |
Warren Harding (R) - 55 years old |
James Cox (D) - 50 years old |
+5 years |
2. |
1924 |
Calvin Coolidge (R) - 52 |
John Davis (D) - 51 |
+1 |
3. |
1928 |
Herbert Hoover (R) - 54 |
Al Smith (D) - 54 |
- 7 months |
4. |
1932 |
Franklin Roosevelt (D) - 50 |
Herbert Hoover (R) - 58 |
-8 |
5. |
1936 |
Franklin Roosevelt (D) - 54 |
Al Landon (R) - 53 |
+1 |
6. |
1940 |
Franklin Roosevelt (D) - 58 |
Wendell Willkie (R) - 48 |
+10 |
7. |
1944 |
Franklin Roosevelt (D) - 62 |
Thomas Dewey (R) - 42 |
+20 |
8. |
1948 |
Harry Truman (D) - 64 |
Thomas Dewey (R) - 46 |
+18 |
9. |
1952 |
Dwight Eisenhower (R) - 62 |
Adlai Stevenson (D) - 52 |
+10 |
10. |
1956 |
Dwight Eisenhower (R) - 66 |
Adlai Stevenson (D) - 56 |
+10 |
U.S. Presidential Elections, 1960-2008
I should point out that no presidential debates were held in 1964, 1968, and 1972. They resumed with the Ford-Carter Debates in 1976 and at least one debate has taken place between major party candidates in every election since that time.
|
Election Year |
Winning Candidate/Political Party/Age |
Losing Candidate/Political Party/Age |
Age Difference for Winning Candidate |
11. |
1960 |
John Kennedy (D) - 43 |
Richard Nixon (R) - 47 |
-4 years |
12. |
1964 |
Lyndon Johnson (D) - 60 |
Barry Goldwater (R) - 55 |
+5 |
13. |
1968 |
Richard Nixon (R) - 55 |
Hubert Humphrey (D) - 57 |
-2 |
14. |
1972 |
Richard Nixon (R) - 59 |
George McGovern (D) - 50 |
+9 |
15. |
1976 |
Jimmy Carter (D) - 52 |
Gerald Ford (R) - 63 |
-11 |
16. |
1980 |
Ronald Reagan (R) - 69 |
Jimmy Carter (D) - 56 |
+13 |
17. |
1984 |
Ronald Reagan (R) - 73 |
Walter Mondale (D) - 56 |
+17 |
18. |
1988 |
George H.W. Bush (R) - 64 |
Michael Dukakis (D) - 55 |
+9 |
19. |
1992 |
Bill Clinton (D) - 46 |
George H.W. Bush (R) - 68 |
-22 |
20. |
1996 |
Bill Clinton (D) - 50 |
Bob Dole (R) - 73 |
-23 |
21. |
2000 |
George W. Bush (R) - 54 |
Al Gore (D) - 52 |
+2 |
22. |
2004 |
George W. Bush (R) - 58 |
John Kerry (D) - 60 |
-2 |
23. |
2008 |
Barack Obama (D) - 47 |
John McCain (R) - 72 |
-25 |
A Few Facts From U.S. Presidential Elections, 1920-2008
What do we learn by looking at these 23 presidential elections from 1920-2008? A few facts jump out:
- At the age of 73, the oldest winning nominee was Ronald Reagan in 1984. The youngest was John Kennedy in 1960 - 43 years old on election day.
- At 73 years old, the oldest losing nominee was Bob Dole in 1996, with John McCain second at 72 years in 2008. The youngest losing candidate was Thomas Dewey in 1944 at the age of 42. He was only 46 years old (the second youngest) when he ran again in 1948.
- The 23 winning nominees fall in these age groups:
1. 40-49 years old - 3 or 13%.
2. 50-59 years old - 13 or 57%.
3. 60-69 years old - 6 or 26%.
4. 70-75 years old - 1 or 4%.
- The 23 losing nominees fall in these age groups:
1. 40-49 years old - 4 or 17%.
2. 50-59 years old - 14 or 61%.
3. 60-69 years old - 3 or 13%.
4. 70-75 years - 2 or 9%.
- Combined, all 46 winning and losing nominees fall in these age groups:
1. 40-49 years old - 7 or 15%.
2. 50-59 years old - 27or 59%.
3. 60-69 years old - 9 or 20%.
4. 70-75 years - 3 or 7%.
Even if Newt Gingrich were to become the 2012 Republican nominee, he would be 18 years older than the incumbent President. In the above 23 elections, there have only been 5* such elections where the age difference was 18 years or greater. In three instances (1992, 1996, and 2008), the election was not close. In only one instance did the older candidate win: 1948. In that election, Harry Truman pulled off an improbable upset and defeated his much younger opponent, Thomas Dewey. And Gingrich is no Harry Truman.
Note*: I made a minor error re: the 1944 election. FDR was 20 years older than his Republican opponent, Thomas Dewey, but as I explain in this comment downthread, there was little or no chance that he would lose that election.
Concluding Thoughts
Age may or may not be the ultimate deciding factor in determining who gets the 2012 GOP nomination. There are always a number of other internal and external factors that contribute to the outcome. These include economic depressions (1932); foreign wars (1968) or other foreign policy crises (1979-80); generational change (1960 and 1992); and the quality of the campaign waged (1948). The mood and behavior of the electorate in uncertain economic times is also hard to predict. Third party candidates may also significantly alter the dynamic of the upcoming election.
Over the course of presidential primaries, a political party nominates a candidate who not only has the best chance of winning in the General Election but will, also, presumably run for re-election after his or her first term. Voters do not elect a candidate with the explicit, predetermined intent of firing him or her after the first term ends in four years. During the 1984 Campaign, Ronald Reagan's age (73 years) came into question as his faltering performance in one his debates with Walter Mondale caused considerable angst amongst his aides. In Reagan's second term -- and particularly when news of the Iran-Contra Affair broke in 1986 -- significant doubts were raised about his age and senility. Yes, life expectancy for males has increased by almost six years since 1980 due to advances in medicine, technology, and diets. But that scandal seriously threatened the Reagan Presidency and almost destroyed his credibility. Surely, that has to be on the minds of Republican voters as they go through the nominating process in coming weeks and months.
It is often said that in politics, anything is possible. That, of course, may literally be true but given the above, I have considerable doubts that Newt Gingrich will indeed be the 2012 Republican presidential nominee.