Most likely POTUS born in the 1930's

It is perhaps a bit premature to say that the so-called "Silent Generation" ("the demographic group of people born from the mid 1920s to the early 1940s" according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Generation ) will never be represented among the presidents of the United States. There are still scenarios, though unlikely ones, for a Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden presidency.

However, one thing I think we can safely say now: the 1930's will be the first decade since the 1810's not to have a president born during it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_date_of_birth In fact, I think it has been safe to say that ever since Ron Paul (born August 20, 1935) lost the 2012 GOP primaries. (Not that he ever had much of a chance of winning them--and if he had, I don't think he would have had much chance of winning in November.)

Who were the people born in the 1930's who had the best chance of becoming president? The ones that immediately occur to me are the following:

(1) Mario Cuomo (D) (born June 15, 1932)--IMO in 1992 he could have won both the Democratic nomination and the general election. On the former, I know some people say the Democrats were looking for a "New Democrat" in 1992, but that may in part be because the traditional New Deal wing of the party just didn't have a strong candidate running that year. As for November, Cuomo would have lost some southern states Clinton won, but they were not essential for the national ticket's victory.

(2) Edward M. Kennedy (D) (born February 22, 1932)--1976 if not for Chappaquiddick. Or if, after RFK's assassination, he had been nominated in 1968, *before* Chappaquiddick.

(3) Michael Dukakis (D) (born November 3, 1933)--a terrible campaigner in 1988 but even if he had been a better campaigner I doubt he would have won that year. IMO his big lead in the polls just after the Democratic convention was never real and was bound to fall away (indeed, he had lost it by the time of the GOP convention, *before* the ride in the tank, the Willie Horton ad, the bad debate performance, etc.) He might have done better to give 1988 a pass and wait for 1992 when (if nominated) he would IMO have a good chance in a three-way race.

(4) John McCain (R) (born August 29, 1936)--if he had won the GOP nomination in 2000 (which probably requires George W. Bush not to run). Or 2004 if Gore won in 2000. Or 2008 if the economy were much better that year than in OTL (but just how you do *that* I do not know).

(5) Gary Hart (D) (born November 28, 1936)--1988 if there was no Monkey Business. Unlike some people, I think 1988 was the GOP's to lose, given peace and prosperity, and the resurgence of Reagan's job approval ratings (which had been in a slump in 2007). But a scandal-free Hart would almost certainly have done better than Dukakis. And if he came close he might be considered again for 1992, a more favorable year for Democrats.

(6) Liddy Dole (R) (born July 29, 1936)--the only woman on the list. Again, this probably requires George W. Bush not to be available in 2000.

(7) Bob Graham (D) (born November 9, 1936)--if Clinton had chosen him as his running mate in 1992, he would have a reasonable chance for the Democratic nomination in 2000.

(8) Jerry Brown (D) (born April 7, 1938)--a candidate in 1976, 1980, and 1992. Maybe he would have had a chance in 1976 if he had entered the race earlier. And maybe he would have had a chance in 1980--*if* Ford had defeated Carter in 1976, in which case 1980 would most likely have been the Democrats' year. And it would certainly have helped if Mike Royko had not coined the phrase "Governor Moonbeam"--something Royko was later to regret. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/19...ernor-moonbeam-jerry-brown-brown-was-governor

(9) Adlai Stevenson III (D) (born October 10, 1930)--perhaps a presidential candidate in 1988 or even 1992 if he had won the Illinois governorship race he very narrowly lost in 1982--or if LaRouchies hadn't wrecked his candidacy in 1986...

(10) John Danforth (R) (born September 5, 1936)--he was actually the first choice of the commission head by Dick Cheney to choose a running mate for GW Bush in 2000, until Bush decided to choose Cheney himself. VP Danforth could conceivably run for president in 2008 (he is no older than McCain). Again, though, it will probably be hard for a Republican to win that year. So maybe have Gore win in 2000 and Danforth be the GOP presidential candidate in 2004.

(11) Donald Rumsfeld (R) (born July 9, 1932)--probably only if Reagan had chosen him as his running mate in 1980.

(12) Jack Kemp (R) (July 13, 1935)--ditto (he tried to portray himself the True Heir of Reaganism, but without being actually anointed by Reagan, this was not perrsuasive to GOP voters).

(13) Colin Powell (R) (born April 5, 1937)--despite the boom for him in 1996, I don't think he was ever likely to run, and even leaving race aside, I doubt the GOP was ready to nominate a pro-choice self-described "Rockefeller Republican."

(14) Chuck Robb (D) (born June 26, 1939)--without the scandals, he might have become the southern "New Democrat" the party would nominate in 1992. True, Robb's vote in September 1991 to confirm Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court outraged the liberal wing of the party and would probably have been fatal to Robb's hopes of getting the Democratic presidential nomination even had there been no scandals. But we can't be sure that Robb would have voted that way if the scandals had not already ruined his presidential chances. (Likewise with his vote for Desert Storm.)

(15) Pat Buchanan (born November 2, 1938)--premature Trumpist. Even if he had won the GOP nomination in 1996 (very unlikely--he barely squeezed out a plurality in NH) there was no way he could have defeated Clinton that year unless there was some scandal much more harmful than, say, an early revelation of Monicagate would be.

Any other ideas? I'm sure I'm forgetting some people. (But not Governors Pete Wilson of California or Jim Thompson of Illinois or Doug Wilder of Virginia or Dick Thornburgh of Pennsylvania--I just don't think they had much of a chance.)

(The lack of any president born in the 1930's may not be entirely accidental. One might note the lower birth rate of that decade, and also the fact that those born then were too young to serve in World War II--and for some decades American voters seemed to want World War II veterans. But of course a last-minute decision by Mario Cuomo to get on that plane in December 1991 coudl have rendered all that irrelevant...)
 
Last edited:

Stolengood

Banned
Kind of crazy to think that there hasn't even been a single Vice President born in the 1930s, either...
 
It is perhaps a bit premature to say that the so-called "Silent Generation" ("the demographic group of people born from the mid 1920s to the early 1940s" according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silent_Generation ) will never be represented among the presidents of the United States. There are still scenarios, though unlikely ones, for a Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden presidency.

However, one thing I think we can safely say now: the 1930's will be the first decade since the 1810's not to have a president born during it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_date_of_birth In fact, I think it has been safe to say that ever since Ron Paul (born August 20, 1935) lost the 2012 GOP primaries. (Not that he ever had much of a chance of winning them--and if he had, I don't think he would have had much chance of winning in November.)

Who were the people born in the 1930's who had the best chance of becoming president? The ones that immediately occur to me are the following:

(1) Mario Cuomo (D) (born June 15, 1932)--IMO in 1992 he could have won both the Democratic nomination and the general election. On the former, I know some people say the Democrats were looking for a "New Democrat" in 1992, but that may in part be because the traditional New Deal wing of the party just didn't have a strong candidate running that year. As for November, Cuomo would have lost some southern states Clinton won, but they were not essential for the national ticket's victory.

(2) Edward M. Kennedy (D) (born February 22, 1932)--1976 if not for Chappaquiddick. Or if, after RFK's assassination, he had been nominated in 1968, *before* Chappaquiddick.

(3) Michael Dukakis (D) (born November 3, 1933)--a terrible campaigner in 1988 but even if he had been a better campaigner I doubt he would have won that year. IMO his big lead in the polls just after the Democratic convention was never real and was bound to fall away (indeed, he had lost it by the time of the GOP convention, *before* the ride in the tank, the Willie Horton ad, the bad debate performance, etc.) He might have done better to give 1988 a pass and wait for 1992 when (if nominated) he would IMO have a good chance in a three-way race.

(4) John McCain (R) (born August 29, 1936)--if he had won the GOP nomination in 2000 (which probably requires George W. Bush not to run). Or 2004 if Gore won in 2000. Or 2008 if the economy were much better that year than in OTL (but just how you do *that* I do not know).

(5) Gary Hart (D) (born November 28, 1936)--1988 if there was no Monkey Business. Unlike some people, I think 1988 was the GOP's to lose, given peace and prosperity, and the resurgence of Reagan's job approval ratings (which had been in a slump in 2007). But a scandal-free Hart would almost certainly have done better than Dukakis. And if he came close he might be considered again for 1992, a more favorable year for Democrats.

(6) Liddy Dole (R) (born July 29, 1936)--the only woman on the list. Again, this probably requires George W. Bush not to be available in 2000.

(7) Bob Graham (D) (born November 9, 1936)--if Clinton had chosen him as his running mate in 1992, he would have a reasonable chance for the Democratic nomination in 2000.

(8) Jerry Brown (D) (born April 7, 1938)--a candidate in 1976, 1980, and 1992. Maybe he would have had a chance in 1976 if he had entered the race earlier. And maybe he would have had a chance in 1980--*if* Ford had defeated Carter in 1976, in which case 1980 would most likely have been the Democrats' year. And it would certainly have helped if Mike Royko had not coined the phrase "Governor Moonbeam"--something Royko was later to regret. http://articles.baltimoresun.com/19...ernor-moonbeam-jerry-brown-brown-was-governor

(9) Adlai Stevenson III (D) (born October 10, 1930)--perhaps a presidential candidate in 1988 or even 1992 if he had won the Illinois governorship race he very narrowly lost in 1982--or if LaRouchies hadn't wrecked his candidacy in 1986...

(10) John Danforth (R) (born September 5, 1936)--he was actually the first choice of the commission head by Dick Cheney to choose a running mate for GW Bush in 2000, until Bush decided to choose Cheney himself. VP Danforth could conceivably run for president in 2008 (he is no older than McCain). Again, though, it will probably be hard for a Republican to win that year. So maybe have Gore win in 2000 and Danforth be the GOP presidential candidate in 2004.

(11) Donald Rumsfeld (R) (born July 9, 1932)--probably only if Reagan had chosen him as his running mate in 1980.

(12) Jack Kemp (R) (July 13, 1935)--ditto (he tried to portray himself the True Heir of Reaganism, but without being actually anointed by Reagan, this was not perrsuasive to GOP voters).

(13) Colin Powell (R) (born April 5, 1937)--despite the boom for him in 1996, I don't think he was ever likely to run, and even leaving race aside, I doubt the GOP was ready to nominate a pro-choice self-described "Rockefeller Republican."

(14) Chuck Robb (D) (born June 26, 1939)--without the scandals, he might have become the southern "New Democrat" the party would nominate in 1992. True, Robb's vote in September 1991 to confirm Clarence Thomas for the Supreme Court outraged the liberal wing of the party and would probably have been fatal to Robb's hopes of getting the Democratic presidential nomination even had there been no scandals. But we can't be sure that Robb would have voted that way if the scandals had not already ruined his presidential chances. (Likewise with his vote for Desert Storm.)

(15) Pat Buchanan (born November 2, 1938)--premature Trumpist. Even if he had won the GOP nomination in 1996 (very unlikely--he barely squeezed out a plurality in NH) there was no way he could have defeated Clinton that year unless there was some scandal much more harmful than, say, an early revelation of Monicagate would be.

Any other ideas? I'm sure I'm forgetting some people. (But not Governors Pete Wilson of California or Jim Thompson of Illinois or Doug Wilder of Virginia or Dick Thornburgh of Pennsylvania--I just don't think they had much of a chance.)

(The lack of any president born in the 1930's may not be entirely accidental. One might note the lower birth rate of that decade, and also the fact that those born then were too young to serve in World War II--and for some decades American voters seemed to want World War II veterans. But of couese a last-minute decision by Mario Cuomo to get on that plane in December 1991 coudl have rendered all that irrelevant...)

The most plausible IMHO are:

McCain in 2004 in a Gore wins 2000 scenario. If Bush goes down in defeat in 2000 and Gore has a lackluster gridlocked term (which I think is likely) than Maverick McCain could run and win in 2004.

Cuomo could run for the nomination and win in 1996 if Bush beats Clinton in 1992 (you can do that with a big enough scandal, a better campaign on Bush's Part, or Perot entering the race and staying in, rather than exiting and re entering in the fall). After a southern Moderate Ticket loses to Bush, I think a liberal Democrat in '96 is plausible and Dole would still probably end up being the nominee for the GOP. Ann Richards in 1996 in a "Bush wins '92 Scenario" is also a possibility, that is if the Democrats decide to go centrist for 96.

Teddy Kennedy is a no go and so is Buchanan. Brown could only win if Ford wins in 1976, 1992 was too late for Jerry Brown and "Moonbeam" had already set in. Powell never, IMHO, had the desire to run for elected office. The rest are plausible to me, but I'd have to think about how the best path to the Presidency for them.
 
Interesting enough, none of the candidates that stood a significant chance during this cycle's election - Sandes (1941), Trump (1946), Clinton (1947), Cruz (1970), or Rubio (1971) were from the 1950s. Kasich was actually born in 1952 but he arguable didn't have a significant pitch at the presidency. We might not see a President from the 1950s Baby Boomer generation, either.
 
Great thread and idea. Hart and Cuomo are the obvious ones but you really went above and beyond with a huge list of options, including some people don't think so much about. I also agree with your assessment of 1988 for the most part.

(2) Edward M. Kennedy (D) (born February 22, 1932)--1976 if not for Chappaquiddick. Or if, after RFK's assassination, he had been nominated in 1968, *before* Chappaquiddick.
There was no way he'd run sooner. He had to be patriarch of the family in the wake of his brothers' shootings and that commitment was a key part of what kept him out of those two elections (1968, 1972) as a candidate. There was worry about what could happen to the family if Ted got shot, too. It had a much bigger effect than Chappaquiddick. I'm not a hundred percent sure if that includes 1976, but some of the kids were still young, so it's possible.

If Ford won a second term in '76, I could see EMK running in 1980, but without being a primary challenger. I believe it's been said 1988 OTL was the last time he seriously considered running.

(9) Adlai Stevenson III (D) (born October 10, 1930)--perhaps a presidential candidate in 1988 or even 1992 if he had won the Illinois governorship race he very narrowly lost in 1982--or if LaRouchies hadn't wrecked his candidacy in 1986...
A clever and underrated choice here. Adlai III was even considered a candidate as a Senator at one point, IIRC

(10) John Danforth (R) (born September 5, 1936)--he was actually the first choice of the commission head by Dick Cheney to choose a running mate for GW Bush in 2000, until Bush decided to choose Cheney himself. VP Danforth could conceivably run for president in 2008 (he is no older than McCain). Again, though, it will probably be hard for a Republican to win that year. So maybe have Gore win in 2000 and Danforth be the GOP presidential candidate in 2004.
IIRC, Danforth was specifically considered as someone who was unlikely to pursue his own bid. It seems like Bush was never looking for an heir to the throne.

(12) Jack Kemp (R) (July 13, 1935)--ditto (he tried to portray himself the True Heir of Reaganism, but without being actually anointed by Reagan, this was not perrsuasive to GOP voters).
Another solid choice. Kemp didn't have the best window to the office OTL, but did well with the times he could. He was cited as helping Dole as much as he could be helped in '96. Kemp was a popular figure.

Interesting enough, none of the candidates that stood a significant chance during this cycle's election - Sandes (1941), Trump (1946), Clinton (1947), Cruz (1970), or Rubio (1971) were from the 1950s. Kasich was actually born in 1952 but he arguable didn't have a significant pitch at the presidency. We might not see a President from the 1950s Baby Boomer generation, either.
I was thinking about this the other day. I think it's indeed true we're going to skip that decade. The baby boomers are getting too old. I think Kasich is the only real chance left. I don't want to get into current politics but I don't think he's quite aged out.

Also, if he became Governor of Ohio earlier, one way or another - maybe Bob Taft never runs or something, since his career in Congress was a while ago.
 
There was no way he'd run sooner. He had to be patriarch of the family in the wake of his brothers' shootings and that commitment was a key part of what kept him out of those two elections (1968, 1972) as a candidate. There was worry about what could happen to the family if Ted got shot, too. It had a much bigger effect than Chappaquiddick. I'm not a hundred percent sure if that includes 1976, but some of the kids were still young, so it's possible.

Certainly Ted would be reluctant to run in 1968, but there *was* a draft-Ted movement apparently supported by Mayor Daley. What if he were convinced that only he could unify the party and keep the hated Nixon out of the White House? As I noted elsewhere,

"Kennedy was apparently acceptable to some Humphrey and McCarthy supporters who had not liked his brother Robert. Indeed, Eugene McCarthy himself said that while he would not support Kennedy on the first ballot--he still wanted his own name placed in nomination--he would be willing subsequently to withdraw in Teddy's favor--something, he added, he would never have done for Robert." https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=8830325&postcount=2
 

Asami

Banned
Interesting enough, none of the candidates that stood a significant chance during this cycle's election - Sandes (1941), Trump (1946), Clinton (1947), Cruz (1970), or Rubio (1971) were from the 1950s. Kasich was actually born in 1952 but he arguable didn't have a significant pitch at the presidency. We might not see a President from the 1950s Baby Boomer generation, either.

Johnson (1908)
Reagan (1911)
Nixon, Ford (1913)
JFK (1917)
Carter, Bush 41 (1924)
None (1930s)
Clinton, Bush 44 (1946)
Obama (1961)​

Democratic Candidates for 2016:
Sanders (1941)
Clinton (1947)
O'Malley (1963)
Chafee (1953)
Webb (1946)
Lessig (1961)​

Republican Candidates for 2016:
Trump (1946)
Cruz (1970)
Rubio (1971)
Kasich (1952)
Carson (1951)
Bush (1953)
Paul (1963)
Huckabee (1955)
Fiorina (1954)
Christie (1962)
Santorum (1958)
Gilmore (1949)​

There's quite a number of 1950s candidates on the Republican side; too bad they couldn't stump the Trump. :p

And for posterity, based on the average year of Presidential election, ~55 years old; we've already had a early-Gen Xer (Barack Obama, 1961); late-Gen Xers... probably won't see them until the 2030s/2040s (assuming they're born in the late-70s, early 80s).

Generation Y/Millennials (1983-2000, estimated) won't see their generation gaining the power of the Presidency until... a very long time from now. I mean, I won't qualify for the Presidency until 2032; and many economic projections show us becoming the dominant workforce in the American economy by 2020.

We're the Baby Boomers all over again. :p
 
(1) Mario Cuomo (D) (born June 15, 1932)--IMO in 1992 he could have won both the Democratic nomination and the general election. On the former, I know some people say the Democrats were looking for a "New Democrat" in 1992, but that may in part be because the traditional New Deal wing of the party just didn't have a strong candidate running that year. As for November, Cuomo would have lost some southern states Clinton won, but they were not essential for the national ticket's victory.

I think Cuomo is the best bet. He was charismatic and no politician save for Obama has matched his speaking ability. I think if he wanted to run, he would have probably won.

(3) Michael Dukakis (D) (born November 3, 1933)--a terrible campaigner in 1988 but even if he had been a better campaigner I doubt he would have won that year. IMO his big lead in the polls just after the Democratic convention was never real and was bound to fall away (indeed, he had lost it by the time of the GOP convention, *before* the ride in the tank, the Willie Horton ad, the bad debate performance, etc.) He might have done better to give 1988 a pass and wait for 1992 when (if nominated) he would IMO have a good chance in a three-way race.

I think the lead was real as it was in the double-digits. That kind of lead is certainly real. If he ran a good campaign (which I doubt), he would have probably won. After the 1987 crash, the people were insecure about the economy, and Iran-Contra hit Reagan's approval ratings. The number one thing to keep in mind is that he should have run on his moderate record as governor.
 
I think the lead was real as it was in the double-digits. That kind of lead is certainly real.

Jimmy Carter had a thirty point lead over Gerald Ford after the 1976 Democratic convention. He ultimately lost almost all of that lead. Does that prove that he was a terrible campaigner--or does it show that polls taken just after a national convention are almost meaningless? I incline toward the latter explanation. Consider also GW Bush's huge lead over Al Gore in 2000 before the Demcoratic national convention:
https://web.archive.org/web/2000081...ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/11/cnn.poll/index.html

As for underlying conditions in 1988: By Election Day it was clear that the previous year's stock market crash had not much harmed what most voters would consider the real economy; the unemployment rate for November 1988 was 5.3 percent, the lowest it had been since 1974. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt Reagan's job approval ratings took quite a dip in late 1986 and early 1987, but after March 1987 approval always exceeded disapproval. http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/presidential-approval/
 
Interesting. I think Bush Jr. and Clinton are considered Boomers, but barely, I think 1946 was considered the first year of it. (Might actually be bettter to go by *month* there, 9 months after the boys come home fromt he war.)

Wilder had a chance - but he has to get into politics earlier, and that might be hard given the times. If he's in the House in the early '80s, though, and *then* governor... well, '92 might be a bit early, but 2000 is possible, or even '92 if Clinton has a scandal before his campaign gets going. Not that great a chance but I think he still deserves to be on the list.
 
Jimmy Carter had a thirty point lead over Gerald Ford after the 1976 Democratic convention. He ultimately lost almost all of that lead. Does that prove that he was a terrible campaigner--or does it show that polls taken just after a national convention are almost meaningless? I incline toward the latter explanation. Consider also GW Bush's huge lead over Al Gore in 2000 before the Demcoratic national convention:
https://web.archive.org/web/2000081...ALLPOLITICS/stories/08/11/cnn.poll/index.html

As for underlying conditions in 1988: By Election Day it was clear that the previous year's stock market crash had not much harmed what most voters would consider the real economy; the unemployment rate for November 1988 was 5.3 percent, the lowest it had been since 1974. https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/UNRATE.txt Reagan's job approval ratings took quite a dip in late 1986 and early 1987, but after March 1987 approval always exceeded disapproval. http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls/presidential-approval/

I mean, George W. Bush won as the out-party candidate under similar conditions in 2000. I agree that HW had the edge, but it's a stretch to say it was unwinnable for Dems.

I would argue the relatively less-polarized political climate also inflated Bush's win. Even in 1988, a far higher share of voters were swing voters compared to today. Under modestly different circumstances or a better Dukakis campaign, not impossible to imagine 4% of the electorate swinging towards Dukakis.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Colin Powell as a Democrat in 1992 always struck

Colin Powell as a Democrat in 1992 always struck me as an interesting possibility.

Powell-Clinton '92!

Best,
 
I mean, George W. Bush won as the out-party candidate under similar conditions in 2000.

I think Monicagate made the difference here. Yes, if anything it helped the Democrats in 1998, because the GOP went too far in trying to impeach Clinton. But once that effort failed, I think the issue of "scandal" strengthened Bush's appeal in 2000 that he would "change the tone" in Washington. (Also, it discouraged Gore from asking Clinton to campaign for him.) I don't say it changed very many votes in 2000, but changing even a very few ones was enough.

There was really no equivalent in 1988: Iran-Contra simply didn't have the same emotional impact on voters.

(The other thing that made the difference: Elian Gonzalez.)

In any event, Gore won the popular vote by over 500,000 votes in 2000, and elections in which there is a divergence between a popular plurality of that size and the Electoral College result are pretty rare. Dukakis could hardly expect to be the beneficiary of a similar divergence in 1988.
 
Top