POTUS under the age of 35

We have talked a lot about otherwise plausible presidential candidates (e.g., Carl Schurz, John Peter Altgeld, Robert F. Wagner I, Arnold Schwarzenegger, and Jennifer Granholm) disqualified by the "natural born citzen" requirement. Can we think of any who were disqualified by the "at least 35 years old" requirement? The only plausible one I can think of offhand is Harold Stassen (born in 1907) in 1940. OK, maybe Joe Biden in 1976, but that's a pretty long shot. And just possibly a deadlocked GOP convention in 1920--when Theodore Roosevelt would probably have gotten the presidential nomination had he still been alive--turns to Theodore Roosevelt, Jr.

(Another possibility: If LBJ is killed with JFK in 1963, there may be widespread support for the idea that McCormack should serve only as interim president, and that a Kennedy be nominated in 1964--but of course that will be Robert Kennedy, not his younger brother. Unless RFK too dies by 1964--but having all these deaths sounds a little implausible.)

I'm putting this in the post-1900 section because all of the examples I can think of are from post-1900, but if you can think of any earlier possibilities, that's fine.
 
I think the best bet is a victorious general, possibly post Mexican-American War.

I was about to say:

"This is the only way. What else but military command could a 30 y/o possibly do that would make him that popular and desirable for national leadership? charismatic state senator? Fuck off"

But then I came across this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_candidacy_laws_in_the_United_States

So apparently in Ohio, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Washington, and California (!!!) you can be elected governor at friggin' 18!

Haha wow.

A popular 2 term 26 year old ex-governor should be a near lock for a open Congressional seat...Senate at age 30...probably easier to play that way than amend the constitution, but I suppose stranger things have happened in OTL lately. :p
 
(Another possibility: If LBJ is killed with JFK in 1963, there may be widespread support for the idea that McCormack should serve only as interim president, and that a Kennedy be nominated in 1964--but of course that will be Robert Kennedy, not his younger brother. Unless RFK too dies by 1964--but having all these deaths sounds a little implausible.
I don't know, the Kennedys were pretty goddamn unlucky
Anything could happen
 
I was about to say:

"This is the only way. What else but military command could a 30 y/o possibly do that would make him that popular and desirable for national leadership? charismatic state senator? Fuck off"

But then I came across this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_candidacy_laws_in_the_United_States

So apparently in Ohio, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, Washington, and California (!!!) you can be elected governor at friggin' 18!

Haha wow.

A popular 2 term 26 year old ex-governor should be a near lock for a open Congressional seat...Senate at age 30...probably easier to play that way than amend the constitution, but I suppose stranger things have happened in OTL lately. :p

I actually posted a write-up concerning that! :D : https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-iii.384720/page-60#post-12387152

IMO, unless the Founding Fathers make it 30 or 25, lowering the age would have to take a large, revolutionary, generational sort of phenomenon/event to occur. Maybe the country does poorly under a series of unpopular elderly Presidents, leading to a 35-year-old President who lowers the age requirement.

Either that, or the 1968 film "Wild in the Streets" occurs:
:)
 
I actually posted a write-up concerning that! :D : https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...ia-infoboxes-iii.384720/page-60#post-12387152

IMO, unless the Founding Fathers make it 30 or 25, lowering the age would have to take a large, revolutionary, generational sort of phenomenon/event to occur. Maybe the country does poorly under a series of unpopular elderly Presidents, leading to a 35-year-old President who lowers the age requirement.

Either that, or the 1968 film "Wild in the Streets" occurs:
:)

Not sure if that would lead to an amendment. Clinton, W, and Obama would be considered "young" Presidents.

The reason for the age requirement is to prevent nepotism. 35 was arbitrary, but they wanted to avoid a repeat of William Pitt the Younger, who was elected at a very young age based on his name. The Founders assumed that if they set 35 as the lower limit, potential candidates would have had sufficient time to build their own record.
 

Magical123

Banned
Not sure if that would lead to an amendment. Clinton, W, and Obama would be considered "young" Presidents.

The reason for the age requirement is to prevent nepotism. 35 was arbitrary, but they wanted to avoid a repeat of William Pitt the Younger, who was elected at a very young age based on his name. The Founders assumed that if they set 35 as the lower limit, potential candidates would have had sufficient time to build their own record.
True by 35 if you've been in politics of business or whatever your whole life and you've got the reputation and experience to boot you don't need your daddy's name to get in the election.

It's a fairly good rule. I wouldn't want polticians twenty five year old kids running on their parents names and political machines and connections.
 
Top