Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are falling into a partisan trap. Try reading the article, which is full of nuanced facts. Then respond.
I read this article. And I read this:
Quote:
In the four elections with a significant age gap between the party nominees since the Cold War ended, the younger candidate has won every time.
1992
The country had emerged from the recession of the early 1990s but, as is always the case, the end of recessions are never clear when they happen - it only becomes apparent with the hindsight of several months to a year. Combine that with the dynamic that the GOP base was depressed because they were upset that President Bush had agree to a tax increase, and the election outcome was rather obvious completely aside from the ages of the candidates. Seriously - doesn't anyone really think that Bush had an approval rating of 89% in the spring of 1991 because he was a youthful 66 years old, but that his approval rating had crashed to to 29% by mid-summer of 1992 because by then he was 68 years old?
1996
In September and October of that year, right before the election, President Clinton's approval rating fluctuated between 54% and 60%. No incumbent President has ever lost his bid for another term so long as his approval rating was at least 48%. Since Clinton's approval rating had dipped into the upper 30s several times during his first term, and since it improved by the time of his reelection and then even more in his second term (when it was regularly in the 60s and spiked as high as 73% , all while Clinton was getting continually older), it should be obvious that age was not the driving factor in the public's assessment of President Clinton.
2008
Right - it was because Obama was 25 years younger than McCain. It couldn't possibly be because the Republican brand was completely toxic due to botched wars,inept handling of hurricanes, and the biggest economic crisis since the Great Depression...
2012
Again, no President has ever lost a re-election bid when their approval ratings were above water - and Obama's approval numbers were in the low 50s all through October 2012.
By the way, this silly bit of logic implies that Rick Santorum, 11 younger than Mitt Romney and less than three years older than President Obama, would have done better as the nominee than did Romney - an implication which is, of course, ludicrous.
I'm still not convinced she will run. She looked pretty burnt out after her time as Secretary of State ended.
I share your doubts, but Hillary looks very fit, refreshed and rested now.
It's very obvious she has been spending a lot of time with Bill in the exercise room, and she looks to be in better shape than she was in 2008.
Granted, she will never be a hot grannie like Sarah Palin, but she's looking healthy now. Healthier than Sarah, who seems to be afflicted with eating disorders again.
One thing I know about Mrs Clinton is her loyalty. If the Democratic leadership appeal to her to run, she will, if there is a lack of another good candidate, and she will give it everything she has.
She'd be 69 when elected - the same age as Reagan.
The poster to whom you responded noted that Clinton would be younger than Reagan, and she would be by most of a year. Rounding their respective ages to the last birthdate doesn't change that underlying fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by emcee squared
I'm still not convinced she will run. She looked pretty burnt out after her time as Secretary of State ended.
I'm reminded of Bill Frist and his 'tele-diagnosis' of Terry Schiavo. "Well, I saw a video of her on TV, so let me tell you about her specific medical condition..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futurist110
And she is a woman, and females might have a genetic and/or hormonal advantage over males when it comes to longevity.
Indeed.
In 1980 (the year Reagan was first elected President), the life expectancy at age 65 for U.S. males was 14.2 years. At present, the life expectancy at age 65 for U.S. females exceeds 20 years.
[I use age 65, not 69 - the age of Reagan in 1980 and the age of Clinton in 2016 - because the expected years remaining is commonly published for that age. Close enough to illustrate the difference between male and female longevity.]
I share your doubts, but Hillary looks very fit, refreshed and rested now.
It's very obvious she has been spending a lot of time with Bill in the exercise room, and she looks to be in better shape than she was in 2008.
Granted, she will never be a hot grannie like Sarah Palin, but she's looking healthy now. Healthier than Sarah, who seems to be afflicted with eating disorders again.
One thing I know about Mrs Clinton is her loyalty. If the Democratic leadership appeal to her to run, she will, if there is a lack of another good candidate, and she will give it everything she has.
I haven't followed her lately, so maybe she is getting better.
On top of her health, I question her will to be president. Sure, it would be cool, but she has already accomplished a lot in her life, with her husband rising to president. If she decides to run and the election is next month, I think she'd win handily. We still don't know what GOP candidates lurk in the shadows (if any).
Nope not too old and as others have said she looks well rested and healthy. Would I vote for her, I don't know it would depend on the other candidates, I voted for her before but O won out. Besides Wild Bill would make a great First Dude.
Yes, indeed. Bill Clinton has lost none of his zest to campaign, and he is better and more polished now than when he was President. As John Kennedy chose his younger brother to be in his cabinet, I can see Hillary choosing her husband to be Secretary of State. That is a very powerful combination.
EVen if she didn't appoint him to any position, Bill is the best advisor ever for any President.
Yes, indeed. Bill Clinton has lost none of his zest to campaign, and he is better and more polished now than when he was President. As John Kennedy chose his younger brother to be in his cabinet, I can see Hillary choosing her husband to be Secretary of State. That is a very powerful combination.
EVen if she didn't appoint him to any position, Bill is the best advisor ever for any President.
I doubt Wild Bill would have an "official" cabinet post but he would be a great adviser and besides think of all those un-paid duties he'd have as First Dude. Besides he's always said Hillary is much smarter than he is and I'm sure she is an independent thinker.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.