Why do us Americans tend to prefer old people as Presidents all of a sudden?

[Plankton5165]

In the 1990s, we rejected the old Republican nominees and wanted a rather young president, so Bill Clinton won the presidency twice.

In 2016, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, both born in the 1940s, were the Republican and Democratic nominees respectively, and Bernie Sanders, born 1941, did not even withdraw! By winning the presidency, at 70, Trump became the oldest president to be sworn in!

Then in 2020, Joe Biden became the oldest President to be sworn in at 78! Bernie Sanders also stayed pretty strong.

And in 2024, it looks like Trump will be the Republican nominee once again.

Did us Americans just have a secret love for leaders born in the 1940s or something?

[Vice President Christian Man]

I think it has to do more with policies than age. American's as a whole, Democrats in particular are comfortable with the establishment who is promoting idea's that have been orthodox in the party since at least the 1970's (and represented by people politically active since the later half of the 20th century), while rejecting newer and in some cases more progressive ideas represented by mostly younger candidates (the notable exception being Sanders). I believe that our politicians are often about 20-30 years behind the mainstream opinions of voters in most cases barring congressional landslides because of the lack of term limits in our country. I think as soon as the old guard retires, we'll likely see younger presidents because their ideas are different than the one's that have been pushed by older politicians. This is true in both parties and while the GOP is transitioning to a new orthodoxy, the Dems haven't transitioned yet but the transition may occur sooner rather than later (assuming the voters are going to choose a candidate with different views) with politicians such as Yang and AOC being as mainstream as they are within the party.

[Mr. Smith]

We don't. Or should I say, half us don't.

The Boomers are just continuing to hold disproportionate clout on the political market, which is why politicians of their generation get preference at the moment. Also, it's only Democrats where this is has appeared to happen...with the GOP, every nominee between Nixon and Trump,except for W, has been over 60.

Once either Boomers fade away, or Millennials finally hit the high gear already, then candidates of younger generations will finally take over.

[Agonized-Statism]

Partly coincidence, but I think a lot of it has to do with the graying of the country, the huge growth of senior interest groups like AARP, and the disappointment of Obama as an icon for the young in 2008. Younger politicians spent their 1990s, 2000s, and early 2010s working within a neoliberal consensus that no longer exists. There's also an ancestor worship problem in that young people are self-deprecating, which is evident in the culture of nostalgia and irony around us. Even those of us who understand that we've achieved less materially than our parents and grandparents because we've come into a world ruined by their politics still gravitate subconsciously toward the idea that we're intrinsically weaker than them, and that only they can be domineering and "unironic" enough to get things done. Not to mention we've literally been set back in socioeconomic status by years of economic decline- a reverse of what happened to those who lost their wealth in the Great Depression and never really recovered, losing a whole lot of influence to affluent younger people during the post-WWII economic boom. Hence why we saw corporations and politicians start crafting their messages for father, mother, and the 2.5 kids of suburbia, then just the kids, and still those same kids today.

Firstly, Clinton had been assumed to be the candidate for 2016 since 2008, so that was kinda set in stone. Sanders resonated with millennials in 2016 because he was a vestige of a radical youth movement from the distant past- to survive in politics, most younger Democrats at that point had to build their careers cooperating to a greater extent with the New Democrat faction that had dominated since the 1990s, and the millennials who felt shortchanged weren't looking for another Obama. They felt, correctly imo, like the new counterculture. Who better to represent them than a former hippie? There were no AOCs yet in 2016, at least none with the necessary credentials.

Conversely, Trump rode in on the national populist movement, the primary support base for which is older voters, and he's very much a manifestation of boomer culture: more concerned about culture wars as a result of growing up in "post-materialist" affluence, "rebel" who follows gut feelings and does what he wants, rejects authority and suspects conspiracy as a result of post-modernism. It helps that he's a tabloidy businessman from the boomers' beloved '80s.

Biden is "Not Trump", a placeholder that could have been filled by Buttigieg, Harris, or anyone else had they done better than him. But I do think younger Democrats believed his age was a strength that would have helped them win over some older voters.

[buritobr]

Are you sure?

Until 2016, the US presidents were usually younger than French presidents, European prime ministers (except Spain) and Brazilian presidents.