Who is STATISTICALLY likely to be a good VP for both of our candidates?

[Bicoastal]

Having no classes today and no work (that can't be put off until the weekend), I decided to figure out what the average age of your winning presidential ticket is...

...which means, that yes, I looked at the winners of every election since 1789 to figure out the average age of the two running mates, and then averaged them ALL out (via spreadsheet) to figure out what the average age of the US presidential ticket was. And you're welcome, by the way. :)

SO--what became immediately apparent is that the magic number is 56. Not only did this come up as the average age for the winning presidential ticket, but it's reflected in the elections themselves. From Washington/Adams to Lincoln/Johnson to Roosevelt/Wallace to Bush/Cheney, it seems like people generally prefer two candidates around the middle of their fifth decade--and if not, a candidate slightly older paired with a running mate slightly younger. Even looking at winning tickets since 1918, or even since 1956, this average remains about the same.

Now, these are just average, and are all but meaningless in the real world. It's notable that one of the most successful tickets in Presidential history, Reagan/Bush (boo!) in 1984 had a 74 year old president and a 61 year old running mate--for an average of 66. Eight years later, Clinton/Gore (yay!) created the youngest presidential ticket in history--46 and 44 years old--for an average of 45. And obviously, age isn't the only factor at work here...

But, anyway--Barack Obama would be 47 years old upon taking office, so his age-appropriate running mate would be around 65.

Hillary Clinton would be 61 years old upon taking office, so her age-appropriate running mate would be around 50.

Finally, John McCain would be 72 years old upon taking office, so his age-appropriate running mate would be around 40.

We shall see how this all turns out--and I'm not very knowledgeable on the names being batted around as Veep for any of these guys. Still, age usually IS a huge factor in these things.

Some more trivia:

* When 64-year-old Truman picked 71-year-old Alban Barkley to be his running mate in 1948, he put together the most geriatric winning presidential ticket in history--68 years average. And even so, they managed to beat the tar out of pretty boy Thomas Dewey.

* The biggest age difference between President and Veep was the 30 years separating lousy President James Buchanan (65) and no-name Veep John C. Breckenridge (35) in 1856.

* In 1860 They were followed by the much less lousy Abe Lincoln who remains the only President to be the same age as his Veep, Hannibal Hamlin--52 years old.

[IntravenousDemilo]

1. Richardson, mostly because of geography.

And you might want to fix your dates for Buchanan and Lincoln if you still have time.

[Perky]

He would make a great VP but he is not a trong enough campaigner or

debater.


It is his nature to be nice.

[Perky]

3. He would make a great VP but he is not a trong enough campaigner or

debater.


It is his nature to be nice.

[Bicoastal]

10. Thanks. Fixed.

[Perky]

2. Bob Graham because the GOP can not win without Florida

Gravitas....international expertise. Seniors in Florida love him.

little downside.

[Bucky]

13. And he's quite huggable

Great call (Clinton and Gore each nearly picked him for veep), but I don't think Obama can go with anybody that much older and that grandfatherly looking. It won't convey gravitas Obama already has; it's more likely to convey "Wally-Cleaver-needs-a-babysitter."

[CalGator]

15. I'd love a Gator in the exectuive branch

But Graham is over 70 nowadays, right? Sadly, people care about these things.

[ORDem]

4. Alban who? n/t

[Bucky]

7. Get thee to a classroom!

Barkley should've been president. He was a great leader that we never got to have.

[chemp]

5. I see a female on the ticket on both sides.

Obama may choose a female southern Governor who supports him, though Richardson is also a good choice.
Hillary would choose either Clark or Richardson. Clark supported her from the start, has military and and southern draws. Richardson has NM, to balance McCain's Arizona.

For McCain, he needs youth, and a strong conservative support due to his "liberal" slant. Condi Rice has broad conservative support, links to the Bush White House, will lie in demand, and is batshit crazy. all the necessary ingredients for a GOP VP.

[Bucky]

6. JFK/LBJ in 1960. Ages 43 and 52, respectively--Kennedy was 19 years Johnson's junior

Did you really just write that?

One more nit: Poppy was 56 in 1980--he's the same age as Carter. He was elected in 1988 at the age of 64.

If Barack is looking for a sextagenarian veep, I'd suggest Jim Webb or Wes Clark. My gut says he'll go with somebody younger.

[Bicoastal]

11. Yeah, that wasn't particularly brilliant, was it? I erased the whole sentence...

But in the Reagan/Bush case--I was talking about the 1984 election, when the two men were both up for re-election. And I may be off by a year, but still--they formed one of the older succesful presidential tickets in history (because I AM including re-election tickets.)

BTW--did you know that between James Monroe in 1820 and Woodrow Wilson in 1916, you never saw the same two names get re-elected? We take it for granted that teams such as Bush/Cheney, Clinton/Gore, and Reagan/Bush are succesful, but there was a good 100 years where the re-elected incumbent simply switched Vice Presidents halfway through (if they hadn't already died.)

[Flabbergasted]

8. Kathleen Sebelius would be 60. Wes Clark 64.

[Thrill]

9. Jim Webb or Sherrod Brown

[Bucky]

12. Sherrod Brown is only 55

Obama can't pick him until they are 52 and 60 years old, respectively. That would be in the 2013 presidential election.

[TexasObserver]

14. Jim Webb because of Defense, Military, and Political credentials.

He's got the rep and record to offset the Republican noise about National Defense, etc.

I know many people like Wes Clark, but his record isn't anywhere near that of Webb's. Clark is one of those generals who lacks the kind of military street cred that serious on the ground service brings. He's always been more of a Washington Politico military man.

More importantly, Clark has never won elective office, and outside his group of supporters at DU, he simply has no constituency in the country. He can't deliver a single state.

I firmly believe in only putting on the national ticket people who have WON major elective offices. They are battle tested.