Politically wise, people born in the 1930s were truly the lost generation.

[BlueStater]

McCain's death has me thinking about this. He was one of only two major party nominees who was born in the 1930s (the other being Michael Dukakis). The '30s never produced a president, the only decade, aside from the 1810s, since the births of George Washington and John Adams in the 1730s to never have any White House representation. In 1993, we went from having a president born in 1924 to one born in 1946 and that massive 22-year gap between presidential births never closed with subsequent presidents. While two of the (godawful) presidents that succeeded Bill Clinton were older than him, they were, weirdly enough, only so by one or two months and were still born in the same year as him.

We never even had any Vice Presidents born in the 1930s. I can't think of any other decade that were screwed on a political level as badly as the '30s were. In the end, the best they'll have to show for their time of relevancy is a few notable senators like Ted Kennedy and, of course, McCain. I suppose that's better than nothing.

[oberliner]

1. None born in the 1950s either

[BlueStater]

2. I know.

I guess I meant in the sense that, like the 1810s, they now have absolutely no chance of ever getting a president.

There's still time for the 1950s to produce a president, although that window is obviously closing with every passing year.

[oberliner]

3. Yes, lord help us, but Mike Pence was born in 1959

In any case, I find your comments about the 1930s folks to be quite interesting.

[GoCubsGo]

5. Wait! He's only 59?

I figured he was at least 10 years older than that. Wow.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

6. He doesn't have senility as an excuse. . . nt

[northoftheborder]

4. Yes, I had realized this once.....

.....being a child of the 30's. Presidents went directly from being older than I, to being younger. Several ran, but none elected. We grew up in the 50's, an era marked by prosperity and opportunity, but no revolutions. That came with the 60's and the boomers.

[Awsi Dooger]

7. Interesting point

You would think their sweet spot would have been the 1980s and 1990s, turning 50 and 60. But Reagan came along, after nearly swiping the nominating in 1976, and took advantage of Carter's predicament in 1980. Those 8 years were popular enough with the masses to enable an older vice president to succeed, and then a younger charismatic man swooped in and took it away in 1992.

That leads to 8 more years. Now the '30s born are a bit older once it reaches the new century. The '40s kids are taking those nominations early in the century then the '50s are bypassed entirely in favor of early '60s Obama.

I don't think any rationale applies. It just happened that way.

[BlueStater]

8. Yep.

Like I stated before, McCain and Dukakis were the only major party nominees born in the 1930s. By contrast, the 1940s got SEVEN nominees (Clinton, Gore, Bush, Kerry, Romney, Hillary, and Tangerine). And of those seven, Kerry (1943) was only one of them who wasn't born between 1946 and 1948.

I don't know why that was the case. I don't know why this country ended up with three presidents born in 1946 alone yet none born between the years 1925 and 1945. There's no rhyme or reason for it. It's just a massive coincidence.