2016 Is the Oldest Election in History

Introduction

There is more than a hint of irony to the fact that the 2016 U.S. presidential election features two (almost) 70-something candidates trying to Tweet their way to the job of saving a Social Security system that was installed when life expectancy in America was below their current ages[1]. All while they could just as well sit at home, collect Social Security, and watch things play out on TV.
 
At nearly 69 years old[2], Hillary Clinton is the oldest Democratic presidential nominee in history. And at 70 years old[3], Donald Trump is the fourth oldest Republican. Together, they make 2016 the oldest presidential contest in American history. But if Americans are living longer and 70 is not what it used to be, then what the hell is it? And how “old” are they really?
 
We looked at the election-day age[4] of every U.S. presidential candidate who has cleared — or projects to clear — at least ten percent of the popular vote[5]. Including Clinton and Trump in 2016, that’s 124 candidates in 58 elections dating back to 1788–89. (Clinton is seventh oldest overall; Trump is fourth.) We then measured each candidate’s election-day age as a percentage of his or her life expectancy at that particular age and in that particular year. Life expectancy in the U.S. has increased over time, so ages today don’t mean the same thing they did generations or centuries ago.
 
Here’s an example. Abraham Lincoln was 51.7 years old on Election Day in 1860. At that time, the average 52-year-old lived another 18.3 years, to the age of 70.3. So in November 1860, Lincoln was 73.6% of the way through his expected life. Al Gore was 52.6 years old on Election Day in 2000 — about a year older than Lincoln. But by 2000, the average 53-year-old lived for 25.7 years, to 78.7. So even though Gore was a year older than Lincoln, he was only two-thirds of the way through his life, while Lincoln was three-quarters of the way through his. In this way, Gore was “younger” than Lincoln. We ran that math for all 124 candidates. What did we find?

Analysis

Let’s start with the more straightforward stuff. This is the election-day age of every presidential candidate in U.S. history who has won — or projects to win — at least 10% of the popular vote[1]:​

That purple smiley-face trendline indicates that candidates were old in the early days, got younger in the second half of the 1800s, and have aged since. Prior to 2016, modern candidates were, on average, about as old as the founding fathers. A typical mix of young Democrats and old Republicans put us on par with George Washington (56.8 in 1788, 60.7 in 1792)[2], John Adams (61.0 in 1796), and Thomas Jefferson (61.6 in 1804).
 
Let’s zoom in on the past 160 years:

After decades of relative youth in the late 1800s — headlined by William Jennings Bryan (36.6 in 1896, 40.6 in 1900), George McClellan (37.9 in 1864), and John Breckenridge (39.8 in 1860) — candidates aged considerably over the course of the 1900s and into the modern day, due in large part to the likes of FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower in the mid-20th century and an array of older Republicans (Ford, Reagan, Bush 41, Dole, McCain, Romney) in the last few decades. During the period, our purple trendline rises by about ten years.
 
But when we look at age in context of life expectancy, we find that little has changed:

That is to say, when we consider where these candidates are in their lives when they run for president — or what percentage of their projected lives they’ve already lived — our purple trendline is rendered nearly flat. Even though modern-day candidates are considerably older than they were a century ago, they are running for president at pretty much the same point in their lives as their counterparts 50 and 100 and 150 years ago.
 
But even after we adjust for life expectancy, Clinton and Trump hover above the trend. What, then, should we make of them? Here’s another look, this time showing the average age of candidates in a given election year:

We already know that 2016 is the oldest presidential contest in history. Here we can see just how much of an outlier it is. With an average election-day age of 69.7, Clinton-Trump is 13.2 years and 2.7 standard deviations above the historical average (56.5 years)[3]. They beat their closest competition — 1848 (Zachary Taylor, Lewis Cass, Martin Van Buren) and 1984 (Ronald Reagan, Walter Mondale) — by almost four-and-a-half years.
 
When we consider age in context of life expectancy, Clinton and Trump lose a little bit of their elderly luster:

One hundred years ago, 70-year-olds could expect to live to about 79. If that were still the case, Clinton and Trump would be done with almost 90% of their lives. But today, the 69.0-year-old Clinton can expect to live to 86.6 (she’s 80% of the way there), and the 70.4-year-old Trump can expect to live to 84.5 (he’s 83% of the way there)[4]. The candidates are, on average, 81.5% of the way through their lives. That’s the rough equivalent of being 65 years old in 1988 (similar to George H.W. Bush) or 62 years old in 1952 (similar to Dwight D. Eisenhower[5]).
 
Relative to life expectancy, 2016 is the seventh oldest presidential election in history (out of 58), and it’s within striking distance (1.2 standard deviations) of historical averages (75.7%). It’s still an old election — the oldest since 1848[6] — it’s just not as old or unique as it might otherwise seem.
 
From the perspective of where the candidates are in their lives — 80% of the way through for Clinton, 83% for Trump — 2016 is not unlike the nation’s earliest presidential races. Its closest doppelgängers are 1804, when 61.6-year-old Thomas Jefferson (83%) beat 58.7-year-old Charles Pinckney (80%); 1808, when James Madison (57.6, 79%) beat Pinckney (62.7, 84%); and 1816, when James Monroe (58.5, 80%) beat Rufus King (61.6, 83%).
 
In fact, Hillary Clinton is at a pretty similar point her life (69.0, 80%) as George Washington when he first ran for president in 1788 (56.8, 78%). And Donald Trump is at a similar point in his life (70.4, 83%) as Washington when he won reelection in 1792 (60.7, 82%). So however unprecedented this year’s election may be — from Hillary Clinton becoming the first female nominee of a major party to, well, Donald Trump — 2016 is, in at least one strange way, a throwback to the earliest days of the American republic.

In Appendix I, we take a closer look at Democrats and Republicans, Clinton and Trump. In Appendix II, we rank the oldest and youngest presidential candidates in history, relative to life expectancy.

For sources and footnotes, please visit eldo.co.
 
​ELDORADO | Berkeley, CA | New York, NY
​eldo.co | @eldo_co