Posted on 02/07/2015 4:57:12 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
Based on historical patterns, the next president is likely to be a GenXer. This is not good news for the many baby boomers running, or thinking about running, in 2016.
When voters decide it is time to move the presidency on to the next generation, they keep electing presidents in that next generation, or they go on to the one that follows. They do not go back. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush were from the baby boomer generation. Barack Obama is from the Gen X generation (those born 1961 to 1981). If the pattern holds, the next president will also be a Gen Xer.
There are two exceptions in the history of our presidents. Zachary Taylor, president from 1849 to 1850, was a throwback; as was James Buchanan, president from 1857 to 1861. By the 2016 election, it will have been 160 years since voters elected a president from a generation that preceded the sitting president.
I first heard about this pattern at a lecture on the work of Neil Howe and William Strauss, the co-authors of several books on generational theory and generational change in America.
At first hearing, Ronald Reagan came to mind. How does he fit the pattern, assuming the presidency at age 69? The pattern is the change from members of one generation to the next, not the age of individual presidents. For example, Howe and Strauss identify those born 1901 to 1924 as members of the G.I. generation. That generation produced 7 presidents: Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, and George H.W. Bush.
In 1992, voters pushed on to the next generation, electing a baby boomer in Bill Clinton. In 2000 voters stayed with a baby boomer in George W. Bush and then in 2008 pushed on to the next generation with Barack Obama....
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
the article is playing fast and loose with the generational boundaries. They use the term Generation Jones for the later part of the Baby Boom plus a little beyond, 1954-1965.
The name comes from the phrase “keeping up with the Joneses”
The 50s and 60s gave us quality, groundbreaking music and cinema but that was probably inevitable given the rise of postwar technology and affluence.
In most ther things they have given us decades of that over which a world war was fought: unbridled state power. Many of them claimed to be in favor of freedom but that was a transparent ruse.
They got theirs, now they are happy to take yours. Unfortunately, they suckered many into their way of thinking including Obama.
I'd call it "the stable generation". Our parents were brought up in the Depression, suffered through the effects of WW2, and wanted what was best for us. With all the economic growth in the US, and all of the optimism, we got off to good starts.
This seems to be the foundation for those of us who graduated in 1964 or earlier. We had a stable HS background before drugs, violent protest, and questions about the future took hold. It was a world that for those who worked hard, had ability and training, and were lawful, the future was pretty much assured.
Like any generation cutoffs, it'll be a little blurred around the edges.
Too much can be made of Presidential trends, take this for example:
Take the Missouri Compromise line (the southern border of Missouri) and extend it across the country.
From 1852, a few years before the Civil War, until 1960, every single elected President regardless of party came from above the line. That is 28 straight elections.
Then from 1964 to 2004, every single elected President regardless of party came from below the line. That’s 11 straight elections
All I can say is, the next prez better be an American patriot, Christian, and republican — and have the papers to prove it. No punk-ass liberal clown with psych issues.
“I first heard about this pattern at a lecture on the work of Neil Howe and William Strauss, the co-authors of several books on generational theory and generational change in America.”
Howe and Strauss define generations for their purposes based upon a defining event(s). For example, for the G.I. generation it was the twin events of the Great Depression and World War II. For baby boomers That defining event is Vietnam. So their definition of when the generation begins for baby boomers (1943) and ends (1960) does not exactly correlate with the surge in births that demographers use to refer to the “baby boom.”
that’s right I was born in 62 and am a baby boomer
I really wonder about stories like this, though.
I think it is more important when your parents were born. My older sister and I are definitely Boomers born “48” & “51”. Our sister was born in 1958. Many of her friends had parents born in the late thirties as opposed to the late teens/early twenties like our parents. My sister was raised very different by much older parents, but her classmates whose parents were born in the thirties were a whole different generation culturally speaking even though they were born in 1958/59. Their parents did not really experience the depression nor fight in the war.
My guess is barack obama, for his third term, en route to president-for-life.
No way. He’s tired and bored with the whole thing. With a potential billion $$ in POTUS pardon bribes waiting in Jan 2017, he’ll be set for 40+ years of luxurious living.
Then this will apply:
What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts
President Reagan was born in Tampico, Illinois, and President Bush 41 was born in Milton, Massachusetts, both above that line, I believe.
Ah, but I was born in 1960 and my sister 1964, but my father was born in the mid twenties and saw three years of World War II, three years of the Korean War, two years of Vietnam and lived through the Depression as a child and later as a young hired man and then CCC worker. Explain me? LOL
Where they were born doesn’t matter. That is ancient history by the time their Presidential election comes up.
Reagan and Bush lived and were politicians elected to office in California and Texas.
Isn’t it ironic, and typical, that now democrats are ranting about birth certificates?
Hope you’re right about his exit. However, if he leaves office, he won’t be able to withdraw from the spotlight. He’s still the messiah. And, he’s been giving dough to activist groups for so long and in such huge amounts that he’s bound to be tied to them somehow. I believe he’ll make Carter look like a wallflower. No future president, as long as obama is alive, will be free of his “advice” and criticism.
As you well know, nobody should assume there are just handguns out here. Keep up the fight, pard.
Yes we’ll see the Obama’s 24/7/365 just like the Clintons.
Especially if Mooch becomes a Senator in 2017.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.