this post was submitted on 22 Jul 2024
1271 points (98.7% liked)

politics

19090 readers
4467 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Non-paywall link: 12ft.io/https://www.thedailybeast.com/democrats-mock-donald-trump-as-too-old-to-runlike-he-did-to-joe-biden?ref=home?ref=home

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] vga@sopuli.xyz 65 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

He totally is too old, though. Bill Clinton is younger than him.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Weird fact: Clinton, Bush Jr. and Trump were all born in 1946. For some reason there's a clustering of president birth years. 1913 and 1924 were also popular.

[–] KevonLooney@lemm.ee 14 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Hmm, what could be the connection? It's almost as if there was a "boom" of babies born 9 months after WW2 ended.

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

The peak year for the baby boom was 1947, not 1946. In 1947 there were 26.6 births per 1000 population, in 1946 it was 24.1. But, even though the baby boom was a noticeable change in birth rate, it wasn't actually all that dramatic. In the depths of WWII in 1943 the birth rate was 22.7. In 1965 when the baby boom was over, it had only dropped to 19.4.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/NCHS-Births-and-General-Fertility-Rates-United-Sta/e6fc-ccez/data_preview

There's no reason that there should be a cluster of presidents born in 1946 rather than a few spread around the post-war years.

[–] shasta@lemm.ee 2 points 3 months ago

I bet they were both a year earlier than the statistics because they come from wealthy families, so they already had established homes, jobs, etc, while most people were still recovering from ww2. Having a baby right after the end of the war had to be either a luxury or a poverty sentence.

[–] Wisas62@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I know you're citing this per 1k like they would in statistics but also want to point out that with the population increase between 1946 and 1965, more babies were actually born in 1965 than 1946.

[–] phx@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I think a factor would also be post-way medical/life improvements that led to decreased infant mortality as well as longer "boomer" lifespans.

More of them lived, and for longer

[–] merc@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 months ago

Sure, slightly more for slightly longer. You'd expect a few percent more Boomers than others, but not a cluster of 3 presidents born in exactly 1946. And there's no reason why there was only ever 1 silent generation president. There were a ton of "greatest" generation guys, and lots of boomers, but only 1 born between 1928 to 1945.