Of the 42 men who have been president, 9 were cuspers:

Jackson 1767
JQ Adams 1767
Buchannan 1791
Grant 1822
Hayes 1822
McKinnley 1843
FDR 1882
Carter 1924
Bush '41 1924

Nine out of 42 is disproportionate to their expected share (4 or 5 out of 42). I can think of three things that might feed into it:

1) Cuspers connect better with two different generations, making them more electable;

2) S&H set the boundary between generations at important figures, including presidents, that this might be a case of the snake swallowing it's own tail (as a side-line, I've always wondered about Ole' Hickory as an Adaptive/Artist);

3) Luck of the Draw?

As an additional side-line, the following (potential) 2008 candidates are Cuspers:

Tommy Thompson '41
Fred Thompson '42
Gingrich '43
Obama '61

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Of the 42 men who have been president, 9 were cuspers:

Jackson 1767
JQ Adams 1767
Buchannan 1791
Grant 1822
Hayes 1822
McKinnley 1843
FDR 1882
Carter 1924
Bush '41 1924

Nine out of 42 is disproportionate to their expected share (4 or 5 out of 42). I can think of three things that might feed into it:

1) Cuspers connect better with two different generations, making them more electable;

I can vounch for this one. Cuspers also tend to have a mix of attributes
from the two neighboring generations, hybrids if you will.

2) S&H set the boundary between generations at important figures, including presidents, that this might be a case of the snake swallowing it's own tail (as a side-line, I've always wondered about Ole' Hickory as an Adaptive/Artist);

I think the hard set boundaries S&H have are not valid in all cases.
1. the Lost/GI boundary should be 1901-1905, with those years in gray in their book.
2. Boom-X boundary 1959-1960 (perhaps), 1961-1962 for sure. The latter is documented and discussed in any number of books and research documents. 1980-1981 are another example.

3) Luck of the Draw?

I would guess not. I think item 1 explains a lot.

As an additional side-line, the following (potential) 2008 candidates are Cuspers:

Tommy Thompson '41
Fred Thompson '42
Gingrich '43
Obama '61

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

I think the hard set boundaries S&H have are not valid in all cases.
1. the Lost/GI boundary should be 1901-1905, with those years in gray in their book.
2. Boom-X boundary 1959-1960 (perhaps), 1961-1962 for sure. The latter is documented and discussed in any number of books and research documents. 1980-1981 are another example.

IMO the generation types should be best described as a series of bell curves, the generational boundaries being cohorts that are at 50%-50%. The '62 cohort, for example, is 50% Idealist and 50% Reactive.

[quote=Ragnarök_62;198769]
"...I think the hard set boundaries S&H have are not valid in all cases.
1. the Lost/GI boundary should be 1901-1905, with those years in gray in their book.
2. Boom-X boundary 1959-1960 (perhaps), 1961-1962 for sure. The latter is documented and discussed in any number of books and research documents. 1980-1981 are another example."

-I guess to define a cusper president, we've got to figure out where the boundary is, although your examples wouldn't effect the nine. I've already been to the threads dedicated to the Lost/GI argument (I'm an agnostic) and the Joneser thing (ditto).

Even S&H say that their boundaries aren't hard and fast; they wrote that a generational tilt one way or another could be a mere 60-40 edge (more threads dedicated to this too, I know).

So Cuspers have an edge in 2008.

(Note: I won't be around to answer for a day or two)

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Of the 42 men who have been president, 9 were cuspers:

Jackson 1767
JQ Adams 1767
Buchannan 1791
Grant 1822
Hayes 1822
McKinnley 1843
FDR 1882
Carter 1924
Bush '41 1924

Nine out of 42 is disproportionate to their expected share (4 or 5 out of 42). I can think of three things that might feed into it:

1) Cuspers connect better with two different generations, making them more electable;

2) S&H set the boundary between generations at important figures, including presidents, that this might be a case of the snake swallowing it's own tail (as a side-line, I've always wondered about Ole' Hickory as an Adaptive/Artist);

3) Luck of the Draw?

As an additional side-line, the following (potential) 2008 candidates are Cuspers:

Tommy Thompson '41
Fred Thompson '42
Gingrich '43
Obama '61

Good observation, just one nitpick. As an 1884 cohort Harry Truman is a joneser from the last saeculium just like FDR is. Who else would not back down on taking down a popular and pompus core idealist general like McArthur and be willing to nationalize the steel mills except one with at least a little prophet in them.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

As an additional side-line, the following (potential) 2008 candidates are Cuspers:

Tommy Thompson '41
Fred Thompson '42
Gingrich '43
Obama '61

Tommy is a Silent. An exceedingly stupid one, but a Silent nonetheless. A Boomer never would have been as sloppy and casual about the gay issue, as Boomer pols love posturing and moralizing.

Freddy is a Silent. Another Silent pol with a surprisingly low IQ.

Gingrich is a Boomer.

Obama is a Joneser. No one has figured out whether he's more Boom or X, but he's definitely not 100% one or the other. His words sometimes say X ("I'm a new generation") and sometimes say Boom ("the audacity of hope").

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Of the 42 men who have been president, 9 were cuspers:

Jackson 1767
JQ Adams 1767
Buchannan 1791
Grant 1822
Hayes 1822
McKinnley 1843
FDR 1882
Carter 1924
Bush '41 1924

As for these golden oldies...

I think Jackson was the Carter of his time in some ways. Unlike Carter, he had the Hero facade of toughness, but like any Artist he became unwittingly polarizing in trying to please everybody, which eventually led to pleasing nobody. I think this was a Compromiser trying desperately to be a Republican (the generation, not the party).

JQ was a Compromiser. This was Artist overload: diplomacy up the wazoo, and tried to achieve sensitive and grand progressive reforms which were (typically) shot down by Congress.

I traditionally think of Buchanan as the "bumbling Prophet" who precedes the GC, but his style was so ineffectual and impotent that he might as well be a Compromiser.

Grant was a Gilded. His military career was undistinguished before the Civil War (Nomad slacker) but then he became the North's favorite general. Led over the 1T cynically, sternly, and with a high tolerance for corruption (which has been evident in every Nomad administration except, perhaps, Washington's).

Hayes was lameass. No, Hayes was a Gilded. Won his election under grossly corrupt circumstances, yet managed to keep a personally honest reputation and an ability not to offend too many people. Overall, a lightweight with a funny name and undistinguished service.

McKinley would have been a Hero if there was a Hero generation in the Civil War Saeculum. Instead, I guess he was a Progressive with the hubris of that missing Hero generation.

FDR was a Missionary. Sorry, there's no getting around it. This guy had vision. This guy had passion. This guy had an opinion on everything. Maybe his idealism was tempered with a little Lost generation earthiness, but he was about 70-80% Missionary.

Carter really governed like a Silent. I don't see very much GI about him, in fact he may have been consciously avoiding the hubristic mistakes of his elders (Vietnam, Bay of Pigs, Watergate). But like most Artist pols, his willingness to compromise and his yen for diplomacy were ultimately his undoing. Today we see him engaged in humanitarian and diplomatic work worldwide. That's a Silent, not a GI.

Bush I was a GI. Maybe he had some talent for international diplomacy from that Silent influence, but his leadership style was simple and flag-pounding like Reagan's very-GI administration. Part of his loss in 1992 was due to people rejecting the old GI model and looking to the future.

Originally Posted by Odin

IMO the generation types should be best described as a series of bell curves, the generational boundaries being cohorts that are at 50%-50%. The '62 cohort, for example, is 50% Idealist and 50% Reactive.

Yes, this is much better model.
One more Prez for the cusper list. Truman May 8, 1884.

Originally Posted by Odin

IMO the generation types should be best described as a series of bell curves, the generational boundaries being cohorts that are at 50%-50%. The '62 cohort, for example, is 50% Idealist and 50% Reactive.

I like this.

So 100% Boomerism would be around 1951-53, with 50-50 being at 1942-44 and 1960-62.

That makes me just about 100% Millennial, no?

Originally Posted by 1990

That makes me just about 100% Millennial, no?

Yep!!!!!

Originally Posted by 1990

That makes me just about 100% Millennial, no?

You and me both

1990, did you have a bad experience with a Silent Gen cohort?

Considering that the lowest IQ in the GOP had got to be (unless you're a conspiracy theorist) the Boomer sitting in the White House, I'd say that stupidity knows no gen; it's only the forms it takes. I mean, consider a Silent guilty of hubris!

Originally Posted by MichaelEaston

1990, did you have a bad experience with a Silent Gen cohort?

No, but it just seems like the Silents running for President this cycle - namely the Thompson Twins - are remarkably unremarkable.

Originally Posted by Semo '75

What's his IQ? And on which scale?

May I guesstimate that it's around 95? Too low to run for President, IMHO.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Considering that the lowest IQ in the GOP had got to be (unless you're a conspiracy theorist) the Boomer sitting in the White House, I'd say that stupidity knows no gen; it's only the forms it takes. I mean, consider a Silent guilty of hubris!

Of course stupidity knows no gen. I don't consider the Silents any less intelligent than any other generation - hell, many of them are/were geniuses - but I was specifically referring to the Thompson Twins as intellectually lacking.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Good observation, just one nitpick. As an 1884 cohort Harry Truman is a joneser from the last saeculium just like FDR is. Who else would not back down on taking down a popular and pompus core idealist general like McArthur and be willing to nationalize the steel mills except one with at least a little prophet in them.

Strange, I noticed Truman missing from the list as you did and must have posted at about the same time. As for now, the strange thing is that the 1961 cohort group has the most Senators + of course a viable presidential candidate, while 1962 has the most house seats (10) . It will be interesting to see if this is age related or some sort of twist for this saeculum. By "most", I mean those born after 1960.

Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62

Strange, I noticed Truman missing from the list as you did and must have posted at about the same time. As for now, the strange thing is that the 1961 cohort group has the most Senators + of course a viable presidential candidate, while 1962 has the most house seats (10) . It will be interesting to see if this is age related or some sort of twist for this saeculum. By "most", I mean those born after 1960.

Well, according to last Wednesday's ward & precinct meeting for my City Council district, it's official. Our Gen-X City Councillor, Martin Heinrich, who has made a very good name for himself in city politics, is going to run for Congress against a Boomer incumbent of the other party, Heather Wilson, whose claim to fame is that she's a veteran and the veteran's friend. She was also one of those who put pressure on David Iglesias to investigate soem corrupt Democrats before the 2006 election.

Well, we had some corrupt Democrats - we even had a high profile case in the treasurer's office. This is, after all, New Mexico. But at any rate, the pressure put a lot of teeth on edge, though I was given pause when lifelong Democrat Tony Hillerman (yes, him, The novelist.) sided with Wilson on this issue.

Which is all to say that Heinrich stands a very good chance, and if he brings to Congress the same qualities he brought to City government, we're off and rolling. Plus - one of the candidates running for his local seat is a sure-as-shooting Boomer who called himself Martin's understudy and successor. There's a generational reversal for you.

BTW - the meeting was held at the Highland Senior Center. All observations about the aptness of the location will soon, I hope, be a relic of the past.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Well, according to last Wednesday's ward & precinct meeting for my City Council district, it's official. Our Gen-X City Councillor, Martin Heinrich, who has made a very good name for himself in city politics, is going to run for Congress against a Boomer incumbent of the other party, Heather Wilson, whose claim to fame is that she's a veteran and the veteran's friend. She was also one of those who put pressure on David Iglesias to investigate soem corrupt Democrats before the 2006 election.

Well, we had some corrupt Democrats - we even had a high profile case in the treasurer's office. This is, after all, New Mexico. But at any rate, the pressure put a lot of teeth on edge, though I was given pause when lifelong Democrat Tony Hillerman (yes, him, The novelist.) sided with Wilson on this issue.

Which is all to say that Heinrich stands a very good chance, and if he brings to Congress the same qualities he brought to City government, we're off and rolling. Plus - one of the candidates running for his local seat is a sure-as-shooting Boomer who called himself Martin's understudy and successor. There's a generational reversal for you.

BTW - the meeting was held at the Highland Senior Center. All observations about the aptness of the location will soon, I hope, be a relic of the past.

What did you think of the Madrid campaign last year?

Originally Posted by Semo '75

You've administered IQ tests before, then?

It was a joke. But no, nobody's gonna convince me either Fred or Tommy is the sharpest pencil in the pack.

Originally Posted by 1990

What did you think of the Madrid campaign last year?

Pitiful, pitiful. Someone should have sent her off to Toastmasters or some other public speaking training before she ever set foot in the public arena. I campaigned for her and voted for her, but my stomach gave a lurch of despair when she froze for 10 seconds during the debate. Of course, the Wilson campaign made the most of it.

Patsy Madrid: not ready for prime time. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Odin

IMO the generation types should be best described as a series of bell curves, the generational boundaries being cohorts that are at 50%-50%. The '62 cohort, for example, is 50% Idealist and 50% Reactive.

Unless it is the constant fluttering of an unkindness of ravens before your one good eye, you might want to drink less coffee or more Everclear before curving at that hour.

I didn't put Truman (1884) on the list because I stuck to boundary years (1882-1883), otherwise half the POTUSs would be on the list, making my point...pointless. I stuck to the official S&H years, since this is a public forum, and am trying to stick to "canon law" (see below on McKinnley).

[quote=1990;198815]
"Hayes was lameass. No, Hayes was a Gilded. Won his election under grossly corrupt circumstances, yet managed to keep a personally honest reputation and an ability not to offend too many people. Overall, a lightweight with a funny name and undistinguished service..."

-My point isn't that cuspers make better presidents, just that their blending makes them more likely to win.

"McKinley would have been a Hero if there was a Hero generation in the Civil War Saeculum. Instead, I guess he was a Progressive with the hubris of that missing Hero generation."

-On the ACW thread, I wandered off the reservation by proposing that the 1843 cohort could be a one year Civic-Hero generation that was cusped from both ends. I didn't get any converts.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

I didn't put Truman (1884) on the list because I stuck to boundary years (1882-1883), otherwise half the POTUSs would be on the list, making my point...pointless. I stuck to the official S&H years, since this is a public forum, and am trying to stick to "canon law" (see below on McKinnley).

Fair enough. The term "cusp" years has not been defined by S&H to the best of my knowledge With that said, I think Odin's graphical depiction does a good job.

-My point isn't that cuspers make better presidents, just that their blending makes them more likely to win.

True enough. Though I'm rather suprised that given that the shortest generations are 17/18 years and the longest were something like 33 years, that 4 years from each (2 in front/2 in back ) end up as POTUS. I'd think it would reinforce your position. Given equal chances for a short generation, 17 years, the proper percentage would be 23%. For the normal 20th century averaged lengths, say 20 years, you get just 20%! Either way, it seems cuspers are over represented, thus a confirmation of your statement.

[quote=Ragnarök_62;199092]
"Fair enough. The term "cusp" years has not been defined by S&H to the best of my knowledge With that said, I think Odin's graphical depiction does a good job."

-I took it as the literal boundary years.

"True enough. Though I'm rather suprised that given that the shortest generations are 17/18 years and the longest were something like 33 years, that 4 years from each (2 in front/2 in back ) end up as POTUS. I'd think it would reinforce your position. Given equal chances for a short generation, 17 years, the proper percentage would be 23%. For the normal 20th century averaged lengths, say 20 years, you get just 20%! Either way, it seems cuspers are over represented, thus a confirmation of your statement."

-From the Liberty (begin 1724) to the Boom (end 1960, or thereabouts) are 237 cohort years, only 22 of which are strict cusp years, yielding 9.3% as availiable cusp years, but 22% of POTUSs were strict cuspers. Pretty stark.