Recap:

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

i.e. 21%.

If you remove the POTUSs who were never elected (Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, Ford; all non-cuspers), it becomes even starker: 9 out of 37, or 24%.

Of the 259 cohort years (1723-1961) which were likely to produce POTUSs in the 1788-2004 elections, only 24 were "strict" cusper years (i.e. boundary years), i.e. less than 10%, meaning that cuspers are at least twice as likely to become POTUS as an "ordinary individual"; this doesn't mean that they'll be a better POTUS, or more effective at implementing their plans, but they are more likely to get the job.

There is only one major cusper candidate remaining: Senator Obama.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

Of the 259 cohort years (1723-1961) which were likely to produce POTUSs in the 1788-2004 elections, only 24 were "strict" cusper years (i.e. boundary years), i.e. less than 10%, meaning that cuspers are at least twice as likely to become POTUS as an "ordinary individual"; this doesn't mean that they'll be a better POTUS, or more effective at implementing their plans, but they are more likely to get the job.

There is only one major cusper candidate remaining: Senator Obama.

I would guess that their birth position gives them a better view of the two generations; which allows them to tailor their campagn strategy more effectively to more voters.

If we take the list of 9 Cusper Presidents, it's of interest to see who the choice was that led the then-voters to choose these individuals to be President.

Cusp years are: 1766-1767, 1791-1792, 1821-1822, 1842-1843, 1859-1860, 1882-1883, 1900-1901, 1924-1925, 1942-1943 and 1960-1961, if we use the S&H standards, correct?

1824 election - Cuspers Jackson and Adams faced Henry Clay (1777) and William Crawford (1772) with Jackson winning the popular vote and Adams winning the White House. Clearly the Compromise Cuspers were favored over the younger full Compromise Gens.

1828 election - Jackson over Adams - a wash... two Compromise Cuspers and Jackson claimed the White House he thought he'd won 4 years earlier.

1856 election - End-Compromise Cusper Buchanan over John C Fremont (1813), a younger full Transcendental.

1868 election - Gilded Cusper Grant over Horatio Seymour (1810), an older full Transcendental vs the nominally Gilded Grant and
1872 election - Gilded Cusper Grant again defeats an older full Transcendental in Horace Greeley (1811).

1896 and 1900 elections - Progressive Cusper McKinley defeats William Jennings Bryan (1860) - another Cusper twice. But McKinley represented the cusp at the start of the Progressive Gen, while Bryan was a full generation younger, representing the start of the Missionary Gen.

1932 election - End-Missionary Cusper FDR defeats Herbert Hoover (1874) an older, full Missionary.
1936 election - End-Missionary Cusper FDR defeats Alf Landon (1887) a younger, full Lost Gen, then in the
1940 election - End Missionary Cusper FDR defeats a even younger full Lost Gen member in Wendell Willkie (1892), and finally in the
1944 election - End-Missionary Cusper FDR defeats an early GI Gen representative in Thomas Dewey (1902).

1976 election - End-GI Cusper Carter beats incumbent full GI Gerald Ford (1913).

1988 election - End-GI Cusper Bush defeats Michael Dukakis (1933), a full Silent Gen.

2008 election - Gen X Cusper Barack Obama is the apparent Democratic nominee to face full Silent Gen. member Republican John McCain (1936). Will Obama be the 10th Cusper President?

Or on another day, which Cusper nominees lost election races? We already know about Adams in 1828. Carter lost in 1980 to full-GI Ronald Reagan (1911) and Bush lost to full-Boomer Bill Clinton (1946) in the 1992 election.

Wes

Senator Obama is a Cusper (b.1961)...

Originally Posted by Skipper59

I would guess that their birth position gives them a better view of the two generations; which allows them to tailor their campagn strategy more effectively to more voters.

-That's where I've been going with this, and everyone else seems to agree.

Wesvolk looks at from the other way:

Originally Posted by wesvolk

1824 election - Cuspers Jackson and Adams faced Henry Clay (1777) and William Crawford (1772) with Jackson winning the popular vote and Adams winning the White House. Clearly the Compromise Cuspers were favored over the younger full Compromise Gens.

1828 election - Jackson over Adams - a wash... two Compromise Cuspers and Jackson claimed the White House he thought he'd won 4 years earlier...

1896 and 1900 elections - Progressive Cusper McKinley defeats William Jennings Bryan (1860) - another Cusper twice. But McKinley represented the cusp at the start of the Progressive Gen, while Bryan was a full generation younger, representing the start of the Missionary Gen...

...Carter lost in 1980 to full-GI Ronald Reagan (1911)...

...and Bush lost to full-Boomer Bill Clinton (1946) in the 1992 election...

The following major party Cuspers lost election (or re-election) bids:

JQ Adams 1828 (b. 1767)
WJ Bryan 1896 (b. 1860)
WJ Bryan 1900 (b. 1860)
WJ Bryan 1908 (b. 1860)
Stevenson 1952 (b. 1900)
Stevenson 1956 (b. 1900)
Carter 1980 (b. 1924)
GHW Bush 1992 (b. 1924)
Kerry 2004 (b. 11 DEC 1943)

(You could also include: Breckinridge 1860 (b. 1821) who was the Southern Wing "D", but I'll count him as "Third Party")

Oddly, the losers for a 1st-term bids were all "D"s, and two of them were allowed to try more than once.

Anyway, 9 of the 55 elections included major party Cuspers who lost i.e. 16% (far more than the Cusper's 9% share).

On the other hand, 15 of the 55 elections included major party Cuspers who won i.e. 27%.

This means almost 22% of major party candidates were Cuspers.

Cuspers are more likely to become their party's nominee, and more likely to get elected when they do.

Originally Posted by jamesdglick

There is only one major cusper candidate remaining: Senator Obama.

Who is running with a cusper VP, Biden ('42) vs full Silent McCain ('36) and Xer Palin ('64).

According to history this would give Obama/Biden a better chance of winning.

I wonder how many other presidential tickets have been double cuspers. I think I'll edit this post with a list...

Anyway this brings up another point. The argument on one of the threads (I think the Obama thread) about how Obama's too young to have Gray Champion status. Considering FDR was a Prophet/Nomad cusper also and was the GC of the last crisis, he shouldn't be ruled out. (Not that he is of course, only time will tell.)

Originally Posted by writerGrrl

Who is running with a cusper VP, Biden ('42) vs full Silent McCain ('36) and Xer Palin ('64).

According to history this would give Obama/Biden a better chance of winning.

I wonder how many other presidential tickets have been double cuspers. I think I'll edit this post with a list...

-Please do...

Update:

Of the 263 cohort years (1723-1965) which were likely to produce POTUSs in the 1788-2008 elections, only 24 were "strict" cusper years (i.e. boundary years), i.e. less than 10%.

Of the 43 men who have been (or will be) POTUS, 10 were "cuspers":

Jackson 1767
JQ Adams 1767
Buchannan 1791
Grant 1822
Hayes 1822
McKinnley 1843
FDR 1882
Carter 1924
Bush '41 1924
Obama 1961

i.e. 23%.

This means that cuspers are at least twice as likely to become POTUS as an "ordinary" individual; this doesn't mean that they'll be a "better" POTUS, or more effective at implementing their plans, but they are more likely to get the job.

If you remove the POTUSs who were never elected (Tyler, Fillmore, Johnson, Arthur, Ford; all non-cuspers), it becomes even starker: 10 out of 38, or 26%.

Senator Biden, the VPOTUS-elect, is also a Cusper (b. 1942).