[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_Unit...
[0] Using the Strauss-Howe definitions of generations https://www.lifecourse.com/about/method/the-generational-con...
Edit: Silents were born 1925-1942. Just thought I should mention it here so you don't have to click the link. Biden was born in November 1942, so he's just before the cutoff.
Maybe people who grew up during the Great Depression had less opportunities? Or maybe baby boomers born right after the war overcame the silent generation in influence by numbers.
I think we're starting to see a similar phenomenon with Generation X being pushed out by long-lived Boomers and even a couple of Silents, but at least we had Obama (born 1961, so he barely counts) in between Boomers.
With that said, it's not for lack of trying that we haven't had a Silent president. Aside from the aforementioned Mondale and Kennedy's attempt, we've also had Michael Dukakis and John McCain as major-party nominees, the only third-party candidate who had a chance in Ross Perot, plus Bernie Sanders was a major contender and runner-up for the Democratic nomination twice.
It has long been standard to refer to candidates as President-Elect once one the results of the election of electors is reasonably clear. One might argue that it is not technically accurate until after the Congress tallies the votes of the Electoral College and announces the result of that tally, but it is the long accepted usage and the use of it to refer to Biden at this point is in no way noteworthy or a deviation from what long-established practice.
Also, of course, Kamala Harris makes history as first woman of color elected US vicepresident.-
Biden has already changed his Twitter bio to "president-elect": - https://twitter.com/joebiden
Assuming that "significant non-european ancestry" is the determining line here.
Biden: 77 years, 353 days
Trump: 70 years, 220 days
Reagan: 69 years, 349 days
Of course this is necessary but one of my favorite pasttimes is to look at vandalism changes in the history, and I would have loved to see some of the stuff people came up with on either side.
This fact is more illustrative of whatever divide the US is under than anything else. It's generational conflict. And face it, the American president is not of any generation that has yet to build their future. A waxy president who is full of thought and reflection might not be the wise emperor who is still mighty enough to control the backstabbing theatre that is politics.
Effectively, in terms of foreign policy, I think nothing, absolutely nothing will change. From a non-American point of view, Trump did nothing too different from what Clinton would have done, and a Biden will not do something too different from what a Trump would do. Or do what he is told, for that matter.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/02/world/asia/xi-jinping-chi...
The concession plan is clear, and everyone knows the vice president of whoever wins. I don't see the problem.
Barak Obama (59) Bill Clinton (74) George W. Bush (74) edit: Donald Trump (74)
[edit] - You have to be 35 or older to be president, which for people born in 1946 would be 1981. Clinton was president for 8 years, Bush for 8, Trump for 4, so 20. For the majority of the time since people born in 1946 were eligible to be president, they have been.
This suggests that experienced editors have reached consensus regarding the likely outcome of the election.