Regular readers are probably wondering: so how does the apparent upset in Alaska affect the aging of the Senate? Good question! Lisa Murkowski is 53. Toast of the town Joe Miller is exactly 10 years younger, at 43. And I suppose I should mention Democratic longshot Scott McAdams, but alas his age is not readily apparent from a quick look around.
So, if Murkowski has in fact lost, it's another nice little contribution to a somewhat younger Senate. Previous update here...since then, outside of the disappointment in Arizona, the news has been OK for the young folks. In Kansas, Moran (56) defeated Tiahrt (59). In Colorado, Bennet (45) did hold off Romanoff (43), but on the other side Norton (55) lost to Buck, who still isn't publicizing his age but is probably around 50. Just as a reminder, the 111th Senate began as the oldest ever, continuing a streak in which pretty much every Senate for some time now has set a new record for oldest ever -- a streak that will, I'm pretty sure, come to an end in 2011. Once the primaries are over, I'll probably do another full overview.
Just a thought, but is the reversal of this trend at least partially responsible for the narrative of anti-incumbency? It seems plausible that there's a slippage between the concepts of age and institutional entrenchment.
ReplyDeleteThis suggests an item for your brother the Boston political writer: Is it a good thing that Mass. Democratic candidates for Kennedy's seat in the U.S. Senate in 2009-10 were in their late fifties or early sixties? Wouldn't it be better for the state if a first-term Senator was in his or her 40s (or even younger, as EMK was)? And what is the outlook for 2012 in that regard, when the seat is again up for grabs?
ReplyDelete