‘I will not make age an issue in this campaign’

So said Ronald Reagan in a TV debate 1984 when he stood for a second term, when his opponent Walter Mondale was 56 and Reagan himself was 73.

And then Reagan continued, to much laughter: “I am not going to exploit my opponent’s youth and inexperience.”

If, as looks increasingly likely, Mitt Romney gets the Republican nomination, he’ll be 65 when he stands in the general election this November.

And Republicans like elderly candidates.

Indeed, in the eight presidential elections since 1980, the only candidate who wasn’t at in least his mid to late 60s at the time of the election, was George W Bush. The details are as follows –

That’s an average age of 66. And there doesn’t seem to be much correlation between age and electoral success. While the septuagenarians Dole and McCain both lost, Reagan was hugely successful.

Yet these days British political parties try to steer well clear of elderly leaders – the only exceptions in recent times being Michael Howard and Ming Campbell.

Since Neil Kinnock replaced Michael Foot as Labour leader in 1983, the fashion has been for Britsih parties to pick someone in their 40s, often very early 40s (or occasionally younger). Indeed, one of my rules for British leadership elections is that the youngest candidate generally wins.

So why are the US Republicans different?

Perhaps it’s because American revere and respect elderly people a lot more than we do, but that hasn’t persuaded the Democrats to pick older candidates.

The oldest Democrat contenders since the war were Harry Truman, who was 64 in 1948, and John Kerry, who was 60 in 2004.

Another curiosity, pointed out by my friend Tom Fairbrother, is that all the candidates since Reagan – again except George W Bush – went for the Republican nomination in previous contests and failed. In contrast, Democrat candidates these days are more likely to be first-timers.