As it currently stands, the Democratic Party is largely still coalescing behind Biden as the 2024 nominee, despite the fact that he’d be 86 years old by the time he stepped down at the end of his second term, were he reelected.
Assuming that a candidate does not have glaring mental deficiencies (such as obvious dementia or Alzheimer’s, although it’s always possible that he/she has a mild form of it that’s hard to detect externally,) what’s the age ceiling cutoff point at which you’d say, “Sorry, no, our party must go with someone younger instead?”
For clarification, I meant more in the primaries than in the general election, although both apply.
Since you’re diehard anti-Republican, the question would be more like, at what age would you decide that a candidate is simply too old to be your party’s nominee, versus many younger rivals within your same party?
If you merkins bestow SC justices with life appointments and have senators being re-elected decades past the onset of their dotage (on the basis they are effective because they happen to have top notch staff) and the advantage of seniority giving prime access to the pork barrel, why should there be the distinction for POTUS to have any more vital signs than a pulse?
The bigger question is why won’t (the collective) you vote in the primaries or the general for people in their prime?
Well, to play devil’s advocate here, with SC justices and Senators, there’s more than one of them. So if one ends up being kind of ineffective due to age issues, the others can pick up the slack. How hard would it be for Old Senator A to decide that Young Senator B makes pretty good choices about what to support, and then just copy them?
But there’s only one President, and they have to make choices that no one else can, or should, be making. If the President ends up incapacitated, then you have a real crisis of leadership right at the top of the government.
That being said, absent obvious signs of problems, I wouldn’t put a limit on how old someone should be to get my vote. In general, yes, I’d like it if we had some younger people vying for the office, and it would be a factor in my decision, but not a hard-and-fast cutoff rule. A vibrant 80-year-old would be better than a 60-year-old who looks like they’re dragging their ass.
I don’t know, but I’m disappointed that 1500 is not an option in the poll. Just getting bucketed with “older than 100” doesn’t really capture my enthusiasm for Richard Nixon’s head.
Gender is a factor. It always depends on the individual, of course, but I’m comfortable with a higher number for a woman than a man because of general life expectancy.
That depends on why women have a higher life expectancy. If it’s just because men are more likely to do dangerous things that would get them killed when they’re younger, it’s irrelevant here. In any case, when deciding whether a particular individual was fit to be president, I’d be looking at that individual and not at statistical averages.
This is pretty much my answer. I’d be very hesitant to vote for someone who was “old old,” but that happens to different people at very different ages.
I don’t think that’s why. I know plenty of healthy and active men & women in their late 70s. The 80s are a different ballgame, but barring other health issues, women tend to do better in their 80s.
It’s certainly a factor, but especially if the running mate is of decent calibre, I would not utterly rule out a candidate on the basis of age. Jimmy Carter looks better to me now than he did in 1976 and he’s eligible.
I don’t consider age a hard yes/no factor in choosing a candidate. It may be a contributing factor. If candidate A and Candidate B both check all of my acceptability boxes and then need to be further vetted against a supplementary internal checklist of “rathers”, then age might come into it as one consideration among many.
On the other hand, capability is definitely at the top of my hard yes/no checklist. If a candidate appears potentially incapable of handling the job, due to mental decline, health worries, or other infirmities (that often accompany advanced age, but aren’t necessarily confined to or universal to that demographic), I’d likely prefer someone else.
Thanks for the replies thus far everyone. I do find it interesting that the vast majority of people who voted in the poll voted that even 85 years is too old, yet the vast majority of people replying in the thread say there is essentially no age limit for them.
Biden is too old for me this fall, but I will vote for him anyway. Potentially declining Biden (he seems fine to me right now) is a much smaller risk than any of the possible Republicans.
Yeah. I’m not going to set an exact age; the degree to which it’s a factor will depend on the individual’s apparent condition.
And also on who they’re running against. Age/health are among the things which I consider in such a decision; other factors can overwhelm those factors.
If you mean politically, sure. If you mean health-wise, did you miss the recent news that he’s in hospice care?
And I can’t answer based on any one criterion, because a presidential election (general or primary) is always a choice between a small number of candidates, and no matter how bad any one candidate is (by any metric), it’s possible that all of the other candidates are even worse.
I mean, we all remember Trump saying that nobody should vote for Clinton because she was too old, right?
