Would you vote for someone whose positions and philosophy you vehemently disagreed with over someone you were mostly in agreement with due to their age, however?
No. Not even a little. Maybe as tiebreaker.
I think we’re pretty much in agreement, then.
“Not a Republican” is literally the only qualification I am interested in after primaries.
The fundamental issue is that we can’t actually vote for “none of the above”. So it’s always about who else is on the ballot.
Sure, but a lot of this is about the primaries, not the general election.
You may not want to vote for a young candidate whom you vehemently disagree with, over an old one you do agree with, but your party could surely offer up hundreds of young candidates whom you do agree with.
Or who I agree with a whole lot more than the other party’s candidates, anyway.
If we’re talking about POTUS, and more or less the current situation: while there are almost certainly way more than hundreds of young Democrats, or people willing to call themselves Democrats for the purpose, who I’d agree with much more than any of the remotely likely Republican candidates: in practice, maybe a dozen of them at most would make it onto my primary ballot, and probably a lot fewer would still be in by the time they get around to my state. Sure, I could do a write-in; but unless something really extraordinary were happening that would be a thrown away vote.
And judging by the last round, out of that maybe-a-dozen there would be at least a couple who I really, really wouldn’t want to be the nominee, even if all the others were 85.
Out of the remainder: that would be one factor out of many. How much I agreed with the person would be a factor; how important the issues I disagreed with them on (there’d be bound to be something) were to me in comparison with the ones I agreed on would be another; how effective I thought they could be at getting anything done would be yet another; how willing and able I thought they were to absorb new information and change course if necessary; how good they appeared to be at telling true information from inaccurate “information”; how they seemed to treat other people; whether they seemed to be at least reasonably honest; and how likely I thought they were to be able to get themselves elected would also be important. If my conclusion after balancing all of those things were that I couldn’t make up my mind between/among two or more candidates (and it has happened), then age among other things would come into it; but it wouldn’t outweigh any of those factors.
But that is who the kremlin and the GOP want you to vote for.
That’s assuming primaries matter. If Biden has the backing of the majority of the Democratic base then the primaries are a moot point.
Whatever the national retirement age is, minus 4 (or whatever the national term length is in your nation).
Do we have a “national retirement age”?
Are you an American? Then the answer is “Yes”.
It’s also “Yes” for South Africa.
Ah. By “national retirement age” you meant the age at which one becomes eligible for full Social Security benefits. That was one possible meaning of the phrase, among several, that I could think of.
Many people don’t retire then, however; and Social Security assumes that many people won’t do so.
And…?
It’s still the national retirement age, I don’t see the point of continuing this hijack after I cleared up T_B’s understandable question.
The OP asked a question, I answered it with my very straightforward criterion.
When some people actually retire has got nothing to do with my answer, which is based on the single figure that is a legislative matter, not an employment statistic.
And before anyone asks, in any places where there are no nationally-agreed retirement ages, I would set the maximum age of a candidate at 61 (assuming a 4-year term).
So you consider that Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Ronald Reagan, William Henry Harrison, James Buchanan, George H. W. Bush, Zachary Taylor, and Dwight D. Eisenhower should have been ineligible to be elected President. If you’re saying that you include those who are 61 years and some days old at the time, this includes Andrew Jackson, John Adams, and Gerald Ford.
Probably not much, if it all. There is some evidence, definitely not conclusive but certainly suggestive, that humans may really have a hard biological ceiling which might be around 125 (maybe 150 by some estimates, but there is zero demographic evidence to support that high of a number). We are certainly not seeing a slew of new contenders for Jeanne Calment’s throne, despite massive advances in health care in recent decades.
No, I’m saying I would not be willing to vote for them. That was the OP’s question. Perhaps my “set the maximum age” phrasing was confusing - I was talking about my own internal metrics, which I would adjust relative to whichever country is being considered.
Other investigators say that there is no such thing as a hard biological ceiling. They’ve noted that when someone reaches the age of 105, from then on they have a 50% chance of dying in the next year for the rest of their life. There have now been enough people living to 105 (within the time of good records) to check this. So the number living to 119 is 1/(2**14) = 1/16,384 of all those who lived to be 105, which is actually approximately consistent with the number who have lived to 119 among those in the time of good records. So if the human race expands to where it occupies billions of planets in the observable universe with billions of people on each planet and this continues for billions of years, we can expect that approximately one of those people will live to around 150.
I’m not sure that does me any good 
.