[WhompingWindows]

Does anyone here have thoughts about the quality of candidates as it relates to their ages (i.e. comparing late 70's Bernie/Biden and these younger candidates)? While I like the policies of Bernie, for instance, I ideally would prefer someone who doesn't have a high % likelihood of serious medical issues in the next 4 years of their life.

Is there an age that is too old to be a CEO/President/Senator/leading figure? Are they necessarily out of touch, lacking in resiliency, not forward-looking, or any of the factors we look for in our leaders?

[gpm]

A few thoughts

- President is unlike CEO/Senator/leading figure in that it has a fixed 4 year cycle (even Senator's can be democratically replaced in a few months with a by election).

- President is unlike the others in that it has a built in redundancy, the vice president. You should probably weight your opinion of the vice president candidate stronger when considering a president who is likely to become ill.

- Extremely old people seem to be as likely to be forward looking to me as middle aged people, perhaps more so. Many still care about their legacy, they probably have less concerns about personal wealth.

- Every presidential candidate is necessarily out of touch, you don't get to be in that position if you lead an even remotely normal life.

[dsfyu404ed]

>Every presidential candidate is necessarily out of touch, you don't get to be in that position if you lead an even remotely normal life.

Lincoln wasn't wealthy until he married into money. Carter and Truman were upper middle class. Eisenhower and Grant were on boring career paths that usually end with one retiring as a Lt. Colonel or thereabouts before history got in their way.

[gpm]

There are ways to have an abnormal life other than being born into money.

Let's look at Lincoln, by the time he was a presidential candidate:

- He had been married into that money for 19 years

- He had been a lawyer for 21 years - I presume this was a reasonably high paying profession like it is today (or more, the early case wikipedia mentions is 1840)

- He had served 4 terms in the Illinois House of Representatives.

- He had served a term in the US House of Representatives.

[untog]

There's another element in there - that older candidates simply have more history to contend with. That's not always a bad thing, like Bernie Sanders' presence in the anti-racism protests of the 60s. But it can be a bad thing, like Bernie Sanders having taken a trip to the USSR in 1988 (I won't disagree with anyone who says that isn't actually a thing to care about, but people do). Biden in particular is going to come up against a lot of issues for his previous zero-tolerance crime advocacy, and for the treatment of Anita Hill during the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings.

Younger candidates simply don't have to contend with that reckoning. But they have a lot less experience. You could make the case that experience should be good for a candidate, but that it doesn't always work out that way.

[bryanlarsen]

VP choice makes a bigger difference for an older candidate, which might be why rumors are that Biden will be choosing his running mate very early in the process.

[mtgx]

Bernie/Buttigieg 2020?

[bryanlarsen]

For better or worse, it's highly unlikely that the choice for running mate will be a white male.

[bkohlmann]

Unless the nominee is Harris or another woman. Then a white male would be a smart strategic move to play to middle of the country demographics, which cost the dems the 2016 election. Buttieg, as an Indianian, among other characteristics would be a perfect fit.

My hunch is part of his strategy is to make a strong showing in order to be the VP candidate for a non white male nominee.

[dragonwriter]

> For better or worse, it's highly unlikely that the choice for running mate will be a white male.

It's maybe unlikely the whole ticket will be, but there's also a good chance that the top of the ticket will be either non-white, non-male, or both.

[aaomidi]

This would be good - or Bernie/Beto for that Texas vote.

[stevenwoo]

We need to take bets on when Texas turns blue in a Presidential election, I bet 30 years in the future, 2020 is too soon. Beto did great against the least popular Senator in the United States. The voter registration number among Latinos in Texas is abysmal, but they will be a bigger bloc than any other in Texas in the future, it's just that older, whites make up 2/3 of Texas voters now and that's a pretty reliable GOP vote source.

Every year for some time people have been saying Texas will turn and it has not happened.

A little analysis here: https://www.texasmonthly.com/burka-blog/latinos-wont-turn-te...

[ams6110]

Almost nobody really makes their voting decision based on who the VP is. I'd even have to look up the name of Clinton's running mate from the last election.

[beering]

McCain/Palin was notable. I believe Biden boosted the Obama ticket by quite a bit as well.

[noobiemcfoob]

Tim Kaine, from memory. Palin sunk McCain. And Paul Ryan was no match for Joe Biden

[maccio92]

glad to hear people who are voting in the country aren't even informed about their own choice..

[toss1]

Right track here.

Specific cutoff age? I'd say not. But I would think that we should require of candidates a full independent medical workup from an independent practice, such as [1]. The kind of nonsense reports we get from the doctor selected by the person currently occupying the PResident's chair are clearly farcical.

(Of course, also beyond the bare constitutional requirements and the independent med workup, should be added: 2) minimal prior service as an elected official, 3) pass a standard HS Science & Technology test, 4) pass the INS Citizenship exam, 5) release a decade of tax returns, and perhaps a few other requirements that inform the citizenry of who is seeking the job... but what do I know, I'm just one of 300MM on the hiring committee)

[1] https://www.mayoclinic.org/departments-centers/mayo-clinic-e...

[vharuck]

I'm warming up to the idea of deep-diving into personal stuff for presidential candidates. The President is effectively above so many laws. It doesn't make sense to claim privacy like a normal citizen when choosing to run for the most powerful office in the land.

[toss1]

Indeed! Just a proper broad survey half-way deep would get us a lot further that we are now. My first impression is that a lot of personal relationships, kids, etc. can still remain private. But, yes, we really need to know about areas where a candidate could be compromised. E.g., the current occupant of the President's chair shows behaviors indicating that he's subject to significant kompromat.

[maxxxxx]

I agree. I don't want to see people 70+ as president. Being in my 50s I already notice that my physical energy is less than it used to be and I am pretty sure it will be worse once you are 70.

[ams6110]

Agree. I think 50s-60s age is ideal. Old enough to have seen some history and not be too swayed by idealism. Young enough to still be in touch with the mainstream "adult" generation and probably survive the term without any major health problems.

Reagan was beloved but probably starting to exhibit senility by the end of his 2nd term (he was 70 when first elected) if not even earlier. I'd worry about Bernie/Biden in that regard too.

[dragonwriter]

> Is there an age that is too old to be a CEO/President/Senator/leading figure?

Not really.

> Are they necessarily out of touch, lacking in resiliency, not forward-looking, or any of the factors we look for in our leaders?

No; The statistical probability may be higher with age, but we don't elect an age and get a random person of that age as a leader, so that's not important. Filtering for that is what election campaigns, executive search processes, etc., are for.