I would like to address whether it is ageism or realistic to address candidate's ages

[flotsam]

The 5 youngest presidents on their date of inauguration where
Teddy Roosevelt
JFK
Bill Clinton
U.. S. Grant
Barrack Obama
All of whom were 47 or younger

The Oldest 5
GHW Bush
James Buchanan
William Henry Harrison
Ronald Reagan
Donald Trump
With Trump the oldest at 70, though Reagan turned 70 17 days after his inauguration.

I won't bother to argue the relative virtues of the two groups though that would be easy. My point is this-in the elder group Harrison died after 31 days in office and Reagan suffered Alzheimer's while in office and Trump is clearly in the throes of age related mental decline. At least 3 of our leading candidates Would be by years the oldest president ever to enter the office.

And I think that is something to worry about.

[msongs]

1. the younger crowd is lacking star power. nt

[CaliforniaPeggy]

3. What they might lack in star power, they more than make up for with....

Great ideas, energy, health, the ability to see the world in all its complexities. And so on.

Star power sounds good, but it's no substitute for brain power and intelligence.

[Skya Rhen]

16. The electorate does not want the young candidates. The poll numbers consistently show this. Sheesh!

[pnwmom]

12. Obama, JFK, and Clinton lack star power? Compared to Trump, Bush Sr. and Reagan?

[jberryhill]

2. Everyone knows how old the candidates are

And pretty much everyone has their mind made up about whether it matters to them in any particular instance.

[Hoyt]

4. Yes, it's a concern. Lack of wisdom is a worry too.

BTW, Warren — like me — falls in the age group of “worry.”

[flotsam]

5. And GHW Bush was younger than me

...when he took office. Also Warren is my pick though I do worry. So I ran the numbers and posted the results which seem pretty stark.

[TexasBushwhacker]

6. I'm 62 and it concerns me

So it's not just a millennial thing. I know I'm not as sharp as I was in my 40s and 50s.

[Cha]

7. It's not the age, gender, or race to me..

it's the person who I think will be best for the job and beating the psychotic asshole face in the WH

[brush]

8. trump is no spring chicken either so age is as much of a factor.

Now health is another matter. We should be concerned about heart attacks.

[elleng]

9. It's both;

tread with caution.

[RockRaven]

10. I don't want a candidate who can't finish two terms appearing healthy/competent (i.e. not Reagan-y)

But the devil/rub/problem/whatever-phrase is that it's near impossible to predict that in the case of any specific person.

It's foolish to assert, on the basis of their age alone, that someone in their 40s or 50s or 60s will certainly have a decade of good health ahead of them. Most of us have personal, if not specifically familial, experiences to the contrary.

But in the same vein it is also utter nonsense to assert that there will certainly NOT be significant ill-health in the decade to come for some person in their 60s or 70s or 80s. That is not a safe bet for virtually any person.

Getting the Oval Office away from Trump/the GOP is more important than which Dem candidate it is. That is the priority... All this age business goes out the window IF the premise is that only some older candidate is the only one who can beat him or has the disproportionately best chance of doing so.

BUT if the premise is that most Dems can beat him, then it is totally legit to consider the prospective POTUS's age... just like it is legit to consider ANY characteristic which affects their decision-making capacity, their opinions and priorities, and their experience and knowledge-base -- age, gender, sexual orientation, religion/not, education, economic strata, where they grew up, where they live now, military service, previous elected office, pets, children, foreign travel, etc.

[BlueMTexpat]

14. Insofar as Alzheimer's Disease is

concerned, being younger is not necessarily a guarantee. Unfortunately.

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/alzheimers-disease/earlyonset-alzheimer-disease

What is early-onset Alzheimer disease?

Alzheimer disease is the most common form of dementia. It affects your memory, thinking, and behavior. It often progresses to the point where it affects daily activities and functions.

Alzheimer disease most commonly affects older adults, but it can also affect people in their 30s or 40s. When Alzheimer disease occurs in someone under age 65, it is known as early-onset (or younger-onset) Alzheimer disease.

A very small number of people with Alzheimer disease have the early-onset form. Many of them are in their 40s and 50s when the disease takes hold. ...

***********
More at the link.

The odds against are certainly much better if you're younger. But no guarantee. That is one reason why I am delighted at each medical advance that helps either with diagnosis and/or treatment. It is a horrible disease, as anyone who has seen it in their own family or other loved ones knows all too well.

[Demsrule86]

23. All of the top candidates are above 70...Warren the youngest would 79 + at the end of her second

term...older than Reagan when he left office.

[peggysue2]

11. It's ageism

Which sings along with sexism, racism and all the 'isms' out there.

We all grow old. It's a fact of life. We age, however, at different levels depending on a whole host of variables: DNA, life styles, unfortunate injury or disease, whatever. And youth surprisingly is not a guaranteed ticket to vitality or long-life.

JFK, for instance, had Addison's disease.

We have a lot of things to worry about between now and November 2020. Winning the election is paramount. Campaigning for a presidential election is strenuous. Bernie Sanders had a heart attack yet he's back out there like the Energizer Bunny. Commitment, attitude and passion often outweigh an individual's particular age. And with age, comes experience and perspective.

Age is the last thing I'm worried about at this point. Beating Trump is EVERYTHING.

[LAS14]

32. Ageism is different. It's ageism when an individual is judged to have...

... certain qualities, based on statistics of their group. It is not ageism to acknowledge real things that happen as individuals get old. To pretend they don't exist is nuts.

[peggysue2]

33. Trust me, I'm hardly pretending problems don't arise with age

But I also think it's important we realize different people age at different rates. And youth is simply not a guarantee to excellent health and/or acuity.

That, and the fact we need to win this thing. Which is why age is the last thing on my list.

[Cousin Dupree]

13. Ageism is a type of prejudice. Call it what it is.

[BlueMTexpat]

15. I believe that age alone is

not the factor to consider.

My last remaining maternal aunt recently passed. She was 91 and mentally as sharp as ever. She was one of the fortunate ones who, until her last months, was also in excellent physical health.

But while everyone likely knows of similar cases, they are not the norm.

If there are other indications of declining physical health or of memory lapses, then I would most likely hesitate to vote for someone 70+ who regularly or consistently exhibits evidence of one or both.

But I would also be hesitant to vote for someone younger who exhibits such characteristics or has a family history of such.

[Demsrule86]

24. Warren would be almost 80 at the end of a second term...and if you are saying Biden exhibits the

aging signs you describe...I disagree and feel you are attacking Biden. He does not such thing...and this is a right wing talking point that has no business being used against the probably nominee of our party.

[oldsoftie]

17. Its no more "ageist" (stupid term IMO) than being concerned about being too young.

President isnt a simple desk job. Everything has to be considered.

[highplainsdem]

18. Hi, flotsam! I think the fact you support Warren even though she's 70 should tell you NOT to worry

very much about age.

But please don't beat yourself up wondering if the worry is ageism, either. (Our culture unfortunately encourages ageism.)

Are you worried about Nancy Pelosi being Speaker at her age? I'm guessing you probably aren't. Which again should tell you not to place too much importance on age.

Being a few decades younger doesn't guarantee good health. All of our younger-than-70 candidates, if not already at or past the age at which heart attack risk rises significantly (45 for men, 50 for women) will reach that age within an 8-year term.

The risk of cancer increases significantly after age 50, and again, that is relevant to most of our candidates.

The risk of stroke increases greatly after 45, too.

If we were concerned only about health, we'd set the minimum age for POTUS at 18. That's never going to happen, for obvous reasons.

Health IS important. I think it's important for candidates for president to release medical records (and not the ridiculous puff pieces Trump has allowed to be released about his health).

But experience is equally important, and that's something that can only be gained with time.

And wisdom is probably most important...and again, that takes time to acquire.

[TidalWave46]

19. I think it's worth discussing.

I can’t make up my mind right now but two of the candidates I support are too old for my liking. I felt the same about Clinton but supported her in the primary. I think her opponent might have even been older. He looked older.

One of the people I’m leaning toward is Biden. I’m hung up on him being a one-termer. You see, even he is contemplating his age in his decision making.

[Evergreen Emerald]

20. It is not ageism. It is reality.

Pretending there are no "senior moments" is lying to yourself.

Age takes a toll, mentally and physically. Whether those changes that come with age are significant enough to rule out the presidency is an individual's decision.

Of course, some fare better than others with age. Genetics, and lifestyle affect the results. Hillary Clinton is still a genius. Her mental facilities are top notch. Biden has not fared as well unfortunately. And it shows.

Trump--dementia is evident. And he is getting worse and worse.

Our pool of candidates was whittled down based on high-profile status. So, the older candidates who have been in the national spotlight are faring better than the less well known candidates who have the experience and values to be great Presidents.

We need to stop pretending.

[bluedye33139]

21. Trump is a great example

Every month we watch him decline and get worse. He is not up to the challenges he is facing.

Undeniably advanced age is a factor. It makes our nation vulnerable because we don't have a coherent or active executive.

Democrats have not elected a senile president in my lifetime. But Reagan and Trump are frightening examples of what happens when an executive drifts.

I don't think it is ageism to talk about this.

[Demsrule86]

22. I would remind you that your chosen candidate is above 70. At 71 my aunt had dementia.

She died that year...had been healthy as a horse for all years preceding her 71st year. Thus, you are in fact attempting to disqualify your own candidate?!! If as I suspect this is another shot at Biden... then it is kind of like glass house analysis if you ask me....people living in glass houses shouldn't throw stones!

We have a vice president for a reason...and our youngest president...Kennedy did not serve out his full term but we managed to continue having a government in place...I vote for the candidate as he /she is now...knowing that a VP will take care of things if necessary.

[flotsam]

25. Look at the two groups

One group has two of the worst presidents ,plus one who died within a month, an unremarkable one termer, and the elder Bush. Only Reagan managed reelection to a second term.

The second group includes four two term presidents and an iconic American Martyr in JFK. And oh yeah-one of them made Mt. Rushmore.

Now pretend you were unaware that age was the basis for the grouping and ask which group seem a better bet for a successful presidency. Yep I support Warren but these factors make VP choice which voters have no control over a critical consideration. Perhaps it would be better were candidates to name a running mate prior to the convention.

[Demsrule86]

27. Ah that is a really not convinciing...and it is ageism which is kind of funny considering Warren's

age. Let's Look at the past as our only guide and ...not a great guide for your candidate who will be the same age Reagan was when he became president and when he left the presidency...it just blows your argument out of the water.

[peggysue2]

29. My sister is 67

She's in full-blown dementia, a cruel disability that has been creeping into existence since her early to mid-50s. She's following our father's path with the same cognitive deterioration. Age did not protect her from whatever went haywire in her head.

JFK as young and vital as he appeared suffered from Addison's disease, a severe, chronic condition that had he survived the assassination would have probably shortened his lifespan. FDR persevered after the ravages of polio, disguised his paralysis so effectively that the vast majority of Americans had no idea he couldn't walk under his own steam.

The point being health and age cannot be the only factors in choosing a nominee. Otherwise we'd be selecting from a band of teenagers for the Oval Office and I doubt anyone would consider that a good thing.

Age has its counterbalance in experience and knowledge. The best qualified and the candidate who can beat Trump is the best combination. Because winning in 2020 is EVERYTHING.

[Demsrule86]

30. I am so sorry to hear this about your sister...you pick your candidate and in the now...not based on

what may happen.

[peggysue2]

31. Exactly!

Since none of us have reliable crystal balls to tell the future, our decision must rest in the present: Number 1, Who can beat the living daylights out of Trump; Number 2, Who has the best qualifications (experience and knowledge) for repairing and restoring our badly broken government, domestic and foreign-policy wise; and Number 3, Who would garner the most trust across the country to do what's best for all our citizens?

For me, that's Joe Biden. Hands down.

Btw Demsrule, thanks for the comment. My sister's situation is sad indeed, particularly after watching our dad's decline. If there's one bright note, she's passed the point of being terrified of the condition. It's just go with the flow now. She's also fortunate in having a completely dedicated partner to whom I give scads of thanks and admiration. Caretakers are truly unsung heroes.

[redqueen]

26. Most definitely it's a realistic concern.

Most of the country isn't paying much attention yet.

Undecided / don't know is still the clear winner, the true lone front runner.

We just have to decide for ourselves who we think represents our best chances and vote accordingly. Obviously for people who put experience above other things, the age isn't so much of a factor.

[LisaM]

28. It's not just the candidate's age... it's the team she or he has.

I am a strong proponent of an all-ages workplace. We currently have four generations on the workplace, and they all have something to offer.

[loyalsister]

34. Our bodies and brains change with time

It's relevant because the odds of losing function and experiencing conditions which interfere with optimal functioning increase with time to 100% when we finally die. It's a natural process and it's a safe bet that younger candidates have more years ahead during which they can work at their highest capacity. The presidency is a 24 - 7 job that requires significant physical and mental investment. I firmly believe that if we want to elect someone who we can count on to run a 2nd term, we would do well to nominate one of the younger candidates. Time may be an artificial construct, but age is a physical measurement we recognize as relevant until at least until the agreed upon milestone of adulthood is reached. To label any consideration of age beyond that milestone as ageist makes no sense to me. It matters.

[mopinko]

35. chronological age, not so much, but

mental and physical age, yes.
imho, bernie already has a pretty hardened way of thinking that is not good enough to keep up w the job.
joe is less so, but i do think he is a little stuck in the past, too.

warren, i think, unless she is putting up a big front, is plenty young enough for the job.