I know this is a controversial statement to make:

[kentuck]

But I think 80-years old is too old to be President.

Just my opinion.

Three of the present candidates now in the race could be 80-years old by their 2nd year in office.

With that said, I would likely vote for either of them over the present and clear danger now occupying that space. Although it would be very difficult to vote for Mr Bloomberg.

[BusyBeingBest]

1. I agree, it's too old. It's why Amy appeals to me the most.

Aside from her other positives, I should add.

[krissey]

2. Hitting 60, I agree.

[tiredtoo]

3. at 79

i totally agree with you but, VOTE BLUE NO MATTER WHO!

[CalFione]

4. Every candidate in both parties is either over 70 or under 40. Except one.

Amy Klobuchar.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

6. Pete Buttigieg is also under 40. He's 38. n/t

[CalFione]

9. That's what I said. Every candidate is OVER 70 *OR* UNDER 40. Except Klobuchar.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

10. You're right! I misread you. Time for my nap!

[TheCowsCameHome]

20. Don't feel bad Miss Peggy, I sleep right through my naps sometimes.

[Mr.Bill]

5. Trump is in far worse health than any other candidate. n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

14. That certainly brightens my day.

[Moostache]

26. Mine too...

C'mon nature....hurry up and catch up to him already! He is waaaaaay overdue for a reckoning...

[mylightningtoo]

7. I agree 100%

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

8. I'm 71, and in better health than almost anyone I know who's my age.

I don't want to vote for anyone older than me.

[jzola]

11. I agree

to old to be President.

[AngelicaHora]

12. It shouldn't be controversial

I've never seriously considered any of the candidates that are approaching 80. Especially with so many other qualified people running. I'm shocked it hasn't held them back more.

[TheCowsCameHome]

13. That's why the VP choice is more critical than ever.

I think Bloomberg is probably the fittest of the 70's group, though.

[Rorey]

15. I consider myself to be very healthy (knock on wood)

I'm a 65 year old woman. I have more stamina than a lot of younger people I know. I do all of my own yard work, and I have a huge yard. I do almost all of the maintenance on my property, all of the painting, all of the renovating, etc. I'm a really good armchair contestant on Jeopardy (I've still got use of my brain.....knock on wood again). Still, there's no way in hell that I would want to take on a job as demanding as the presidency.

IOW, I completely agree. But like everyone else, I'll vote blue, no matter who.

[murielm99]

16. I am 71 and mostly healthy.

I could not stand up to the strain of being President. My 75 year old husband could not do it, either.

We are both very active in local and state politics. But we have begun to pace ourselves there, too. We don't do EVERYTHING any more. We would burn out.

[Sloumeau]

17. Yet you seem to be perfectly fine with the candidate who would turn 80...

5 months after her second term. You have a convenient cutoff point.

[CalFione]

18. A 78-year-old who recently had a heart attack, SHOULD be an issue

It has nothing to do with his political positions. But we're talking about a high-stress position as leader of the free world. The medical history of a man near 80 years old who has heart disease is a very vital thing for the public to know.

[kentuck]

19. Jimmy Carter commented on this subject:

[Laelth]

24. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[sarisataka]

21. 90% of the discussion is about

Three white males whose combined age is 232. That is as old as the ratification of the Constitution.

Either of the three would be better than what is currently in office but why is there so little consideration of any of the other three main candidates? Democrats won the last three popular elections without a white male as the candidate; do we really believe a woman or gay man has absolutely no chance this time?

[Girl powers]

22. Too old to be President

Im 79 and 1/2 and you are absolutely right! GGP

[Laelth]

23. Absolutely.

As you noted above, James Earl Carter, Jr. said he didn't think he could do the job well if he were in his seventies. Besides, Democrats have won elections over the past 60 years when they have nominated much younger candidates (JFK, Carter, Clinton, Obama). This is one of the major reasons that I support Mayor Pete. Systemic change needs youthful energy and optimism.

-Laelth

[Moostache]

27. There is no natural age cut-off, but overall health concerns SHOULD be an issue

I am willing to believe Sanders that his doctors gave him an "OK" to campaign and seek the highest office...it makes his choice of running mate extremely important should he secure the nomination, but its not disqualifying from running.

Should people in their 8th decade on the planet, and preparing to enter a 9th, really represent the entire country?
That is something individual voters have to wrestle with and decide for themselves.
I worry about it for candidates on our side because I genuinely do not want to see anything bad happen to any of them; but at the same time, I hope like hell that the job gives Trump just enough stress to bring on his fatal heart attack at his age.

In the end, some people are blessed with long life and stamina to make sound active decisions well into their nineties and beyond...my grandmother was not, though she lived to be 96, the last 20 of those years were nothing like the previous 76; and the final 5 were just a gut wrenching, slow motion plunge into the void; where no one was familiar to her, nothing was tied to anything more than the previous day, and the vibrant person we all knew and loved just disappeared day by day.

My vote was sealed for the Democratic candidate back in November of 2016, so this is not an issue for me to make a determining factor in my general election vote...however, it does give me pause in the primaries...

More than policies or specifics or age as a number, I also look at this election as being one where a younger candidate is not only a possibility, but more of a necessity than ever before. The major issues of climate change, social security and the changing needs of the economy and the job market are all long-term issues that decisions made today will have impacts 40, 50 and 60 years from now...none of the candidates in their 70's will be around to experience any of those long-range consequences...actuarial table wise speaking, they are at the edges of probability already.

I do at least consider if the candidate I am going to vote for is likely to still be alive for a potential re-election campaign...

[Awsi Dooger]

28. I basically agree with this

Our bench became a disaster during the Obama years when we lost so many governorships. Otherwise we should have an entire flock of viable guys in the proper age range right now, all with impressive resumes. Instead we have basically none. A few semis tried this year and had no traction whatsoever.

I started out with Beto because he was proper age and also charismatic and well spoken and moderate. Even if Beto flamed out early he would have been formidable in a general election. We need 5 or 10 candidates with that type of ideal blueprint and then let things sort out.