I am willing to let voters decide if a candidate is too old. However, I would like to see term limits for both Congress and the Supreme Court. They should be very long for the Court... perhaps 25 years (and I hope RBG hangs in for now) but life time tenure is too long. Ditto for congress persons who have been re-elected in "safe" districts for 30 or 40 years and are not as sharp as they once were.

I have the opinion that the Founding Fathers never envisioned "Congressman" as a career. More a civic duty to be carried out for a term or two and then return to real life. And, yes, they never considered that there would be Congresswomen.

In "West Wing", Pres Bartlet wrote four words on paper to explain why he supported Hoynes as candidate for VP: "Because I might die". Yes, we need quality VPs, too.

There are age limits to critical positions other than the presidency: airline pilot, fire fighter, etc; although some of the age limits have been raised (or abolished in positions for which age has been judged a non-issue.) Thus, I'm not terribly upset by the idea of age limits for political positions including the presidency and supreme court justice. (Unlike the incredible RBG, Pres Reagan and Pres Trump made/have made good arguments for age limits.)

There might even be an argument for an age limit on laws and, indeed, on the Constitution! The founders of our country were not perfect and they probably did not foresee the extreme lengthening of life that we've experienced - with or without disabilities that accompany that length of life for so many people - let alone technological changes.

During the last presidential campaign, I watched as two candidates, older than me, ran campaigns that would have made me so tired. I kept saying, "how do they do it?" and my husband pointed out that they have staff. Staff can make a huge difference in the amount of work one can do, no matter the age.

I am 76 and have health problems. A friend in her mid 80's seems to keep up a good pace and has assumed the directorship of the library of which I was director in the 90's. I would not want her job now, and she is enjoying it. Granted she has a very supportive board and staff members of which have undertaken to do many of the tasks I did alone. Technology is now more supportive, too.

I think Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, even Joe Biden are not too old because they seem to be able to manage the rigors of campaigning and debating issues. At least for now. I think Donald Trump is exhibiting signs of mental deterioration which might be due to aging. His impulsiveness might merely be a personality trait. Hard to tell.

With the experience of having Reagan clearly losing his ability to remember and to make good decisions in his second term, we need to consider how to address mental capacity in that office. I have no good answer. We could propose a mental function test, but then what test and who evaluates.

We are left with the improbable and badly flawed system we currently have. With rampant propaganda and unlimited financial black money, we are clearly in danger of loss of our system.

I agree that experience counts, but I'm tired of seeing rich old white men running this country (I'm a not so rich old white woman). Their attitudes and opinions are years out of date with many of them unable to understand the technology or keep up to date with the changes that technology creates as it becomes more and more part of life today.
o/

Here we go again . . . How old is too old?

Airline pilots, truck drivers, and from first-hand experience, even employees of private companies have written rules governing 'when you are too old'.

I worked for 25 years with a world-class corporation that created the rule book for marketing.

I sat in an HR meeting where 'too old' was openly discussed. Issues like: failing hearing, vision, fatigue, frequent medical issues, and tepid old ideas were discussed from a manual created by a well-respected New York consultant group. As a result, within a year 3,500 tenured and well-seasoned employees were laid off. Astonishing, shocking to those of us who remained - but not for long.

Court cases ensued . . . . and the courts decided essentially the corporation's position was correct!

Here I am 30 years later and feel as able-bodied as ever. That 'world-class' company has nearly vanished! A corporation that is now 'but a walking shadow, a poor player, that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, and then we be heard no more'.

So, when does our candle burn out? Where does the flame go then? How old is too old?

A winning Presidential candidate must have commitment to his/her cause. Commitment requires physical energy. Energy is compromised by serious physical problems, and goals are dialed-back. Commitment is thus self-limiting for all but the most fortunate of us. I'd come down favoring no age limit.
Mental fitness, we are finding, is at least equal to physical fitness to properly perform the job. Could we pass a law requiring all declared candidates, within the ensuing 60 days, to take three separate gerontological exams: - - one each from a gerontologist of their choosing; another chosen by the 'opposing' political party; and a third exam from a gerontologist chosen jointly by the two prior gerontologists? The 'findings' of only the third professional would be sent to both houses of Congress, and be disseminated freely into all media. The comparatively small costs would be borne by the Federal Election Commission. This would go far to weed-out psychologically-unfit Presidents.

Let the voters decide. Horrible health problems can strike at any age, and if someone is up to the exhausting rigors of campaigning, they probably have enough energy for the job itself. If voters want to use age as a criterion, they will anyway, without a formal limit.

The age of presidential candidates is fine at whatever age....BUT, voters should realize those 70+ need a vice presidential choice that can take the helm...and
may likely have to.

Probably an unpopular view here and I’m 72, but I think 70 should be the cutoff, knowing full well that a really good candidate could be made unavailable by this. If they were 70 and were president for 8 years, they would then be 78 and that’s at the very top limit for me.

As obnoxious as trump is, I have seen videos from years back when he could speak better, use more words and keep more focused. His age does show, along with decreasing mental function and decreasing loss of inhibitions that usually are checked around other people.

And I so agree with letting the younger generations have their time and I see this in the Democratic Party, but certainly not in the Republicans. They risk fading away due to attrition. Younger people aren't so prejudiced, judgemental and far right in their religion. And they care about climate change and having a more ethical society.

And a Vice President does the menial, less important stuff a president doesn’t normally do and is there in case........please not Pence!

I just turned 80 and am one of the fortunate ones who have aged with little change in their activities. I haven't had any operations nor do I take any medications of any kind. I'm not bragging...I'm just stating that although physically I can pretty much withstand the vigors of an active schedule (I also work part time and am on a bowling league), I feel at my age I am definitely not as sharp mentally as I was 10 years ago. Making decisions is much harder and recall is impossible on some days so I would feel much better with a younger candidate running for POTUS.

There is so much rambling and repetition coming from Trump which makes him seem like an old person most of the time. He doesn't seem to be up to date on technology and how it works. I agree with another poster that having a younger candidate would draw more of the younger generation. In my opinion, someone like Beto, Pete or even Tim Ryan would be better suited to attract the average voter....at least on the left.

I will of course get behind any candidate, young or old, chosen to run against Trump so may the best one win!

This is such a difficult question and as an 81 year old - physically and mentally fit I am emotionally horrified at the idea of age limits - but I think we have to be realistic here - the demands physically, mentally and emotionally on POTUS must be overwhelming at times - I often think I could do a better job than most world leaders -but really! Perhaps Tim Ryan's suggestion of 3 separate specialists conducting physical/cognitive/emotional stability tests on all candidates would work - you notice I miss out the word "gerontologist" as that implies it would only apply to candidates of a certain age - but then should we also consider applying financial limits as well -and gender? the constraints could be endless -oh dear - as I said - a difficult question!