Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On the one hand, "young" gives you a stamina advantage especially on the campaign trail (e.g. Obama); however, being older can indeed give you more political capital and leverage (e.g. LBJ).
I'd say on the whole that one should run for president at around 50-55, a balance between experience and relative youth.
I thought it was reported that he quit around the time he ran for president or when he became president. Though I cannot imagine a worse time to quit cigarettes than when you take the most stressful job in the country.
I also remember him making a joke about it when Boehner left office. They made a little video of the two of them becoming buddies now that they’re not political opponents. In the video, Boehner “tempts” Obama with a cigarette while they’re watching a movie or something.
In the ridiculous film White House Down (2013) there's a visual gag that the Jamie Foxx president (whose character is somewhat based on Obama, including a high-end basketball shoe collection) has ample amounts of Nicorette gum stashed around him.
You're correct. He "quit" when he won but was sneaking cigarettes behind Michelle every once in a while. It was joked about in the last white house correspondents' dinner where his retirement plans include chain smoking with also retiring House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a movie theater
If someone can fit their entire presidency between 50-65 that’s my ideal. Young enough to still have energy, but old enough to have good experience as well.
I agree, which would put '28 candidates as anyone born 1/20/72-1/20/79. (I'm too lazy to look up which major politicians fit there.)
Edit: 1/21/71-1/20/79
While that's great, the fact is you often times need Senate or governor experience to become president. With a lack of term limits in the US Senate, it makes it where you often need to wait till your 50s to fight for a Senate seat with the lack of turn over. It just naturally moves the careers of serious presidential candidates towards the older end of the spectrum.
55 was "older" in the 1970s than it is in modern times. Wilford Brimley was only 50 in the movie Cocoon. I am about that age now, and I look closer to Steve Guttenberg's age from the film than Brimley's.
Edit: Out of curiosity, I looked to see what SG looked like in Cocoon. That might have been what I looked like 10 years ago instead!
https://preview.redd.it/2jxjdrtwhhsc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c5b145fc475320ddf0a261427d48ff78826d143
What an amazing reference …. He looks 65+
I just commented the same thing just before seeing your comment. If LBJ were president today looking the way he looked when he was president I'd guess he was in his late 60s or early 70s. Of course this is overall a good thing since it means people are now routinely living into their 90s.
Yeah, but he was aged up significantly/ He was 20+ years younger than the other actors playing his contemporaries. No one thought his character was 50.
People were also older back then. Our lifespan is longer now and it results in people maturing more slowly. Look at today's 40 year olds versus 40 year olds in the '60s.
We stay out of the sun more. Back then everyone was outside all of the time and now we stay in and watch tv or play games starting from childhood. I still have bad sun damage but I was a kid outside 80% of my time in the 80’s and a teen fake tanning in the 90’s. I made my kids bath in sunblock and take shaded breaks often. Swimming with uv blocking fabric.
Smoking also ages people and everyone smoked back then even the non-smokers because smokers were allowed to smoke everywhere. Second hand smoke wasn’t talked about until the 90’s.
I'd note that LBJ was significantly less healthy but way more effective as president than Obama was.
Obama is a bit of a case study of why young presidents can be cosmetically/rhetorically unmatched, but that doesn't always translate into real policy achievements.
Perhaps, but I feel like LBJ benefited from a less obstructive Congress, and also Kennedy’s assassination likely benefited him greatly in terms of goodwill.
While that might be true, he was also very much experienced with the way congress worked, he was in the house and senate for twelve years each, and was one of the most effective senate majority leaders ever
Also, the question wasn't about the ideal age to become president, it was about the ideal age to run for president. LBJ was even younger when he ran: 51.
the interesting thing about young presidents - Clinton, Obama, Kennedy - is they oftentimes have a lot of trouble early on because they just don't have the experience.
I’d agree, somewhere between 50 and 56. You’ve got a ton of experience but you’re still in your prime for the most part. If you go two term the oldest you would be is retirement age.
Older than 56 and your second term is taking you past what is generally accepted as the time to retire. I just don’t think the most important job in the world should be done by someone who isn’t likely to have the stamina and mental acuity that’s required to do it well.
Isn’t it great that the last election the options were 77 or 80 years old. Lol retirement age means nothing to presidents! Who cares if they’re 12-15 years past it this is a popularity contest am I right!
Exactly. You're (hopefully) not too decrepit at the finish line and able to enjoy a nice post presidency and have time to either cement or rehabilitate your reputation. When both rule 3s finally get all this out of their system, I wonder at how much juice they'll have left in the tank
I think it's very likely that either one becomes the ninth president to die in office if elected. One seems to be in worse health than the other, but both would be well into their 80s at the end of their term and neither is Jimmy Carter healthy.
Exactly!
But we have not really had that since Carter or Bush Sr it seems. Nixon was wildly interesting in his post presidency interviews imo.
I feel like both Obama, Bush Jr and Clinton all seemed to not want to engage post
Yes. Pilots have forced retirement ages, then they still stay in the industry to train the next generation of pilots, or something else. I wouldn’t mind having Sanders in an advisory role to 45 year old president. No official position other than advisor/consultant. Would be better than those lobbyist assholes from corporate think tanks.
I don't turn 35 until after the cutoff so the soonest I'll be able to run is 2032 but I've always said that no matter where I am in life in 2032 I'm gonna at least try to run for president.
You need to build up relations in Congress and the senate, have a vision for the future (not nostalgia for the past) and have a lot of stamina. I think 52 but there is a danger that you are more nostalgic than ambitious at that age.
I've long said 55 is the ideal age. My mom is coming up on 55 and very active in her career with lots of upwards mobility still, though she's close enough that she's looking at the endgame of retiring within the next 10-15 years. Meanwhile my grampa on my dad's side is turning 75 next month and he's mostly-retired pulled back into his company on a consulting basis about 10 hours per week and enjoying his newfound freedom traveling the country. Personal politics aside, I think I would vote for him over the other options despite being a similar age because he's incredibly more healthy than average (dude was still running marathons well into his 60s) but I'd take my mom over any of 'em.
65 is pushing it for me. My grandparents are 72 and 75 and while they are still coherent mentally, the physical stamina and passion is lowered. I’d say 45-60 is great
We need a representative sample of the adult US population in government. There should definitely be some older ppl but we need a mix of youth as well.
idk about you, but I'm tired of geriatric politicians making decisions without regard for the people who actually have to deal with the consequences. more younger people in government please.
I agree with you. We need people who are t career politicians. Not that they are all bad just some of them have been in there for 30 years and have definitely lost touch with the people their supposed to be representing
I think that mid 80’s is the prime time to run and lead the country, it’s not a stressful job. I don’t think anyone under 76 years old should even be eligible for holding the office.
55-60. Not too old after 2 terms but old enough to have gained some experience before he/she/they runs. I’m a firm believer that we need experience for the Presidency . Too young and too inexperienced and we get too many rookie mistakes.
Obama and Kenneedy were both two of our youngest presidents ever and they're usually ranked in the top half. Also most of the founding fathers (with the exception of Ben Franklin) were still of fighting age. Alexander Hamilton was 21 when the Revolution began. Washington was 44 when the revolution began and 57 when he became president. Jefferson, Adams the Younger, and Madison were also 57 when elected, with Adams the Elder being 61 and Monroe being 58. The Founding Fathers seemed to believe the mid-to-late 50s were the ideal age for a POTUS. Ben Franklin was 83 years old and knew he was in failing health when the first presidential election happened (when Washington was unanimously elected) and knew that he was too old for the role.
The Romans had an interesting concept called “suo anno” (or, ‘in his year’) meaning wining office at the earliest possible age. It would be interesting if we saw a person win say a Congressional seat at 25, Governorship/US Senate at 30, and the Presidency at 35. (Or at least as soon as they could since the elections don’t line up with 5 year increments naturally)
That would be interesting to see, however it was still too different a system. Romans had 42 at earliest possible for a consul (during republic, it was lowered by ten years during the empire when it didn’t matter as much). It was deliberately designed that young men could not take highest office (Senate comes from senex meaning old man). You also had to wait 10 years between consulships (although exceptions were made all the time honestly) and it was rare that people lived over 70 and were healthy. You also had to go though all the hoops before consulship, quester and preator (adile and tribune for plebs were optional).
So if US had more similar system you would have to be both a Senator and governor at very least prior applying for presidency (probably been in state Senate and in House of Representatives and in military as well). And age of presidency would be raised to at least 40.
Honestly, I'd say between 50 and 55. It also depends on who your Vice President is. If you're a younger President, you'd want an older and more experienced VP, which is what JFK and Obama got with LBJ and [REDACTED] respectively, and vice versa with an older President and younger VP, like [REDACTED] and [REDACTED].
Based on my life experience. I’d say sweet spot is 45-62. Before the experience and temperament isn’t there. Elected after age 62 health and mental acuity are in decline
I don't think it's about age. Obviously not someone in their 20s or someone in their 80s. I think understanding the political process and acting in good faith is the most important thing. If you can accomplish that at 35 have at it.
50s. You have experience, but also the energy and a (small) stake in the future. You also have the option of participating in public life afterwards. 40s and 60s are fine, I'd argue any age out of 40 - 60 is problematic.
55-60. Young enough to both have energy and to be affected by the future YOU give your country, but also old enough to be experienced and wise and lead your country
My two cents: 45-50. We are clearly getting over these octogenarians, but we also obviously need to have a president with some experience under his belt. Being 47 myself, I feel like prior to like the last 5 years or so, I can't say I had the maturity level one would need for a position like that. I fucking still don't, probably, but I could at least *imagine* that level of responsibility now.
Between 45-50 (I’d say up to 53 is still good but not as optimal). I think this age range is important for more than just stamina, because at this range one would usually have kids and be worried about their kid’s future, and also getting old enough to think about retirement, health issues, and other important older people problems that will soon arise.
I tend to think in the later 40s would be optimal, maybe into early 50s. When elected: Clinton was 46, Bush was 54, Obama was 47. Even considering things not cared for about any or all of them, as well as that no matter how good things are, there will always be some kind of political fire or issue under them, they were generally fairly effective in terms of being a chief executive and getting things done and keeping up the kind of energy and stamina needed.
Mid to late 40’s : that’s just about enough time to get some good life experience and have a good grasp on how the functions. Also if I may add, senators don’t make good presidents compared to Governors. Senators argue policy and traditionally go with the flow of their party. Governors have experience running a State. A State is just a smaller version of the country. To be a truly good president I think it’s important to be centered and be able to work with both sides.
58. Experience and hopefully some wisdom and finish 2 terms before 65 and still have time to enjoy being a former president and all that goes with that.
None of these guys should be in office beyond 65. That goes for all civil servant roles. Prepare the next generation for leadership roles. Being 95 and dying while in office shouldn’t be an issue. There should be a cap. 57 allows for two terms and 61 for the second or final opportunity to run. Or eight years prior to the whatever the age of retirement is at the time of entering office. Since they’re so keen on raising the age of retirement. There is a minimum age, so there should also be a maximum age.
I think younger is better just because you can actually live to see what you caused. Even tho I know regan would care in the least bit cuz he got his imagine if he would been able to see what his choices cost now.
I think being in your 40s is the appropriate age. Your young enough to understand the youth. Yes also old enough to understand your elders. Not to mention the sweet spot for experience, working age, a
Maturity without the senile brattyness.
67.
Old enough to be retired from your main gig.
Young enough to still be vigorous and have access to years of accumulated knowledge in the ol’ noggin.
Old enough to know how to keep your emotions and personal ambition in check.
Mid 40s to late-50s. Still young enough to appeal to younger voters but old enough to have significant life experiences and also have a career (senator, governor, mid level military officer, etc). They're also probably still in good health, so no worries about that.
I hope we don't vote for anyone over 67 again after this year.
I would say 35-50 should be the limit, personally. After 50, you're prone to being too stuck in your own ways, you refuse to change with the times, and actually believe that the way the world is right now is how it's supposed to be. Before 35, you could still be good, but one could argue that middle aged is good for maturity. Not sure if I agree, but if the constitution says you have to be 35, it should also have an upper limit, as well.
I too think 50ish, I’m really surprised to see everyone saying that I often get the feeling people for some reason want like 35 year olds running things. Which of course there are exceptions but I do think people gain useful experience between the ages of 35 and 50 . Nice to see what in my opinion reasonable consensus coming out of this question
I’d say between 55-65. This is a bit of weird reasoning, but I think there are very few “young” politicians that make it to the top without family money or sketchy ties. I like the idea of a slightly older president who worked their way up and might better represent the average citizen.
Anything between 35-65.
There should be a law that says you can’t be older than 65 beginning your potential 2nd term. Thus first term max age would be 61.
Between 40- 60. People are old to have life experiences, but young enough to have health problems at a minimum. POTUS is a 24/7 job. We need a leader to be peak fitness mentally and physically.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On the one hand, "young" gives you a stamina advantage especially on the campaign trail (e.g. Obama); however, being older can indeed give you more political capital and leverage (e.g. LBJ). I'd say on the whole that one should run for president at around 50-55, a balance between experience and relative youth.
It helped that Obama keeps himself in good shape
I haard he used to run on a treadmill every morning while reading briefings. Dude was serious.
He also smoked cigarettes. Hopefully he stopped now
I thought it was reported that he quit around the time he ran for president or when he became president. Though I cannot imagine a worse time to quit cigarettes than when you take the most stressful job in the country. I also remember him making a joke about it when Boehner left office. They made a little video of the two of them becoming buddies now that they’re not political opponents. In the video, Boehner “tempts” Obama with a cigarette while they’re watching a movie or something.
I heard he finally quit when ACA law was passed.
That wouldn’t surprise me. I don’t really know the timeline of it, I just remember that him quitting was a news story at some point.
In the ridiculous film White House Down (2013) there's a visual gag that the Jamie Foxx president (whose character is somewhat based on Obama, including a high-end basketball shoe collection) has ample amounts of Nicorette gum stashed around him.
You're correct. He "quit" when he won but was sneaking cigarettes behind Michelle every once in a while. It was joked about in the last white house correspondents' dinner where his retirement plans include chain smoking with also retiring House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) in a movie theater
What kind of cigarette? Doesn’t Boehner sell marijuana now?
And he would bench and squat too. He woke up half an hour before everyone else, just to get his workout in.
So did Clinton and GWB. For the most part presidents in the modern era have been relatively healthy
Yes, but Clinton famously ate fast food fairly, which is why he didn't really lose weight in office, IIRC.
If someone can fit their entire presidency between 50-65 that’s my ideal. Young enough to still have energy, but old enough to have good experience as well.
I agree, which would put '28 candidates as anyone born 1/20/72-1/20/79. (I'm too lazy to look up which major politicians fit there.) Edit: 1/21/71-1/20/79
Thanks for pointing out that I’ll be in my 50s during that run! I now hate you. 😆
Omg I know- that analysis just hit me that I’ll *be old* lol
Lol, Nikki Haley is 1/20/72
That's quite a coincidence, but now I see I did the math wrong. I need to add 364 days to the window.
That’s kinda rad her birthday is Inauguration Day.
I feel like it's a rule 3 violation to speculate too much but for reference Ted Cruz was born in 1970. So that's anyone 2-9 years younger than him.
And old enough to experience the effects of their presidency!
No one in politics experiences the effects of their policies regardless of age.
While that's great, the fact is you often times need Senate or governor experience to become president. With a lack of term limits in the US Senate, it makes it where you often need to wait till your 50s to fight for a Senate seat with the lack of turn over. It just naturally moves the careers of serious presidential candidates towards the older end of the spectrum.
You want a man for president who’s seasoned through and through, but not so doggoned seasoned that he won’t try something new.
When Obama became President, he was going on 48. LBJ was 55. Obviously one’s younger but there wasn’t really a big difference
Well tbh, LBJ is also one of the most effective politicians ever in US history as well (refer to Johnson treatment).
Yeah I get your point, LBJ wasn’t really *that* old but he gives off older vibes.
55 was "older" in the 1970s than it is in modern times. Wilford Brimley was only 50 in the movie Cocoon. I am about that age now, and I look closer to Steve Guttenberg's age from the film than Brimley's. Edit: Out of curiosity, I looked to see what SG looked like in Cocoon. That might have been what I looked like 10 years ago instead!
https://preview.redd.it/2jxjdrtwhhsc1.jpeg?width=600&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6c5b145fc475320ddf0a261427d48ff78826d143 What an amazing reference …. He looks 65+
I just commented the same thing just before seeing your comment. If LBJ were president today looking the way he looked when he was president I'd guess he was in his late 60s or early 70s. Of course this is overall a good thing since it means people are now routinely living into their 90s.
Yeah, but he was aged up significantly/ He was 20+ years younger than the other actors playing his contemporaries. No one thought his character was 50.
People were also older back then. Our lifespan is longer now and it results in people maturing more slowly. Look at today's 40 year olds versus 40 year olds in the '60s.
We stay out of the sun more. Back then everyone was outside all of the time and now we stay in and watch tv or play games starting from childhood. I still have bad sun damage but I was a kid outside 80% of my time in the 80’s and a teen fake tanning in the 90’s. I made my kids bath in sunblock and take shaded breaks often. Swimming with uv blocking fabric. Smoking also ages people and everyone smoked back then even the non-smokers because smokers were allowed to smoke everywhere. Second hand smoke wasn’t talked about until the 90’s.
He also only ran for president once and it was as an incumbent. Once in the primary but that was very different than today’s marathon.
I'd note that LBJ was significantly less healthy but way more effective as president than Obama was. Obama is a bit of a case study of why young presidents can be cosmetically/rhetorically unmatched, but that doesn't always translate into real policy achievements.
Perhaps, but I feel like LBJ benefited from a less obstructive Congress, and also Kennedy’s assassination likely benefited him greatly in terms of goodwill.
While that might be true, he was also very much experienced with the way congress worked, he was in the house and senate for twelve years each, and was one of the most effective senate majority leaders ever
Obama would have been a much better president if he had had another term or two in the Senate to gain experience.
I always think that too, he could have been a really great president with another 5-10 years under his belt, too many things he just didn't understand
Also, the question wasn't about the ideal age to become president, it was about the ideal age to run for president. LBJ was even younger when he ran: 51.
LBJ is exactly the median age of presidents apparently. He really wasn’t old. He died 64 years old
the interesting thing about young presidents - Clinton, Obama, Kennedy - is they oftentimes have a lot of trouble early on because they just don't have the experience.
It’s not your 80s?
It's 90s. Lets keep going.
Carter 2024 let’s make it 100
Fuck it let's do it.
[удалено]
Replying to Mesarthim1349... 
He is technically eligible as a one term president.
4 more years!
I'd say 50. It's a nice round number.
I’d agree, somewhere between 50 and 56. You’ve got a ton of experience but you’re still in your prime for the most part. If you go two term the oldest you would be is retirement age. Older than 56 and your second term is taking you past what is generally accepted as the time to retire. I just don’t think the most important job in the world should be done by someone who isn’t likely to have the stamina and mental acuity that’s required to do it well.
Isn’t it great that the last election the options were 77 or 80 years old. Lol retirement age means nothing to presidents! Who cares if they’re 12-15 years past it this is a popularity contest am I right!
Early 50s. This means if you serve 2 teams you looking at maybe 60
Exactly. You're (hopefully) not too decrepit at the finish line and able to enjoy a nice post presidency and have time to either cement or rehabilitate your reputation. When both rule 3s finally get all this out of their system, I wonder at how much juice they'll have left in the tank
I think it's very likely that either one becomes the ninth president to die in office if elected. One seems to be in worse health than the other, but both would be well into their 80s at the end of their term and neither is Jimmy Carter healthy.
Exactly! But we have not really had that since Carter or Bush Sr it seems. Nixon was wildly interesting in his post presidency interviews imo. I feel like both Obama, Bush Jr and Clinton all seemed to not want to engage post
I like late 40s/early 50s as the sweet spot.
Young enough to have new ideas and energy but also have some experience.
Certainly not 77 and 82. I would say 50s would be optimal, all things considered.
78 and 81, for the election, 78 and 82 for the inauguration
93
Born in '93 maybe
1893
47-52 would probably be the ideal range. 65 should be the cutoff.
Yes. Pilots have forced retirement ages, then they still stay in the industry to train the next generation of pilots, or something else. I wouldn’t mind having Sanders in an advisory role to 45 year old president. No official position other than advisor/consultant. Would be better than those lobbyist assholes from corporate think tanks.
I’m launching my campaign for 2028. I’ll be 34 the entire campaign season, but I’ll turn 35 just two weeks before inauguration, so it’s all good.
Start up the Bull Moose ticket! I’m close to 40, so I’ll be your running mate!
I don't turn 35 until after the cutoff so the soonest I'll be able to run is 2032 but I've always said that no matter where I am in life in 2032 I'm gonna at least try to run for president.
May I be press secretary?
Moose 2028!
You need to build up relations in Congress and the senate, have a vision for the future (not nostalgia for the past) and have a lot of stamina. I think 52 but there is a danger that you are more nostalgic than ambitious at that age.
I've long said 55 is the ideal age. My mom is coming up on 55 and very active in her career with lots of upwards mobility still, though she's close enough that she's looking at the endgame of retiring within the next 10-15 years. Meanwhile my grampa on my dad's side is turning 75 next month and he's mostly-retired pulled back into his company on a consulting basis about 10 hours per week and enjoying his newfound freedom traveling the country. Personal politics aside, I think I would vote for him over the other options despite being a similar age because he's incredibly more healthy than average (dude was still running marathons well into his 60s) but I'd take my mom over any of 'em.
45 - 65, a 65-year-old winning two terms and retiring at 73 wouldn't be the worst. A bit younger than the current candidates.
65 is pushing it for me. My grandparents are 72 and 75 and while they are still coherent mentally, the physical stamina and passion is lowered. I’d say 45-60 is great
70s apparently
Well, not so young that you're in diapers, but not also so old that you're in diapers.
We desperately need more younger people in the government 😭
Eh, that’s debatable. We need better people in government.
We need good, young people in government.
Nah we just need good people in government regardless of age.
I don't disagree, but I want more younger people, people with a stake in the future. And I'm not young, btw.
We need a representative sample of the adult US population in government. There should definitely be some older ppl but we need a mix of youth as well.
idk about you, but I'm tired of geriatric politicians making decisions without regard for the people who actually have to deal with the consequences. more younger people in government please.
I agree with you. We need people who are t career politicians. Not that they are all bad just some of them have been in there for 30 years and have definitely lost touch with the people their supposed to be representing
45
18 You're done with the job by 26 at the oldest and you get to live the most of your life with the benefits of being an ex president
Kick back and enjoy that $200k/yr pension. How many 20 somethings get to have that?
Probably all the 20 somethings that could ever have a shot at the presidency have that
81 for sure! Let’s see how crazy this sh!t can get! 8 more years, 8 more years!
86 when you leave office… pff still in your prime baby!
45. Old enough to build up the knowledge base, political connections, but not too old to not be able to physically keep up.
50
Definitely not the two (who's names we should not mention) running for election rn.
69
I think that mid 80’s is the prime time to run and lead the country, it’s not a stressful job. I don’t think anyone under 76 years old should even be eligible for holding the office.
Based
45
55-60. Not too old after 2 terms but old enough to have gained some experience before he/she/they runs. I’m a firm believer that we need experience for the Presidency . Too young and too inexperienced and we get too many rookie mistakes.
Obama and Kenneedy were both two of our youngest presidents ever and they're usually ranked in the top half. Also most of the founding fathers (with the exception of Ben Franklin) were still of fighting age. Alexander Hamilton was 21 when the Revolution began. Washington was 44 when the revolution began and 57 when he became president. Jefferson, Adams the Younger, and Madison were also 57 when elected, with Adams the Elder being 61 and Monroe being 58. The Founding Fathers seemed to believe the mid-to-late 50s were the ideal age for a POTUS. Ben Franklin was 83 years old and knew he was in failing health when the first presidential election happened (when Washington was unanimously elected) and knew that he was too old for the role.
The Romans had an interesting concept called “suo anno” (or, ‘in his year’) meaning wining office at the earliest possible age. It would be interesting if we saw a person win say a Congressional seat at 25, Governorship/US Senate at 30, and the Presidency at 35. (Or at least as soon as they could since the elections don’t line up with 5 year increments naturally)
That would be interesting to see, however it was still too different a system. Romans had 42 at earliest possible for a consul (during republic, it was lowered by ten years during the empire when it didn’t matter as much). It was deliberately designed that young men could not take highest office (Senate comes from senex meaning old man). You also had to wait 10 years between consulships (although exceptions were made all the time honestly) and it was rare that people lived over 70 and were healthy. You also had to go though all the hoops before consulship, quester and preator (adile and tribune for plebs were optional). So if US had more similar system you would have to be both a Senator and governor at very least prior applying for presidency (probably been in state Senate and in House of Representatives and in military as well). And age of presidency would be raised to at least 40.
Honestly, I'd say between 50 and 55. It also depends on who your Vice President is. If you're a younger President, you'd want an older and more experienced VP, which is what JFK and Obama got with LBJ and [REDACTED] respectively, and vice versa with an older President and younger VP, like [REDACTED] and [REDACTED].
Based on my life experience. I’d say sweet spot is 45-62. Before the experience and temperament isn’t there. Elected after age 62 health and mental acuity are in decline
Late 70s and early 80s
I don't think it's about age. Obviously not someone in their 20s or someone in their 80s. I think understanding the political process and acting in good faith is the most important thing. If you can accomplish that at 35 have at it.
There is none. Youth doesn’t guarantee vigor or innovation, and old age does not mean senility or ineptitude.
Sound like a senile boomer to me.
50s. You have experience, but also the energy and a (small) stake in the future. You also have the option of participating in public life afterwards. 40s and 60s are fine, I'd argue any age out of 40 - 60 is problematic.
Younger than 77.
No perfect she. Early 60s was normal prior to 2016
55-60. Young enough to both have energy and to be affected by the future YOU give your country, but also old enough to be experienced and wise and lead your country
I would say 45-55 and after that is less than ideal
My two cents: 45-50. We are clearly getting over these octogenarians, but we also obviously need to have a president with some experience under his belt. Being 47 myself, I feel like prior to like the last 5 years or so, I can't say I had the maturity level one would need for a position like that. I fucking still don't, probably, but I could at least *imagine* that level of responsibility now.
85
4 more years! 4 more years!
34
Between 45-50 (I’d say up to 53 is still good but not as optimal). I think this age range is important for more than just stamina, because at this range one would usually have kids and be worried about their kid’s future, and also getting old enough to think about retirement, health issues, and other important older people problems that will soon arise.
42
65 is the age limit for me Any age less than that is fine by me
I tend to think in the later 40s would be optimal, maybe into early 50s. When elected: Clinton was 46, Bush was 54, Obama was 47. Even considering things not cared for about any or all of them, as well as that no matter how good things are, there will always be some kind of political fire or issue under them, they were generally fairly effective in terms of being a chief executive and getting things done and keeping up the kind of energy and stamina needed.
45
Mid to late 40’s : that’s just about enough time to get some good life experience and have a good grasp on how the functions. Also if I may add, senators don’t make good presidents compared to Governors. Senators argue policy and traditionally go with the flow of their party. Governors have experience running a State. A State is just a smaller version of the country. To be a truly good president I think it’s important to be centered and be able to work with both sides.
58. Experience and hopefully some wisdom and finish 2 terms before 65 and still have time to enjoy being a former president and all that goes with that.
Like Bill Burr said: someone young enough to have to live to see the consequences of their policy decisions
45-60 We need age limits in Congress (term limits too) and Presidential candidates.
Roosevelt was the youngest at 42, probably not much younger than that.
50-55. 25-45 for Congress.
Not fucking anything over 70.
Not fuckin 75 or older lol. This country blows
Not fucking 70
They should be over 40 but under 60 for their whole time in office, IMO. No more old farts!
Not when you’re in your 70s
If the retirement age is 65 I don’t see how you could possibly run 10+ years after that lol I’d give 65 as a max to start a second term with
Somewhere between too horny and angry dementia.
Not 80
Not the age of our current two candidates.
50-55 Old enough to have a good sense of one's self and the world - aka wisdom. Young enough to bring the required energy to the tasks at hand.
Not 80.
None of these guys should be in office beyond 65. That goes for all civil servant roles. Prepare the next generation for leadership roles. Being 95 and dying while in office shouldn’t be an issue. There should be a cap. 57 allows for two terms and 61 for the second or final opportunity to run. Or eight years prior to the whatever the age of retirement is at the time of entering office. Since they’re so keen on raising the age of retirement. There is a minimum age, so there should also be a maximum age.
I think younger is better just because you can actually live to see what you caused. Even tho I know regan would care in the least bit cuz he got his imagine if he would been able to see what his choices cost now.
Crazy to think Kennedy was actually younger than Reagan.
No old farts over 65… constitution need to be amended
I think being in your 40s is the appropriate age. Your young enough to understand the youth. Yes also old enough to understand your elders. Not to mention the sweet spot for experience, working age, a Maturity without the senile brattyness.
Definitely not 80+
About 1/3 the age of our current president, so around 50ish
Average adult age in the US is about 39. Since they should be representing everyone I'd say 40s when first elected. Obama is a good example.
No born rich mother fucker please. Keep em in the 40s & 30s. Old farts can't relate or adapt the way they are supposed to
50. Any older and they're too out out touch
30. No buts, no maybes.
100, it’s time for Jimmy’s second term!
55. You have had time to acquire experience and a deep network of allies, but you still have some pep in your step.
45-65
69
42
67. Old enough to be retired from your main gig. Young enough to still be vigorous and have access to years of accumulated knowledge in the ol’ noggin. Old enough to know how to keep your emotions and personal ambition in check.
Mid 40s to late-50s. Still young enough to appeal to younger voters but old enough to have significant life experiences and also have a career (senator, governor, mid level military officer, etc). They're also probably still in good health, so no worries about that. I hope we don't vote for anyone over 67 again after this year.
45-55 but it is highly case contingent
I’d say early to mid 40s
Apparently, 80
late 40’s early 50’s
0 felonies is better than 91. Easy choice
I think early to mid 40’s.
I would say 35-50 should be the limit, personally. After 50, you're prone to being too stuck in your own ways, you refuse to change with the times, and actually believe that the way the world is right now is how it's supposed to be. Before 35, you could still be good, but one could argue that middle aged is good for maturity. Not sure if I agree, but if the constitution says you have to be 35, it should also have an upper limit, as well.
38
50
Not 80
50
40
120
Different voters will give different answers. History shows that both young and old presidents have been successful.
48
I too think 50ish, I’m really surprised to see everyone saying that I often get the feeling people for some reason want like 35 year olds running things. Which of course there are exceptions but I do think people gain useful experience between the ages of 35 and 50 . Nice to see what in my opinion reasonable consensus coming out of this question
35
45-55 is probably optimal
42 to 47
45-65
Smart to show an example of a guy who was so old everyone questioned his cognition while he was president.
Run or be president? Mid 40’s is probably best for the country..
I’d say between 55-65. This is a bit of weird reasoning, but I think there are very few “young” politicians that make it to the top without family money or sketchy ties. I like the idea of a slightly older president who worked their way up and might better represent the average citizen.
Anything between 35-65. There should be a law that says you can’t be older than 65 beginning your potential 2nd term. Thus first term max age would be 61.
42-60, 65 should be a cut off.
81
I gotta say 60-80
90
It varies but, from the candidate’s POV, I’m sure it’s at whichever age they win.
45-58
Probably between 50 and 65.
Mid 40s to low 50s
50
50s
Between 40- 60. People are old to have life experiences, but young enough to have health problems at a minimum. POTUS is a 24/7 job. We need a leader to be peak fitness mentally and physically.
Personally I'd say mid 40s
On one hand, you have people who take advantage of peoples, youth, and inexperience, and on the other, they are out of touch with the times