Fifty-nine percent of Americans think Biden and Trump too old for another term
Fifty-nine percent of Americans think Biden and Trump too old for another term
Most Americans (86%) think President Joe Biden is too old to serve another term as president, according to a new ABC News/Ipsos poll.
e; I wrote a better headline than the ABC editors decided to and excerpted a bit more
According to the poll, conducted using Ipsos' Knowledge Panel, 86% of Americans think Biden, 81, is too old to serve another term as president. That figure includes 59% of Americans who think both he and former President Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, are too old and 27% who think only Biden is too old.
Sixty-two percent of Americans think Trump, who is 77, is too old to serve as president. There is a large difference in how partisans view their respective nominees -- 73% of Democrats think Biden is too old to serve but only 35% of Republicans think Trump is too old to serve. Ninety-one percent of independents think Biden is too old to serve, and 71% say the same about Trump.
Concerns about both candidates' ages have increased since September when an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 74% of Americans thought Biden -- the oldest commander in chief in U.S. history -- was too old to serve another term as president, and 49% said the same about Trump.
Part that drew my eye,
The poll also comes days after the Senate failed to advance a bipartisan foreign aid bill with major new border provisions.
Americans find there is blame to go around on Congress' failure to pass legislation intended to decrease the number of illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border -- with about the same number blaming the Republicans in Congress (53%), the Democrats (51%) and Biden (49%). Fewer, 39%, blame Trump.
More Americans trust that Trump would do a better job of handling immigration and the situation at the border than Biden -- 44%-26% -- according to the poll.
So that bipartisan border bill stunt was terrible policy, and it doesn't seem to have done anything for the Democratic party politically
Can we please stop trying to compromise with fascists now?
You're viewing a single thread.
We have a minimum age to become president, 35, so if that doesn't qualify as "age discrimination" then a maximum age limit shouldn't either.
65 should be the max, you get 30 years to try for the presidency then you're forced to retire.
And honestly that should be the maximum age for any elected official, not just the president.In America age discrimination is only illegal once you're 40 years old...
If you're 39 and 11 months, you can be denied a senior position for being too young, even if you have 20 years experience
Because old people write our laws, and they don't see a problem with telling a middle aged adult that they're too young.
If only one out of two groups have protection, it's not equaly opportunity, it's legislated discrimination.
It's insane because republicans constantly complain about valid equal opportunity, but never mention the one that's actually discriminatory.
It's especially insane when we have to pretend like an 81 year old magically is immune to scientifically proven medical facts
It is age discrimination but it's legal because it's built-in to the Constitution. Not joking, the "founders" decided that there was a such thing as too young but not too old.
I think the founders made a lot of decisions based on the assumption that voters would vote in their own interests. This would preclude, for example, voting for insurrectionists, criminals, or corrupt power brokers.
People back then had an average lifespan of 39-56. A 70 year-old in 1780 would be exceptional.
Not really. The lifespan includes GIGANTIC numbers of babies dying at birth--that brings down the average in a big way. Poor people also had it harder. If you were a rich person? 80 wasn't a big deal.
Those lifespan ranges account for the infant mortality and are based of someone who lived past 15. 39 for men and 56 for women.
Doubt. In 1890*, if you made it to 20, it was a 50/50 chance of making it to 65 and about a 1 in 3 chance of making it to 75. 1 in 3 is hardly exceptional. Just slightly better than average. You need to go to 85 to the top 10% and mid-90s to get top 1%, which is what I'd start to think of as exceptional. Most of the difference between 1780 and 1890 was liking decrease in mortality in the 0-25 yo range, so I wouldn't expect there to be much difference for 1780 data starting with 20yos.
*https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life1890-1910.pdf using the table on page 127
Why 65? It seems like many people nowadays are totally coherent at that age. I don't even think of 65 as old as this point. I can't think of any other occupation that's forced to retire then.
Research shows that the majority of people have some level of cognitive impairment by 70. Just because you may not notice it in some people doesn't mean it's not there.
If nothing else, a maximum age would give younger generations a better chance to have some power. We've been ruled by boomers for far too long.
Because you want a person for president who's seasoned through and through, but not so damned season he won't try something new.
Retirement age. They can go do their speaking engagements, book deals, and paint Scottish terriers until they die but they should not hold public office and make decisions that matter to future generations.
I think it's because by the end of the second term they'd be 72-73.