Would you vote for a presidential candidate under 40?

[Van Basten]

I was reading about William Pitt the Younger from the UK, a fella that became PM at the age of 24! I know that between our two nations the ascendancy of our leaders is very different, but it got me thinking. Even though the age requirement is 35 (a fair age imo), I would never vote for someone under 40. I'm only 22, so I'm not being some cranky old man about it.

What about you?

 

[Anagram]

If he was someone with whom I mostly agree while the other major candidates aren't, I would vote for him.

 

[SDET]

Those voting for T-Rump are voting for a six year old.

 

[Crovax]

Maybe a few decades ago, but we have expanded childhood into the mid twenties these days. I'm not sure if someone under 40 could have the leadership and experience to be president.

 

[radcen]

Never say never, but they'd have to be damn special.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Dunno...

Would this be preparatory to a "Logan's Run" society?



Fun till you turn 30...then done?

 

[Beaudreaux]

Of course. If a person is qualified, and has a broad level of experience (such as JFK had in the military), then yes, I could see myself voting for them.

 

[Fiddytree]

Probably not. I'd have to really not like the other person running in order to do that.

 

[laska]

I would if they were talented, competent, and wise. With what all needs to be fixed, great energy would be a plus. Many successful CEO's have been in their thirties.

 

[ocean515]

I was reading about William Pitt the Younger from the UK, a fella that became PM at the age of 24! I know that between our two nations the ascendancy of our leaders is very different, but it got me thinking. Even though the age requirement is 35 (a fair age imo), I would never vote for someone under 40. I'm only 22, so I'm not being some cranky old man about it.

What about you?

It seems to me, wisdom is one of the primary attributes necessary to successfully perform the duties of President. Wisdom is not taught, but is only the result of experience. Especially in this day and age, someone under 40 would not have obtained sufficient experience to have gained enough wisdom to successfully hold the office of President.

 

[Socrates1]

I was reading about William Pitt the Younger from the UK, a fella that became PM at the age of 24! I know that between our two nations the ascendancy of our leaders is very different, but it got me thinking. Even though the age requirement is 35 (a fair age imo), I would never vote for someone under 40. I'm only 22, so I'm not being some cranky old man about it.

What about you?

I would vote for someone as young as 21 ,as long as they agree on most major issues , hell no one could do worst than Obama .

 

[molten_dragon]

I'd consider it depending on their political stance. I think someone younger could be good for the country.

 

[jamesrage]

I was reading about William Pitt the Younger from the UK, a fella that became PM at the age of 24! I know that between our two nations the ascendancy of our leaders is very different, but it got me thinking. Even though the age requirement is 35 (a fair age imo), I would never vote for someone under 40. I'm only 22, so I'm not being some cranky old man about it.

What about you?

I would vote for someone under 40 if that person shared my views and has a record to prov it.

 

[Van Basten]

It seems to me, wisdom is one of the primary attributes necessary to successfully perform the duties of President. Wisdom is not taught, but is only the result of experience. Especially in this day and age, someone under 40 would not have obtained sufficient experience to have gained enough wisdom to successfully hold the office of President.

What about 50 years ago?

 

[Fledermaus]

Theodore Roosevelt was 42 when he assumed office. Teddy actually ran in 1884 and might have been President at 38.

JFK was 43.

I think 35 is reasonable.

 

[ocean515]

What about 50 years ago?

No difference.

 

[Gaztopian]

40 is my threshold for a ruler's age.

 

[Abbazorkzog]

40 is my threshold for a ruler's age.

I wouldn't be comfortable having a President with a 'ruler' complex. Unfortunately both Trump and Clinton have such a complex.

 

[Gaztopian]

I wouldn't be comfortable having a President with a 'ruler' complex. Unfortunately both Trump and Clinton have such a complex.

I meant the term as a catch-all for any sovereign, elected or not.

 

[radioman]

I was reading about William Pitt the Younger from the UK, a fella that became PM at the age of 24! I know that between our two nations the ascendancy of our leaders is very different, but it got me thinking. Even though the age requirement is 35 (a fair age imo), I would never vote for someone under 40. I'm only 22, so I'm not being some cranky old man about it.

What about you?

I actually am a cranky old man and could vote for someone under 40.
Unless he was one of those young whippersnappers who plays loud music, or throws my newspaper in the gutter.........
Whew.....I'm exhausted....time for a nap.....and get off my lawn!!

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

It depends on their policy stances and how knowledgeable they seem about world affairs. I don't care much about superficial qualities.

 

[earthworm]

no vote
as usual, the selections are overly limited
my response is yes, but ......man matures at different ages and some (Trump for one) never do .

 

[USViking]

Sure, why the hell not, especially since the over 40 dorks who I've been limited to for
all my voting life haven't been a particularly impressive lot.

Caricature aside, I commend to your attention the career of William Pitt the Younger,
who was UK PM for ~20 years !783-1801 and 1804-1806 (Churchill was PM for less than 6 years)

at the ages of 24 to 42, and stood up goddam and jolly well to none other than the spectacular
Napoleon Bonaparte, who was well under 40 himself at the time of their titanic struggle.

Pitt died young, at the age of 47, but he bequeathed to the UK the strength and the will
to defeat Napoleon.

 

[USViking]

Sure, why the hell not, especially since the over 40 dorks who I've been limited to for
all my voting life haven't been a particularly impressive lot.

Caricature aside, I commend to your attention the career of William Pitt the Younger,
who was UK PM for ~20 years !783-1801 and 1804-1806 (Churchill was PM for less than 6 years)

at the ages of 24 to 42, and stood up goddam and jolly well to none other than the
spectacular Napoleon Bonaparte, who was well under 40 himself at the time of their titanic struggle.

Pitt died young, at the age of 47, but he bequeathed to the UK the strength and the will
to defeat Napoleon.

 

[Mr Person]

Very probably not, but I don't like to make absolute declarations...