Upworthy's book GOOD PEOPLE, now available - take a look!

Shop
 Explore 

presidential candidates

Elections

People are debating whether U.S. presidents should be able to be elected past age 65

There are some solid points being made on both sides.

The White House (public domain)

The last few presidential elections have prompted debates about age limits on politicians.

In today's political climate, it's hard to find thoughtful, respectful discussions online, especially when people disagree on an issue. We've all seen the way public discourse can break down into personal attacks, partisan stereotypes, logical fallacies, and other things that limit our ability to hear and understand one another's perspectives.

However, we have important issues to discuss as a collective, and when we find examples of public discourse where people with differing opinions voice their thoughts and make their arguments reasonably, it's worth looking at. When someone on Reddit asked, "Would limiting the age of the President to 65 be something you’d support? Why or why not?" thousands of responses came in, and the discussion was remarkably civil.

from AskReddit

Considering the fact that the two most recent presidents have been the oldest to ever serve in the office, were both well past the average retirement age for Americans when they were elected, and both had their cognitive abilities publicly questioned during both of their terms, the question of upper age limits on the presidency has become more relevant than ever. Hopefully, this discussion will offer some good food for thought as the average age of our politicians at the federal level still sits close to retirement age.

YES—arguments for presidential age limits

The folks who advocate for an upper age limit on the presidency cite the greater possibility of cognitive decline as people age as one reason, but that's not all. Some point out that the people making decisions should be the ones who will have to live with them long term and that politics needs fresh ideas and perspectives. Some point out that the chance of a president dying in office increases with age, and some say it's only fair to have an upper limit since we have a lower one.

donald trump, joe biden, oldest president, presidential age limits, USA President Trump and President Biden are the two oldest people to be elected U.S. president.The White House (public domain)

Here are some of the affirmative responses:

"Yes, if there is a young age limit then an older one is justified as well."

"I’d support age limits for all politicians. Asking someone to live a while in the world they create is a fair ask, in my opinion."

"I recently read: 'Someone whose time left on this earth is best measured in years should not make decisions with an impact over decades.'"

"I think the young age limit is bulls--t anyway. We need more people in power who'll live long enough to experience the outcomes of their decisions."

"There is a minimum so a maximum makes sense. 35-70 seems reasonable. A 70 year old running for election would finish the term at 74, maybe 75 depending on time of birthday of course. Just for discussion sake."

presidential age limits, presidential eligibility, oldest presidents Should eligibility for the presidency be limited to age 65?Photo credit: Canva

"If the average US citizen dies at 74-76 and retirement age is 65 then the max age to be elected should also be 65. I know humans can live well past 100 but the US culture of health spits in the face of aging gracefully."

"I think the dilemma is that experience grows with age but so mental abilities decline. Finding that point where the mental decline is no longer acceptable is tough. Especially with a role like the presidency where really you should be relying on the expertise of other.

Still I support a max age limit. And you could let the older more experienced politicians work as advisors if they want. They don't have to get out of politics but they do have to let someone younger have the final say in things."

"People should be retired from politics at retirement age. As in you can’t run for office after you hit retirement age. And while we are at it, lowering retirement age back to 65 sounds great."

Joe Biden was the oldest person to become president at age 78. Giphy GIF by Election 2020

"As someone who actually interacts with 70 year old people, I can honestly tell you the mental 'slow-down' really doesn't start until the late 70s or early 80s.

65 is a little too safe but I would absolutely agree with not being able to run past 70. That would make the oldest member of the exec/leg branches 74. Five years might not seem that different but that's what I'd choose. Granted, I'd definitely support 65 over there not being an age limit.

SCotUS, on the other hand, should be forced to retire at retirement age, whatever that is. I feel that each of them needs to have more of their finger on the pulse of where the country is, due to their more impactful position; 1 of 9 vs. 1 of 100/435."

"75 by Election Day I would support 100%. I would almost definitely support 70 by Election Day."

"Agree. 75 by election day is fair. I work in healthcare and people over 65 should have an opportunity to be represented because they have a drastically different set of needs than people who are 55."

presidential seal, president of the united states, POTUS The president of the United States is one of the most powerful positions in the world.Photo credit: Canva

"I get that many people are able to work effectively at advanced ages, but there is a difference between being a professor, insurance agent, or retail worker and being President of the United States. Warren Buffett waited until an advanced age to retire, beyond what most corporate boards would tolerate, but Berkshire Hathaway doesn't have any nuclear warheads. Presidents Reagan, Biden, and Trump have all shown signs of age-related cognitive impairment while in office without any 25th Amendment action being taken, so we need some sort of additional safeguard."

"I support age limits for both physical and mental wellness reasons; 75 by Election Day seems reasonable to me, just because it would have to be somewhere. If nothing else, after 75 the chances a president will die in office go way up, and it’s always better to avoid that."

"Yes. Regardless of one's ability to perform, new ideas need to come into government. The added bonus of weeding out people who have aged out of their competency is second."

"Absolutely yes. They should be young enough to have to live with the consequences of their actions."

president washington, president lincoln, u.s. presidents The only age requirement in the Constitution is that the U.S. president has to be at least 35 years old.Photo credit: Canva

NO—arguments against presidential age limits

The people who say there shouldn't be age limits cite the fact that cognitive decline or impairment is not guaranteed with age and that plenty of older people are sharper than people many years their junior. Some cite the need for people of all ages to have representation, including the elderly, and others point out that a long life an experience can be an invaluable asset in a world leader.

Here are some anti-age-limit arguments:

"No, I've met people in their 50s who would be too incapacitated for the job, and yet met people in their 90s who would be. As long as they are mentally fit then it's fine."

"No, because that's ageist, and elderly people need representation too. Our issue isn't the fact we have presidents over 65 years old; the issue is we keep voting for presidential candidates(even in the nominations) that are over 65 years old."

"There is a pretty wide range on health from individual to individual. In theory voters should be able to judge whether the person's health is a concern. That of course assumes transparency on candidate health though."

"No. The issue is mental decline, not age. Different people experience mental decline at different ages. Some lucky people don't experience it until their 70d and 80s. Let the people decide who is fit to serve by our votes."

voting, elections, electing the president of the united states Some argue that the voters should decide whether a candidate is too old at the ballot box.Photo credit: Canva

"Why? Just vote for a younger candidate next time. You're literally advocating for limiting your own democratic choice... Why?"

"Age ain't always about the number, ya know? Like, got some folks in their 70s sharper than a fresh pencil and others in their 60s feeling like grandpa needs a nap. Suppose depends more on the energy and ideas they bring than digits in their age. We gotta vet 'em on their vibe, not just the year on their birth cert, IMO."

"No. I know too many people over 65 who are some of the smartest and hardest working people I have ever met. It's not the age. It's the attitude and ability.

And the experience in a lot of cases. The type of experience matters. If you have someone with experience making the lives of others better - they will continue to be able to make the lives of others better, even if they are in their 80s (see the notorious RBG). If they have experience with bankrupting companies and not paying their bills, they will continue to be able to bankrupt companies and not pay their bills even if they are in their 80s.

I know more folks over 65 (heck, over 75) who want good education and national healthcare and guaranteed parental leave and higher minimum wages than folks under 40."

The American flag, united states, stars and stripes The United States has very few requirements to be eligible to run for president.Photo credit: Canva

"No. It's not going to change the quality of candidates and it's an arbitrary cutoff. People can get dementia at 50."

"I don’t know that age limits are fair. My mother-in-law is 90 years old and she is sharp as a tac and still in great physical health, believe it or not. Not that she’s interested in running for president. Lol. However, competency tests may very well be in order. I could certainly get behind that."

"No. The president needs to have experience, a long knowledge/understanding of current events domestically and geopolitically, and a deep reservoir of alliances, leverage, etc. for getting things done at home and negotiating on the world stage. Biden, for example, had served in Congress forever and was remarkably effective at getting legislation passed despite Republican blockades: a lot of this effectiveness was due to Biden, Pelosi, Schumer's long experience and behind-the-scenes understanding of how to get things done.

joe biden, choose diplomacy, u.s. presidents Joe Biden had decades of experience in governance when he was elected. Giphy GIF by GIPHY News

I agree that we need more young voices in government but there is ENORMOUS value in having some representatives who are long-entrenched and have an infrastructure and savvy to harness.

This is especially important for diplomacy, which is arguably one of the President's most important jobs. Biden, for example, had been actively involved with foreign affairs for decades and the value of that cannot be understated. Ukraine owes a great deal to the fact that Biden, his cabinet, and his intelligence agencies outplayed Putin at the outset of the invasion, and to the fact that Biden was on a first-name basis with so many world leaders, who he called upon personally to unite with sanctions, Ukraine aide, etc.

Frankly, a young president who only knows of the Cold War from history class would get eaten alive by Putin at the negotiating / leverage table. How can you be taken seriously interacting with world leaders if you were still a kid when they were fighting battles and moving world politics?"

john f. kennedy, youngest president, presidential age limits John F. Kennedy was the youngest person to be elected U.S. president. Photo credit: Canva

"No. If someone spent 20 years as a teacher, in the military, being a doctor, etc before getting into politics and then got the experience to actually make a run, they’d probably be in their 60s and we could miss out on a genuinely good candidate who wasn’t a lifelong politician. But I would say the oldest I’d prefer would be voting for a 70 year old for their re-election as president. I’d prefer they be younger, but if they’re a good leader I wouldn’t say no over their age at that point. But by 75 they should have no business trying to run the country."

"Personally I want term limits for all branches of government and routine cognitive tests for people 65 and over. I do believe older people should be represented because ageism can exist. As long as you are sharp, you should be able to work."

"In and of itself an arbitrary age limit is meaningless. What we need is yearly cognitive tests with mandatory independent verification and publishing results."

"Absolutely not. While some people have significant cognitive decline past 60, plenty do not. Politicians don't need to have the reflexes of a pilot or motor skills of a neurosurgeon so citing other mandatory retirement ages doesn't follow. We'd be removing decades of experience for potential candidates. Solving the problem of entrenched politicians and stagnating perspectives is going to be much trickier than adding an age limit."

u.s. constitution, constitutional amendment, presidential age limits, presidential eligibility Adding an age limit for the U.S. presidency would require a constitutional amendment.Photo credit: Canva

What would it take to put an age limit on the U.S. presidency?

The eligibility requirements to become president are set in the Constitution, so it would require a new constitutional amendment to add an upper age limit. That means two-third of Congress in both the House of Representatives and the Senate would have to vote for it, and then 38 out of 50 state legislatures would have to ratify it. The chances of those majorities agreeing on anything of that great a significance is highly unlikely, but the same could have been said for many of the amendments we've passed in the past. But it's hard to say if a presidential age limit is even something most Americans really want, which is why seeing the pros and cons being argued is so interesting.

From Your Site Articles

democracy

Lawyers' Committee

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights

5 things to do if you feel like you'll never forgive your partner for voting Trump.

Photo by Karim MANJRA on Unsplash

Heart graffiti behind bars, love locked away.

This has been a tough week for many of America's couples.

Photo by Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images.

As President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take over the White House, interracial couples are afraid to go out in public for fear of physical or verbal assault. Gay couples are afraid their marriages might soon be disqualified by the Supreme Court.

But there's another kind of couple also battling fear and resentment right now: Couples where the two partners voted differently. Perhaps it was one for Trump, one for Clinton. Perhaps one member of the partnership didn't vote at all.

Whatever the reason, this new hurdle is threatening to rip many relationships apart.

"I've never seen this before," said Susan Falcon, a couples counselor of 25 years based in New Orleans. "Every four years there's an election, and sometimes the spouses might bicker about it, but I've never seen anything like this."

Some couples are turning to therapy (Falcon said she did, in fact, take on a few new clients this week for this very reason). Some are trying to find their own way through. Others are throwing in the towel altogether.

The question is, how can couples like these put their political differences aside for the sake of their relationship? Or can they at all? Here's what Falcon is telling her clients.

1. First, remember the person you fell in love with.

Photo by Saeed Khan/AFP/Getty Images.

Falcon, who sees an extremely diverse set of clients, said the most common scenario she's faced is a husband who voted for Trump and a wife who voted for Clinton.

"What's happening now is the Hillary spouse is really grieving. And afraid. And angry," she said. "And the Trump spouse feels that that's ridiculous, that that's a huge overreaction."

This fundamental disagreement can lead to the "Hillary spouse" seeing their partner, for the first time, as a racist and a misogynist. They might be this way, but there's also a chance that they aren't. So Falcon says her first and most important job is to get the partners, both of them, to reflect on each other and what made them fall in love in the first place; whether that's taking turns telling the story of their first date or swapping genuine compliments.

"If [she] wants to think Trump is Satan, she can have that," Falcon said. "But I try to get her to remember who she married."

2. Hillary voters: Remind yourself that your spouse is not, in fact, Donald Trump.

Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images.

Falcon doubled down on this point. She says it's the key to not just getting past these election results as a couple, but in maintaining a healthy bond throughout the Trump presidency.

"I try to nail that down so that, going forward, everything Trump does will not feel like their partner's responsibility," she said. In other words, despite this being hard to digest: Just because someone voted for Trump doesn't mean they've endorsed all of his future actions.

Election Day and the inauguration after that are only the beginning of a four-year conversation.

3. Trump voters: Now is not the time to gloat. It is the time to comfort your spouse because they are experiencing real grief.

Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

To those on the "victorious side," the response to this election may seem melodramatic. But Falcon reminds us that Clinton supporters are actually in a legitimate, and deep, state of mourning.

In fact, Falcon said she actually talks to her clients about the stages of grief. (You know: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance.)

"I try to get the Trump spouse to understand the emotions of the Hillary spouse and to assume that she would have been loving and supportive toward them had Hillary won," she said.

4. But to both people, Falcon says listening is key. Really listening.

Here's an exercise you can try:

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images.

In order to civilly "agree to disagree," you have to properly understand each other's position. Falcon recommends an exercise in which each partner takes turns "interviewing" the other about their views or support for their candidate.

There's just one catch: No arguing.

"The spouse asking the questions, their job is only to listen, take notes, reflect on what they're saying," Falcon said. "I don't let them argue or try to convince their spouse otherwise. I just want them to listen quietly and just leave it at that."

She admits this is a little easier in the presence of a neutral third party, so enlist one if you can.

5. And in the end, remember that, even if it feels like it, this is probably not the actual end of the world.

Photo by Mark Makela/Getty Images.

A Trump presidency may mean really bad things for a lot of people. That much cannot be swept under the rug. But there will also be a lot of good people fighting for what's right. For that reason, at least, the world is not likely to come to an actual end.

"I'm older than a lot of my clients, so I try to give them some perspective," Falcon said. She talked about the first time she voted, when she was a 19-year-old student at Louisiana State University. She had friends who died in the Vietnam War, leading her to protest heavily. So when she watched Richard Nixon win the presidency on a small portable TV, she was devastated.

"I really believed, at 19, that it was the end of the world, but it wasn't," she said. "It wasn't the end of the world."

Getting through a major difference in world views, like the one Trump's election has presented, will take hard work from both partners.

It's not about the Clinton voter "getting over it" or the Trump voter constantly apologizing for the behavior of his candidate. It's about coming together and reuniting over common ground, over the things that made you fall in love in the first place.

And in the end, Falcon just wants couples to make one simple decision:

"Trump may damage our country," she says. "But it's up to you if you let him damage your marriage."

Lawyers' Committee

Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights

It was one of the defining moments of the second 2016 presidential debate, and it almost didn't happen.

At the very end of the second "town hall" debate, after roughly 90 minutes of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump ripping into each other's policies, scandals, and character in front of a small audience, one man stood up to ask the evening's final question.

His name is Karl Becker. He is a father of two from Washington, Missouri. And he had a simple request:

"Would either of you name one positive thing that you respect in one another?"

Trump and Clinton enjoy a rare, friendly moment. Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images.

The candidates laughed warmly. The audience let out an audible "Aww!" And people around the world quickly declared that Karl Becker had "won" the debate.

Little did they know Karl was also prepared to ask a second potential question, one they'd never hear.

"My other question had to do with executive powers," he said. "I guess in retrospect that was pretty lame."

Trump and Clinton face off again in the election's third and final debate on Oct. 19, 2016. So I chatted with Karl about the origin of his now-famous question and what he'll be watching for as the election comes to an end:

Q: Who is Karl Becker?

Karl asks his question. Image via MSNBC/YouTube.

Karl: Who am I? Gosh. I'm a 49-year-old dad in Washington, Missouri. That's a suburb of St. Louis. I have two kids, Darcy and Shane, who just turned 16.

Q: How did you come up with "the question"?

Karl: My son and I volunteer at a little league football association where I live, and I ran it by him that morning. He said, "Oh yeah, that's a pretty good question." My daughter didn't like it. She wanted something that was more directed to Mr. Trump in regards to the "Access Hollywood" hot mic, Billy Bush scenario. But I explained to Darcy, the questions ... had to be questions that could be asked of either candidate.

Q: You've gotten a lot of attention from the media, but like your fellow debate-goer Ken Bone, you don't really seem to care for the attention. What's it like being a minor celebrity?

Karl: Most things don't excite me. It's been interesting. I tried to involve my daughter. She is somewhat focused on the journalism side of her schooling, and I want this to be an opportunity for her to meet folks who may be a help to her as she figures out what she wants to do with her life.
***
But I wasn't looking for the spotlight, and I'm not looking to continue the spotlight. Let [Ken Bone] ride the wave. I'm just taking this as it comes.

Q: I have to ask, have you decided who to vote for yet?

Both candidates seemed delighted by Karl's question. NBC/YouTube

Karl: There seems to be more, for lack of a better word, "crap" coming out on both candidates. And unfortunately, I don't know if I'll make a decision prior to November 8th.

Q: OK, so if you haven't decided, what'll be going through your head when you eventually step inside the voting booth?

Karl: I know their platforms. I can go on websites and read their policies. But what is that going to mean for the bigger picture? How is this going to really affect my kids?
***
It's going to come down to who do I think is more morally and ethically solid? ... Who's going to survive the mud being thrown the best?

Q: Will you be watching the final debate? And if so, what will you be looking for?

Karl: I'm going to watch the debate. I have parent-teacher conferences at my son's high school from 6 to 8 p.m., but then a film crew from St. Louis wants to send a crew to wherever I'm going to be watching. I'm up in the air about that.
***
I would like to believe that there will be more discussion between the two candidates of some worthiness. However, I don't think that's going to happen.

Q: If you could ask the candidates another question tonight, what would it be?

Karl: You stumped me. I honestly don't know. Maybe "Do you think we could speed up the debate and end it sooner?"

In the end, I left the conversation thinking that Karl Becker was a genuinely nice dude.

He even said he doesn't get why anyone would care what he thinks about the candidates.

Trump and Clinton go in for the handshake. Photo by Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images.

"There was a person over my shoulder (at the debate). He's a neurosurgeon ... The gentleman sitting to my left, he was a Ph.D. student in neuroscience."

No one interviewed those people, Karl said.

But there's a reason his debate question elicited such a response two weeks ago.

In the midst of one of the nastiest and most shocking presidential elections in recent history, we all yearn for the days when the candidates actually respected one another and where the choice ultimately came down to substantive policy differences — not which candidate you thought was more or less likely to destroy the country.

We care what Karl thinks because he reminds us that after this massive dumpster fire of an election burns out, we'll all need to find a way to coexist with one another again.

The Shane and Darcy Beckers of the world deserve that much.

At the second presidential debate on Oct. 9, 2016, a Muslim woman asked both candidates a question about Islamophobia.

"There are 3.3 million Muslims in the United States and I'm one of them," she began. "You've mentioned working with Muslim nations, but with Islamophobia on the rise, how will you help people like me deal with the consequences of being labeled as a threat to the country after the election is over?"

The woman, who identified herself only as one of America's 3.3 million Muslims. Photo via PBS Newshour.

Trump went first, and his answer contained a rather ... unique suggestion for the Muslim community: that Muslims around the United States need to "report the problems when they see them."

Simple! Making the world a better place means everyone participating. We're all in this together, right? Right?

The Muslim community, excited about its new assignment, took to Twitter to begin reporting all the problems around them using the hashtag #MuslimsReportStuff.

Turns out, there were many problems to be reported.

From the concerning lack of personal space between candidates:

— (@)

To the more mundane struggles of laundry day:

— (@)

Comedian Kumail Nanjiani wanted to report an underappreciated gem from the annals of film history:

— (@)

And author Reza Aslan reported that the world probably can't handle the truth about hummus:

— (@)

Actually ... there were a lot of food issues that needed to be reported:

— (@)

More to The Donald's point, however, a couple of truly heinous confessions came to light:

— (@)

But no one, especially Muslims, could ignore reporting the biggest problem they saw that night:

— (@)

While many were quick to make light of Trump's proposal, let's be clear: Islamophobia is on the rise and uninformed rhetoric like his is partially to blame.

In fact, ever since Donald Trump first proposed banning Muslims from entering the United States in December 2015, there's been a significant spike in anti-Muslim hate crimes.

Photo by Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images.

Trump's now infamous "Muslim ban" was proposed to combat the supposed threat of terrorism committed by refugees, despite the fact that refugees go through a lengthy and detailed (one might even say "extreme") approval process to enter the country.

Trump also suggested that the San Bernardino shooters' neighbor failed to report suspicious activity in their apartment, a claim that has been debunked over and over again.

Asking Muslims to report and stop acts of terror in order to combat Islamophobia is not only a simplistic solution, it reinforces the idea that the Muslim community as a whole is responsible for the acts of extremists.

— (@)

That idea has been shown to be harmful and dangerous, time and time again. If you want to stop Islamophobia, or hate for any group of people, it's usually good to start by not painting that group with a single brush.

Political campaigns are wrought with cliché.

From the red, white, and blue banners to stump speeches in local coffee houses and coal plants to ceremonial balloon drops triggered by victory announcements. (What happens to the balloons if they lose though?)

But one image has survived longer than any other as the reigning champion of pander-y political campaign PR.

This one:

Photo by Pete Souza/The White House via Getty Images.

The hero politician gleefully planting a smooch on the head of a baby who has been offered sacrificially by a nearby parent. The baby stares listlessly or crankily into the distance, wondering perhaps if this kind puckering stranger is their new dad.

Really, every politician does it. Republicans ... Democrats ... Russians...

Well, he tried. Photo by Alexey Druzhinin/AFP/Getty Images.

If you're running for elected office, or trying to keep your current post, kissing babies is the name of the game.

Kissing tiny humans for political gain actually goes back quite a ways.

No one knows for sure who the first politician to do it was, but the act is believed to have originated with an incident involving Andrew Jackson. While touring the Eastern states in 1833, he was approached by a woman with a baby in her arm.

Jackson campaigning in 1829. Photo by Three Lions/Getty Images

"Ah! There is a fine specimen of American childhood," said Jackson. "I think, madam, your boy will make a fine man some day." He then handed the boy to nearby secretary of war saying, "Eaton, kiss him?"

That boy's name? Barack Obama.

(Just kidding. Even if the timelines worked, Jackson would never be seen with baby Obama because he was a racist genocidal maniac who profited off slave labor and kicked 46,000 Native Americans out of their homes.)

Dick. Photo by Hulton Archive/Getty Images.

Anyway, by 1886 the act had become so widespread that "Babyhood," a 19th century magazine for mothers, covered it in one of their columns:

"History fails to record the name of the politician who first adopted the above method of gaining the favor of mothers. Henry Clay, Tom Corwin, and Van Buren did a good deal in that line; and I believe it was Davy Crockett who boasted that he had kissed every baby in his district."

Since then, it's been the go-to act for politicians looking to earn the favor of their constituents.

The George W. Bush Presidential Library's "Path to the Presidency" exhibit even has a section on the political history of baby kissing from Jackson to Hubert Humphrey.

Photo courtesy of George W. Bush Presidential Library.

Why do they do it? After all, it's not like babies can vote.

And don't forget, before 1920, neither could their mothers. So who exactly are they pandering to?

The fact is, what we look for in a leader is ... complicated.

A president or any other elected official has to have many qualities and represent many values at the same time. You have to convey strength, leadership, and modesty in different and often contradictory ways.

On the campaign trail, you can score political points by touting yourself as the strongest, toughest, not-gonna-take-this-bullshit-anymore-est candidate in the race. But you score votes by being relatable, by shaking hands, and by being a candidate of the people.

Mitt Romney tried to overcome his "elite" status in 2012 by taking off his tie, rolling up his sleeves, and campaigning more with people on the ground. It wasn't enough. Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.

The "perfect candidate" is strong enough to take on our enemies, but gentle and caring enough to pick up a baby and hold it. The perfect candidate is ... apparently ... a man.

Or at least society's image of a man. You know: a strong, upright, broad-shouldered gentleman with a sensitive side. A down-home guy with perfect teeth who's willing to lay down his life to protect yours but still enjoys long walks on the beach.

Admit it, America. It's not just a dating site trope. It's who we've elected pretty much every single time.

Needless to say, that macho-man-with-a-soft-spot-for-infants image makes the entire electoral process significantly harder to navigate if you're a woman running for office.

You might want to put her down, Hil. Photo by Robyn Beck/AFP/Getty Images.

When voters see displays of stereotypical femininity from a female candidate (like kissing babies), they don't register it positively.

According to research from Nichole Bauer at the University of Alabama, voters associate those "feminine" actions with all kinds of negative, outdated, and backward female stereotypes, like being overly emotional, sensitive, and weak. Which, in turn, hurts their campaigns.

"Attributing stereotypical feminine characteristics to women candidates does tend to activate gendered concepts that reduce people’s support for women running for office," writes Bauer.

So while men can steal a quick political boost off every infant's forehead, this gendered double standard means women running for the same office risk hurting their political careers.

It's a phenomenon sometimes referred to as the "motherhood penalty."

Need I say more? Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images

If you haven't noticed, one of the current frontrunners in the 2016 president race is a woman.

A woman who has spoken time and time again about the particular complications and unique double standards women face when navigating the political landscape.

It's absurd that next time a female candidate is handed a baby on the campaign trail, unlike her male opponents, she'd be better off handing it back without a kiss (just imagine how that would play out in the press). There's no way for a female candidate to "win" when it comes to this bizarre tradition of kissing babies. She kisses the baby and she's too weak; she hands it back and she's too cold.

Please, folks, stop giving presidential candidates your babies. And let's leave this gendered double standard in history, where it belongs. For everyone's sake.

From Your Site Articles

It was around 5 p.m. CST on Thursday, Feb. 25, when an employee at a Kansas lawn care factory opened fire on his colleagues.

As always, there has been plenty of speculation about this man's motives and the past indications of his violent potential. But none of those details change the fact that he used a semi-automatic rifle to murder four people and injure 14 more, 10 of whom were put in critical condition.

This was the 49th time in 54 days that an armed American citizen has shot four or more people in a single assault.

Less than three hours later, the 10th Republican presidential debate kicked off in Houston, Texas.

Gun control is clearly a hot-button topic in America. So what did the candidates have to say about this most recent tragedy?

Oh, whoops, sorry: That was Carson talking about how he would select a new Supreme Court justice. (Though I'm still not sure exactly what that means?)

Wait, I messed up. That was Rubio smack-talkin' Apple for refusing to comply the FBI. My bad.

And that was also about the standoff between Apple and the FBI. Or maybe about Kasich's bathroom habits, I'm not really sure.

Ah crap, I screwed up again! That was actually in response to the less-than-flattering polling numbers that the co-hosting network reported for Trump. (And that should not be confused with the time he said "I love them" when asked about Telemundo later in the debate.)

D'oh! That wasn't about gun control, either! That was ... y'know, I'm still not exactly sure what that was about, other than Trump talking over Cruz, as Trump is wont to do.

Huh. Apparently no one said anything about it. In fact, no one mentioned the word "gun" at any point at all. Weird, right?

In his defense, John Kasich did make a comment after a different mass shooting one week earlier, where he at least said, "We have to take this issue seriously" and ... not much else of substance.

Other than that, it's pretty much a non-issue in the GOP. Like once Obama's out of the way, he'll stop taking all our guns, and we can all go back to killing each other like good Americans.

Let's hope we see something different at the next Democratic debate on Sunday, March 6. If nothing else, well, there's always Judicial Fruit Salad. Maybe that'll save us from the wrong end of an AK.

Elections are getting weirder and weirder, and 2016 is no different. It's a doozy.

You probably already know why. You’ve seen it yourself. From Donald Trump's ... everything to the intense focus on Hillary's emails to Bernie Sanders' eternal sore throat and electro-shock hair, the 14 years this election's seemingly been dragging on for has been full of twists, turns, surprises and off-putting Jim Webb smiles (remember him?).

And like the radiator in an apartment owned by a stingy landlord, it's only barely started heating up.

The ska-band-sized republican field this year. Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.

Just like in 2008, this race will be largely decided by young voters. Young voters who, as a new poll reveals, are pretty much done with the status quo.

A new poll conducted by Rock the Vote and USA Today reveals young voters (the millennial electorate if you will) as concerned, deeply unsatisfied, and detached.

"Millennials, like the general population, are not as enthusiastic about participating in 2016 as this country needs them to be," Ashley Spillane, president of Rock the Vote says, speaking of the poll results showing that about 6 in 10 young people plan to vote in November.

"We as a country have work to do to restore this generation’s faith that not only is voting a way to make a difference, it is THE way and it really does matter."

What or who millennials want to vote for, however, is becoming uncertain and a lot less traditional and predictable.

1. The millennial voter is counterculture and looking to shake things up.

"Millennials, as has historically been the case, lean toward the candidates who have portrayed themselves as counterculture and outside the system," Spillane says.

This is certainly evident in the millennial support for both Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. Both candidates represent a strong pivot away from politics as usual ... in their own ways of course.

Bernie's support among young voters is huge. Rock the Vote's poll shows him leading Clinton 46% to 35%, and a Quinnipiac University poll shows him beating Trump by 13 points.

Not pictured: That third person. Photo by Andrew Burton/Getty Images.

For millennial Republicans though, Trump is their guy. Rock the Vote's poll has him leading the Republican field at 26%, which is an easy lead but much lower than his support in the general electorate.

However, "Republican" and "Democrat" might be outdated terms when talking about the largest voting demographic in America.

Because...

2. Millennials do not reliably lean towards one party or the other.

Millennials are largely issues-based voters. They care about the things that directly affect them, and they're willing to cross supposed party lines to address their concerns.

"A huge portion of the millennial generation is not affiliated with either political party, and their attitudes about issues give candidates from all political parties the opportunity to create solutions that address the things millennials care about," Spillane explains.

One of the angry young voters you may see at the polls this November. Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images.

The issues in question are the same ones being discussed nationwide — things like gun control, refugees, and the economy.

But despite these issues being presented as hotly contentious to the general public, for millennials, their minds are pretty much made up:

Photo via Rock the Vote/USA Today. Used with permission.

Other issues that millennials are overwhelmingly concerned about include the legalization of marijuana, which Time reports has 71% support among millennials, and student loan debt, which was their second-ranked concern according to Rock the Vote's poll.

3. The #1 thing millennials are worried about is the economy.

While the presidential candidates and news outlets would have us believe that terrorism is the scariest thing Americans face daily, millennials are far more afraid that they'll be un- or underemployed for extended periods of time.

"The oldest millennials were only 27 years old when the recession began," Spillane explains.

"This means that they have experienced struggles in employment very early on in their careers and that they had to make important decisions about jobs and education during a time of economic uncertainty where opportunities seemed scarce."

Job seekers at a New York City career fair in 2012. Photo by John Moore/Getty Images.

Indeed, a millennial facing the current job market doesn't have it easy.

Despite being the most educated and qualified generation in American history, and despite unemployment being at its lowest since the recession, most young adults struggle to make a paycheck that reflects that, if they have a job at all. That struggle is also multiplied by the most student loan debt in history.

So yeah. You can mark millennials down as "concerned."

4. Despite that economic concern, millennials actually remain pretty optimistic.

57% of the millennials who responded to the poll said they're optimistic about the future of the United States while 34% are not. The other 9% were probably too busy texting or Snapchatting or something.

Millennials recognize that they have the opportunity and responsibility to be the difference they want to see in the world. Despite their attitudes about voting, young people know they have more opportunities than ever to get involved in the issues they care about.

At least do it for the sticker. Photo by Mark Hirsch/Getty Images.

"Young people volunteer at record levels, care deeply about issues, and take actions online and on social media," says Spillane. "Even though young people are frustrated with the state of politics today, we have tools at our disposal to make things better, and that is reason for optimism."

5. Even better — millennials' optimism is well-founded because there are a LOT of them.

As America's largest generation, their numbers alone mean that the issues they care about will be in the conversation. If every millennial voted for the same candidate, that candidate would win in a landslide.

Photo from Rock the Vote, used with permission.

That's why you see Hillary Clinton struggle to "dab" on Ellen. Or Marco Rubio call for a "new generation of leadership" in order to gain young pander-points.

Millennials are the party that will definitively decide the future of this country. So it's important that they, that we, get involved and stay involved.

"Our research shows that when a person votes, they begin to identify themselves as a voter — and that this is habit forming," says Spillane.

It's a good habit to have.

That and — you know — flossing.

We have a small favor to ask of you

presidential candidates

There are some solid points being made on both sides.

YES—arguments for presidential age limits

NO—arguments against presidential age limits

What would it take to put an age limit on the U.S. presidency?

This has been a tough week for many of America's couples.

Whatever the reason, this new hurdle is threatening to rip many relationships apart.

1. First, remember the person you fell in love with.

2. Hillary voters: Remind yourself that your spouse is not, in fact, Donald Trump.

3. Trump voters: Now is not the time to gloat. It is the time to comfort your spouse because they are experiencing real grief.

4. But to both people, Falcon says listening is key. Really listening.

5. And in the end, remember that, even if it feels like it, this is probably not the actual end of the world.

Getting through a major difference in world views, like the one Trump's election has presented, will take hard work from both partners.

And in the end, Falcon just wants couples to make one simple decision:

It was one of the defining moments of the second 2016 presidential debate, and it almost didn't happen.

Q: Who is Karl Becker?

Q: How did you come up with "the question"?

Q: You've gotten a lot of attention from the media, but like your fellow debate-goer Ken Bone, you don't really seem to care for the attention. What's it like being a minor celebrity?

Q: I have to ask, have you decided who to vote for yet?

Q: OK, so if you haven't decided, what'll be going through your head when you eventually step inside the voting booth?

Q: Will you be watching the final debate? And if so, what will you be looking for?

Q: If you could ask the candidates another question tonight, what would it be?

In the end, I left the conversation thinking that Karl Becker was a genuinely nice dude.

But there's a reason his debate question elicited such a response two weeks ago.

At the second presidential debate on Oct. 9, 2016, a Muslim woman asked both candidates a question about Islamophobia.

The Muslim community, excited about its new assignment, took to Twitter to begin reporting all the problems around them using the hashtag #MuslimsReportStuff.

While many were quick to make light of Trump's proposal, let's be clear: Islamophobia is on the rise and uninformed rhetoric like his is partially to blame.

Asking Muslims to report and stop acts of terror in order to combat Islamophobia is not only a simplistic solution, it reinforces the idea that the Muslim community as a whole is responsible for the acts of extremists.

Political campaigns are wrought with cliché.

Kissing tiny humans for political gain actually goes back quite a ways.

Why do they do it? After all, it's not like babies can vote.

The "perfect candidate" is strong enough to take on our enemies, but gentle and caring enough to pick up a baby and hold it. The perfect candidate is ... apparently ... a man.

When voters see displays of stereotypical femininity from a female candidate (like kissing babies), they don't register it positively.

If you haven't noticed, one of the current frontrunners in the 2016 president race is a woman.

It was around 5 p.m. CST on Thursday, Feb. 25, when an employee at a Kansas lawn care factory opened fire on his colleagues.

Gun control is clearly a hot-button topic in America. So what did the candidates have to say about this most recent tragedy?

Huh. Apparently no one said anything about it. In fact, no one mentioned the word "gun" at any point at all. Weird, right?

Elections are getting weirder and weirder, and 2016 is no different. It's a doozy.

A new poll conducted by Rock the Vote and USA Today reveals young voters (the millennial electorate if you will) as concerned, deeply unsatisfied, and detached.

1. The millennial voter is counterculture and looking to shake things up.

2. Millennials do not reliably lean towards one party or the other.

3. The #1 thing millennials are worried about is the economy.

4. Despite that economic concern, millennials actually remain pretty optimistic.

5. Even better — millennials' optimism is well-founded because there are a LOT of them.