The youngest presidents have served in the 20th century: Teddy Roosevelt was 42, JFK was 43 and Bill Clinton was 46. Obama was 47.

You don't vote, bostjan? Good point, mushroom

Mushroom: none of the people you mentioned were eligible to run for president during the most recent presidential election, being either dead or having been president for two terms already. The people who ran last time were either 69 (HRC) or 70 (DJT) at the time of the election. In 2020, the young people in the democratic primary stand about an ice cube's chance of being nominated. The major contenders at this point (June 2019) are Joe Biden, who will be 77 and was vice president, Bernie Sanders, who will be 78 and who spent the most money on his campaign so far and came in second place for nomination last time, and Elizabeth Warren, who will be 70 and who spent the second most amount of money so far. Most likely, one of those three will end up running against Trump, who will be 74 and incumbent. All septuagenarians.

Linda Joy: I've voted in every presidential election for which I was eligible to vote. I voted in the most recent mid-term election, but I lived abroad for some time and didn't bother voting in mid-term elections over that time span, because I didn't really have any stake in any local elections.

Oh so you meant you don't want to, not that you don't vote. There is a lot to be said for having some experience and wisdom about you for a job like this! Young people can't think that far ahead. That part of their brains haven't finished growing until their 30's which is why there is an age limit for being POTUS. OTOH, you don't want them there so long they become corrupt, or compromise their values in the name of cooperation and for some it doesn't take long!

Correct. Some people can start losing their minds when they get older, too. 70-something is not too young to start showing signs of dementia.

@bostjan64 Cruz and Rubio were both 45 when they ran in 2016, in the same range as the youngest elected Presidents.

Did they run in the election?

They ran, but did not win the Republican primaries. The major parties agree to support only one candidate each. In the 2016 election, ten electors cast their votes for other candidates, three of which tried to change their vote but were disallowed.

Oh, I wasn't even aware they ran as independents after being excluded in the primaries. But the unfortunate truth of the matter is that no third party presidential candidate has any measurable chance of winning the election, mostly due to how the election is set up from the start. In the 1968 election, an independent won 13.5% of the vote and was awarded 46 electoral votes. FECA passed in 1974, requiring that political parties be on the previous ballot in order to gain certain advantages in the election. In 1980, an independent received 6.6% of the popular vote, but no electoral votes, and in 1992, an independent took 18.9% (nearly half of what the winner received) of the popular vote, but, again, no electoral votes. In essence, independent candidates are never going to win unless FECA is rewritten or repealed. Furthermore, the electoral college itself undermines the popular vote. In 2000, for every 100 votes for Bush, there were 101 votes for Gore, but Bush won by electoral vote, after some intervention of the Supreme Court, 271 to 266. Either way, it was pretty close. In 2016, for every 23 votes for Trump, there were 24 votes for Clinton, yet Trump won the electoral vote 304 to 227, with 2 faithless Trump electors and 5 faithless Clinton electors. Actually, that's the largest number of faithless electors since 1912, but the confusion occurred for good reason then - one of the candidates died. The most recent election prior to 2016 with faithless electors who deliberately disavowed their bound vote was in 1836.