Publicly advocating for a policy change is also part of how democracies work. The "just vote" response as a mode of "don't talk about policy ideas" is silly for

Publicly advocating for a policy change is also part of how democracies work. The "just vote" response as a mode of "don't talk about policy ideas" is silly for this reason; _how_ we vote is informed by our conversations with others, and what policies we put on the table is informed by what we all want and prioritize. But I think this can't realistically be just an issue of voting or not voting for individual elderly senate candidates, for a couple reasons: - a 6 year term is a long time, and a lot can change during that period - tenure in the Senate comes with placement on important committees; if your state wants their legislators in positions of power, you're pressured to allow them to accrue more tenure _so long as legislatures from other states are allowed to do the same_. Institutional-level limits on age or fitness must apply across the board. - X is too old to serve is literally an ad-hominem attack in any given race and individuals competing for office choose not to use it because making that argument comes with real costs. We _should_ try to keep discourse in these races about policy issues. But retirement ages or fitness standards as an across-the-board policy proposal is an appropriate way to safeguard offices without descending into a personal attack about a person's un-chosen attributes.