The NYT had 3 straight weeks of breathless Biden is too old front-page headlines based on speculation and tenuous connections. Trumps equivalent actions/incoherence which could be interpreted in as an age-related decline were being continually "sanewashed". Further, all concerns about an old president suddenly vanished when Biden dropped out, even though Trump will be older than Biden was by the end of Trump's term.
Biden was too old. And the problem with his age was not the number, it was that he was visibly very, very old. 10 years ago, Biden was fit, spry, and sharp. He rode his bicycle with ease, and was quick-witted with journalists. In the last year+, Biden became frail and tottering, and his words slurred at times almost to incomprehension (I once rewound a clip 10 times to figure out what he said, and never untangled the phonemes).
Trump is no spring chicken, but he hasn't yet turned that corner into rapid physical decline. It will happen in the next couple of years, but he's not there yet.
Please. None of the media is making hay of Trump's IV-bruise, and credulously accepted the White Houses's statement that he was sharking hands too hard the day before. Half his face is droopy, but that's not notable or worthy of speculation when its Trump.
It did not matter how old or sick each one is it mattered how each one is perceived. After the first debate a lot of Democratic voters felt like Biden was doing very poor and he was, numbers show it.
But really Democrats keep providing one unpopular boomer candidate after another, so when it is NYT or anybody upset - I am not surprised.
EDIT: actually I meant to reply to the person you are replying to, heh.
> Biden was doing very poor and he was, numbers show it.
The polls in the immediate aftermath of the debate showed Biden's approval/disapproval rate was unchanged. It did change after weeks of negative front-page stories and speculation that gave the impression the man was a vegetable.
