lived more than two decades after that.

The fact Sanders was in good enough shape to leave the hospital so quickly and plan on returning to campaigning should tell you that median survival statistics won't apply to him.

I can't imagine that's good for anybody who just suffered a heart attack at nearly 80 years old.

There are so many highs & lows and one thing could derail a campaign. He has been handling the stresses well. I don't know how can deal with everything thrown his way and have such a positive outlook.

My family has been blessed so I don't have that type of personal reference.

And thank you for posting.

I hope lots of people really think about this statistic.

The first thing that came to mind was that Biden is in the same age group. I don't think all the ranting and raving by Trump will effect Biden's chances too much in the primaries, however, Sanders' heart attack brings home the awareness of the mortality for that age group. Sanders may have done Biden's chances more harm than Trump could have.

Plus, Biden seems to get confused about basic facts rather easily these days.

I have been out of the loop lately.

but I do not watch news obsessively. Don't own a regular TV, which believe, is the very best thing. People here are complaining bitterly about certain ads they are seeing on major news channels. I never see any of those ads, which keeps me vastly calmer.

Age, diet, other medical problems can all factor in.

You could be lucky and beat all the odds, who knows

you're gonna die

....about 10 years ago, and had a heart pump installed. Then he had that one replaced a few months ago.

He'll be 75 years old next month! Thankfully there are exceptions to these studies.

He just falls into the smaller percentage group that survives longer. Right in line with the stats.

....are 92 and 90.

who had his first heart attacks at age 37 and then had quite a few more. He is still alive at 78 with a transplanted heart. He must be quite the outlier.

itself, he's now living with a heart the age of the donor.

... statistically speaking. I'm kinda hoping for a 2-term president.

Speaking for myself only... those survival rate numbers aren't very comforting or reassuring. I can't see myself supporting any candidate for a national office that he or she (again) statistically speaking, will unlikely complete.

If the general consensus among lawmakers is the same (particularly the opposition party) then that president will be viewed by them as a "lame duck" president (ie: in their final term) and no matter what aggressive agenda the candidate promised going in... the opposition need only wait-out the candidate until the end of their term (or life) whichever comes first.

And even if the candidate lives through the first term... once again, we're looking at a lame-duck scenario. Such a candidate will be unable to remain competitive in pursuit of a 2nd term.

All I'm trying to say is that when it comes to MY vote, I'm going to choose someone that I believe has the best chance of surviving EIGHT YEARS and serving those eight years with enough energy, vigor and vitality to get things done.

Unfortunately I can't support Bernie any longer. I know he' 78 but appears in excellent physical condition. But after 4 years he'd be 82! After one heart attack, it stacks the odds against him.

I will be looking at the rest of the field to decide 1st, who I believe would BEAT Con Man. 2nd, who could persuade some Repugs to vote for them.

He’s the one candidate I will not get behind in the primaries, and I plead the 5th out of respect for TOS should he obtain the nomination.

That said, this is a silly reason not to get behind a candidate imo. First, we have a system in place to handle it, the VP would become president, which will be someone hand-picked by our nominee.

I refuse to jump on this kind of bandwagon just because I’m opposed to a candidate. If it was Biden, I would certainly still support him. If it was Warren, I would certainly still support her. I was 100% against the calls for the great RBG to step down after her recent battle with cancer. I’m not going to change the position I’d have just because it’s a candidate I don’t support.

whilst casting that primary vote. But what voters are asked to do is that we not only trust the candidate with Lincoln's "I am President of the United States, clothed with great power" BUT ALSO their de facto sole decision of the backup (even if de jure it is voted on at the convention). That is asking a lot when the actuarial tables move off of generic age/gender data and start including specific documented medical conditions which shrink the life expectancy considerably.

I want a candidate for whom the currently available data indicates a much-more-likely-than-not chance of surviving two full terms, who can also beat Trump like a cheap drum. That is not too much to ask, imo.

is one that would be considered "balancing the ticket": Tulsi Gabbard. And it's not beyond the realm of possibility since she's been a huge Bernie proponent.

But since I'd never vote for her in a Presidential primary, I wouldn't want her as the understudy, either.

Take that dream vacation for about a year.

Because that increases life expectancy. True or False