Will Bernie Sanders’ Heart Attack Matter? Probably Not.

This year’s presidential election will likely be the oldest contest in history. The three Democratic frontrunners, as far as both national polling and in the key early primary states goes, are Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren, all three of whom are seventy years old or over. If one of them emerges from the primary field, they will (barring impeachment) face Donald Trump in the general, and Trump will be seventy-four years old on Election Day 2020. Inevitably, the age of the three frontrunners has been a significant undercurrent in the Democratic primary, albeit one that has mostly bubbled underneath the surface. In the case of Warren talk about age has been nonexistent, whereas for Biden it has been a recurring issue brought up both on the debate stage and in the press as a key question he must overcome if he were to win the nomination. Even Trump, only four years Biden’s junior, has attacked Biden on that front (though that likely helped Biden in the primary, if anything). Despite being born in the same year as Biden, Sanders had mostly dodged the age question, deflecting it ably by playing up how he still plays basketball, the Jewish version of Uncle Drew. But now, the age question for Sanders has been forced into the spotlight. The candidate recently suffered a heart attack that has, to some, called into question his physical fitness to persist on the campaign trail, never mind the office of President itself. Or has it? The age issue may seem daunting for, if not Warren, then certainly both Biden and Sanders, but ultimately it will only prove crippling to their campaigns if combined with other factors.

So, to begin with, just how serious was Sanders’ heart attack on health grounds alone? In an admirably well-balanced and informative article, The Atlantic’s James Hamblin lays it all out. Sanders’ procedure was a common one for treating coronary artery disease, and while all the details are not yet known, Sanders’ condition was likely “on the less severe end of the spectrum,” comparing it favorably to the bypass procedures undergone by David Letterman and former President Bill Clinton. I would also note one other example that came to mind; Dick Cheney suffered several heart attacks during his long career in high public office, including in 2000, on the eve of his becoming one of the most powerful Vice Presidents in the modern era. He continued to work effectively, though doubtless there are many Iraqis who might have wished it to be otherwise.

Nevertheless, some have seized upon Sanders’ heart attack as a serious issue for his campaign. An article in Bloomberg opined that the incident “raised serious viability concerns” for Sanders’ campaign, quoting a retired voter who “wonders what a Sanders-like medical episode would mean for a prospective Democratic nominee’s ability to defeat Trump.” Frankly, I find the evidence presented to be sorely lacking.

I learned many things about politics while working as a field organizer on Barack Obama’s 2012 campaign- but one of them was this- don’t take a single voter’s opinion as a sign of a broader trend without more evidence. The most telling example was one voter, a supposed Obama supporter, complaining that if our campaign contacted him again (we supposedly were calling him daily), he would switch his vote to Romney. I doubt he did- and I know that our vigorous (if persistent) voter outreach, though it may have annoyed an individual voter or two, it did far more help than it did harm. While I don’t doubt the individual voter Bloomberg quotes is sincere in their opinion, I don’t take is as broadly indicative.

Ultimately, the only time that health is truly a decisive issue for a political candidate’s campaign is when it is so serious that it actually forces them to withdraw from the race. People’s opinions of the candidates will still predominantly be formed by how they perceive their personas as well as stances on some issues- no one supporting Hillary Clinton was swayed, I am sure, for one moment by her own health scare in September 2016- in hindsight it ranks far, far down the least as to the debated reasons why she lost. Likewise, did anyone who believed that Donald Trump would build the wall or drain the swamp care that he was an overweight seventy year old with bizarre reasons for not having exercised regularly in almost forty years? The answer is similarly obvious.

The Bloomberg article does accurately paint a key reason why Sanders (or Biden) may not win the nomination, but it has nothing to do with the health of either men. As Elizabeth Warren has cemented her place in the top three and closed on Biden and Sanders in both polling and fundraising, she has ably positioned herself as having many of the attributes of the two men that voters admire, but without either of their most glaring drawbacks. As the article points out, she is “offering a similar message of battling Wall Street and income inequality,” but at the same time she is a more appealing compromise for the Biden-leaning centrists than the self-proclaimed socialist Sanders. The fact that, despite her own advanced age, her health is a total non-issue does not hurt, but it is far from a decisive factor.

Someone gets elected when their moment comes, when events come together to make them the most appealing man (or woman) of the hour at a particular place in time in America. Often times when that candidate emerges unexpectedly, they are tagged as either too young or too old for the moment- much was made of Barack Obama’s inexperience in 2008, or that of Bill Clinton and JFK before him. And when that moment comes, it is never the decisive factor for or against them. Only one of Sanders, Warren, or Biden (and it could yet be someone else as well), will see 2020 be their moment for the nomination, and when that moment comes, their age will, in the end, be nothing more than a number.