The Age Thing

Ed Kilgore takes a gander at poll results indicating that people are excited about the idea of electing a 72 year-old man to the presidency and observes that "this kind of polling may soon make McCain's age and health the issue a lot of observers have expected it to become for a long time." Actually, though, I doubt that it will. Will the media raise this issue? Probably not, since it clearly cuts against John McCain and in the eyes of the press John McCain can do no wrong. Will McCain's political adversaries raise the issue? Maybe, but it'll be hard for it to have a big effect, since in the eyes of the press John McCain can do no wrong and launching this sort of attack on him will prompt a backlash and be viewed as underhanded.

Meanwhile, I looked up some mortality statistics courtesy of the CDC. It seems that a white man has a cumulative 15 percent chance of dying between the ages of 72 and 76 (see page seventeen for the data). In case of re-election, a white man faces an additional 22 percent chance of dying between his 76th birthday and his 80th. Now of course to look at this more closely you'd have to consider McCain's history of skin cancer and so forth. In addition, as President he'd be subjected to the well-known horrors of socialized medicine.

Comments

Since he's a Vet, on Medicare, and getting Congresiional coverage its a surprise he is still alive.

Posted by Rob | January 14, 2008 4:45 PM

You also have to take into account his socioeconomic level and the fact that only the good die young.

Posted by KCinDC | January 14, 2008 4:54 PM

Doesn't it seem a tad macabre to be discussing somebody's probability of dying in the next 4 years? Not that his age is beyond discussion. I guess if he is the nominee, one sure hopes he picks a good veep.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | January 14, 2008 4:56 PM

Will the media raise this issue? Probably not, since it clearly cuts against John McCain and in the eyes of the press John McCain can do no wrong.

or maybe they don't want to be called ageists...

Posted by Dan the Man | January 14, 2008 4:57 PM

"It seems that a white man has a cumulative 15 percent chance of dying between the ages of 72 and 76 (see page seventeen for the data)."

I'll take those odds over the 100% chance that a President Hillary will piss me off for four years.

Posted by Hillary | January 14, 2008 5:00 PM

I think the numbers look differently if you start with a man of 72. What you want to hit is dementia and Alzheimers: doesn't show immediately, is very problematic, has likely happened to us recently (as I understand it).

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | January 14, 2008 5:01 PM

If elected, McCain might be the grumpiest president we've ever had.

Posted by blah | January 14, 2008 5:04 PM

it clearly cuts against John McCain and in the eyes of the press John McCain can do no wrong.

I wonder why Matthew keeps repeating this, since it has been scientifically shown to be false.

Now, I realize that the Reality Based Community feels free to disregard actual science when that science happens to contradict the Reality Based Community's strongly held beliefs. In this way, the Reality Based Community is no different than, say, religious nuts who don't believe in evolution - hey if the scientific evidence contradicts their strongly held beliefs, then the scientific evidence must be wrong. Thought Matthew might be different, but I guess not.

Posted by Al | January 14, 2008 5:04 PM

Statistics are dangerous things.

Not all white males are created equal. McCain has a better health care plan than most - which would only get better in the Oval Office (he's certainly healthier than Cheney). He's not going to be living month to month on a fixed income, or relying on his kids to keep a roof over his head.

Better to compare the longevity of Senators in the 70-80 year age range. It seems to me those guys last forever.

Posted by Jinchi | January 14, 2008 5:06 PM

Also, so the statistics say that McCain would be more likely to die than Obama? I wonder if the statistics also say that Obama would be more likely to go to jail than McCain. Sometimes the statistics aren't all people make them out to be...

Posted by Al | January 14, 2008 5:09 PM

McCain will be more likely to experience incontinence than Obama.

Posted by blah | January 14, 2008 5:10 PM

It is amazing, actually, that he is going so strong. His body and mind have endured more than most people will ever come close to experiencing. We could have much worse choices for a repub president for domestic policies.

However watching him spin himself into a neocon pro-Iraq war fever and with the 100 year US involvement quip, I wonder if part of him is stuck back in Vietnam with a need to reckon that disaster with belligerent hopes of "victory" in the current military disaster. He wouldn't be the first vet to leave a part of their soul and mind on a foreign battlefield.

Posted by nightjar | January 14, 2008 5:13 PM

Not just dementia and Alzheimers, but run-of-the-mill senility, and just a general wearing down that comes of old age. Surely many of us know some 72 year olds who are not nearly as on the ball as they used to be, and surely this tendency accelerates the older one gets. In fact, I bet you could run McCain Then and Now clips that would show a significant deterioration, even compared to the 2000 election.

Posted by bobbo | January 14, 2008 5:17 PM

Surely many of us know some 72 year olds who are not nearly as on the ball as they used to be

In McCain's defense, he has a long way to slide before he hits the level of the current (61 year old) occupant of the White House.

Posted by Jinchi | January 14, 2008 5:22 PM

Am I crazy or didn't the press savage McCain over the summer over his Baghdad market trip and his little Beach Boys ditty about blowing up Iran? There also were a million stories about what a disaster his campaign had turned into which completely swamped whatever message he was trying to get out for weeks. People keep talking about McCain's sway over the press like it's a given but I feel like the last few months have to lead us to at least seriously reconsider the theory. The reason he's shot up in the polls is that he was thought for dead and ignored while the other candidates were brutally attacked, not because the press deemed him The One and showered him with positive coverage.

Posted by Dan Panorama | January 14, 2008 5:28 PM

Actuarial tables matter, but genes matter more. The man's mother is still alive and lucid, and it is no accident that he has showcased her on national TV. He draws from a strong gene pool and appears set to live for a long time. Maybe someone should concede to that.

That said, you never know. A bunch of his other relatives are dead. Still, he seems to have strong roots in the life business.

Posted by Unreal Veal | January 14, 2008 5:40 PM

McCain didn't have a run of the mill skin cancer. He is a two time loser with melanoma(much worse than your garden variety basal cell or even squamous cell). Given the unpredictable nature of melanoma, I wouldn't be surprised if he presented with a liver/lungs full of metastatic tumor. I'm not wishing it on him. I've just seen it too many times to count.

Posted by pdxmike | January 14, 2008 5:41 PM

Dan Panorama and Al,

You need to look at the longer-term picture. Al, your study only examined a five-month period starting a year ago when he was down in the polls. Clearly, the McCain-press love train went off the tracks for a bit but it's just as clearly back on now and steaming ahead.

It's the *pundits* especially who love McCain. Heck even Jon Stewart kisses the guy's wrinkly ass (or used to, anyway -- haven't seen him interview him in a while).

Posted by Ryan | January 14, 2008 5:44 PM

I wonder why Matthew keeps repeating this, since it has been scientifically shown to be false.

And Al is, once more, scientifically proven to be a complete fucking useless bullshitting hack for the ages.

I quote:

Why was McCain on the receiving end of so much unfavorable press? In a campaign dominated by coverage of strategy and tactics, there are some clues. Fully 60% of his coverage, for example, concerned his worse-than-expected standing in the polls, compared with 50% generally. And 51% of those McCain horse race stories were clearly negative in tone. Typical of this coverage was a March 8 page-one story in the Wall Street Journal warning, in the first sentence, that “Sen. John McCain is facing unexpectedly formidable challenges despite courting the party faithful during his seven-year wait on deck for a shot at the White House.”

That, in hackbreath Al's understanding, is a 'negative story'.

Saying 'John McCain's campaign has no money' or 'John McCain is polling lower than Dick Cheney' when McCain had no money and was in the -- or even LoudObbs devoting 14,000 segments on why McCain wants to feed your babies to Mexicans -- is different in kind from 'is Hillary going to bite off your balls?' or 'Obama? Too black, or not black enough?' Even when McCain was carrying his own bags and travelling in the cargo hold, he was still Senator Maverick McStraightTalk to his adoring press fans.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 14, 2008 5:47 PM

To reiterate: Al's 'scientific' survey argues that

"Why Is Straight-Talking Maverick John McCain's Campaign Not Feeling The Love We Have For Him In National Polls?"

counts as a negative story. This is clearly bullshit that only bullshit connoisseurs like Al can lap up.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 14, 2008 5:50 PM

Ryan,

Yes, the study only observed a segment of the campaign so far. However, since the campaign is basically less than a year old, it is probably more than half of the campaign, and so provides a good enough sample.

More importantly, the study clearly contradicts what Matthew is saying. Matthew is trying to make the point that the press will bury a negative story about McCain. But that's simply false - when there is a negative story about McCain, the press is perfectly willing to trumpet it. The press was given negative stories about McCain over the period of the study (re lower than expected polls, or lack of money) - and, as the study showed, the press was willing to trumpet those stories far and wide. Accordingly, Matthew's intended narrative - that the press will simply refuse to play negative stories about McCain - cannot possibly be true.

Now, the press may in fact not make a big deal of McCain's age. But the reason for that is obvious: McCain's age is no different today than it was a month or two ago (at least no different than every candidate's age is). That is, this fits in the category of "old news" - everyone already knows that McCain is old.

Posted by Al | January 14, 2008 6:06 PM

I think you need a session of The Table on ageism. Weird how this topic keeps coming up of how totally old and on the brink of expiring McCain is. Actuarially he has a life expectancy of about 12 years. He's indicated he most likely won't run for reelection in 2012.

Posted by gordonminor | January 14, 2008 6:12 PM

It's unnecessary to raise the issue of McCain's age.
It's obvious looking at the guy and listening to him. He looks ancient and every time I hear him say something, it's in a slower and slower cadence.

Posted by Garuda | January 14, 2008 6:12 PM

"He's indicated he most likely won't run for reelection in 2012."

Has he really? That's interesting.

Posted by Korha | January 14, 2008 6:32 PM

I'm not a McCain fan, but seeing as how his mother is healthy and sharp as a tack in her nineties, perhaps we should disregard McCain's age and beat him up for his policies. If we were to elect him, my guess is he'd be there for the full eight years, so let's start thinking about whether that's really what we want.

Posted by sab | January 14, 2008 6:44 PM

Surely those averages are massively weighed down by the fact that the majority of white men don't have health care anywhere near so good as that provided to rich Senators.

Getting the correct comparison class allows one to make meaningful statements.

Posted by sherifffruitfly | January 14, 2008 6:46 PM

The press was given negative stories about McCain over the period of the study (re lower than expected polls, or lack of money) - and, as the study showed, the press was willing to trumpet those stories far and wide.

Again, bullshitting hack Al spouts bullshit.

A press that's obsessed with horserace politics obviously won't bury 'Maverick straight-talker John McCain running low in the polls' stories. Those stories aren't so much 'given' as self-evident, coming along with the regular polling and quarterly campaign finance reports.

'Straight-talking maverick John McCain so low on money, he has to carry his own bags and fly in coach' is hardly unequivocally negative, as much of the coverage of that period proves.

In short, bullshitting hack Al is jumping on a dubious study that equates horserace and campaign finance stories with, say, Patrick Healy and Adam Nagourney's repeated dives into Hillary Clinton's underwear drawer, nothing comparable to which has been written about McCain. One would have to be deeply disingenuous or mentally challenged not to appreciate the difference.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | January 14, 2008 6:47 PM

Actuarial tables matter, but genes matter more. The man's mother is still alive and lucid, and it is no accident that he has showcased her on national TV. He draws from a strong gene pool and appears set to live for a long time. Maybe someone should concede to that.
That said, you never know. A bunch of his other relatives are dead. Still, he seems to have strong roots in the life business.
Posted by Unreal Veal

His Dad and Grandad died in their early 70s. He has a sister that is in remission from breast cancer. Growing up, I've seen families where most die off like flies as they hit the early 70s, with the 1 in 8 outlier that is in great health and lasting into the 90s - but the odds are not with being the 90-year old.

Of the candidates, Obama is in superb health and Hillary in good health. Of the Republicans, Romney and Paul are termed in superb health, Huckabee in good health, and Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain in OK health for their ages, given they are in cancer remission...

McCain didn't have a run of the mill skin cancer. He is a two time loser with melanoma(much worse than your garden variety basal cell or even squamous cell). Given the unpredictable nature of melanoma, I wouldn't be surprised if he presented with a liver/lungs full of metastatic tumor. I'm not wishing it on him. I've just seen it too many times to count.
Posted by pdxmike

Ugh, you are right. Except with McCain it is 3 melanomas, I think. One in 1993, one in 2002, one in 2003.
And I had relatives that "beat" melanoma only to have another one with a 90% chance of cure that actually hid out for a few years somewhere else in the body then explosively metastasized.

It is a legitimate topic to discuss about McCain, along with his age and his past reputation for incidents about his temperment, erratic behavior that his loving media has avoided letting the public know much of, since he was a POW and deserves any break they can give him..

I would be interested to know if his facial bloating and bouts of fatigue that have led to cancelled appearances are about age, or possible hormone treatments like hydrocortisone that are used in post cancer recurrance mitigation course of treatment strategies - or the fatigue is normal and the face bloating notably the left side the media avoids mentioning - is simply because his cancer surgery removed all the lymph glands and ducts in his face and neck and it is just fluid accumulation...

Posted by chris ford | January 14, 2008 7:15 PM

Many apologies. I was looking around for where McCain said he wouldn't run for reelection and it appears that he has not in fact made that commitment. It's a lesson in not making statements of fact without double checking. Apologies again.

Posted by gordonminor | January 14, 2008 7:26 PM

"Actually, though, I doubt that it will. Will the media raise this issue? Probably not, since it clearly cuts against John McCain and in the eyes of the press John McCain can do no wrong."

In case it isn't clear the press makes up a small percentage of primary voters. The press may never or at least rarely say that Professor McCain is too old to become president but that doesn't mean that (Florida, etc) primary voters won't decide Professor McCain is too old to become president.

Posted by Linus | January 14, 2008 7:42 PM

The Economist, Jan. 12, 2008, p. 25:

Mr. McCain's handicap is his liberal record on immigration. Another problem is his age. Were he to win, he would be the oldest president ever.

Posted by Brian | January 14, 2008 8:07 PM

Consider that McCain, Giuliani, and Thompson are all battling cancer, maybe Romney could finally climb out of #2 with the slogan:

"Cancer-free! (As far as we know...)"

Posted by Steve Sailer | January 14, 2008 9:39 PM

If you don't have his latest medical history or an indication of his physical health, eating habits, exercise habits, etc., none of this means anything.

Most Presidents end up being junkies on a humongous drug regimen anyway. I believe both Kennedy and Nixon were known to be on massive drug regimens during their terms, Kennedy due to back problems, supposedly. Most of them end up drugged robots who can barely function in public. Bush, starting out as an alcoholic, really came off bad on that one. By now, Bush is somewhere around Hitler in the bunker for his ability to perceive reality.

This is what you get from your primate preference for the older alpha male to be the leader of your troop. There's something to be said for the standard chimp practice of the younger ones beating the crap out of the older ones to assume the leadership.

Especially since there's no evidence in humans that age produces wisdom, rather than senility.

What matters in humans is experience, rationality, and attitude. Unfortunately, none of that has anything to do with politics.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 14, 2008 10:30 PM

Uh. Kennedy suffered from primary Addison's disease a serious illness of the Adrenal glands that causes a number of secondary conditions and complications.

President John Kennedy : Health & Medical History

Posted by nightjar | January 14, 2008 10:49 PM

that doesn't mean that (Florida, etc) primary voters won't decide Professor McCain is too old to become president.

Because, you know, Florida voters being typically hostile to old people and all...

Posted by Tyro | January 14, 2008 11:21 PM

yes, as there is a theory out that Kennedy wasn't shot to death, but rather experienced a sudden spike in bloodpressure: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/new_theories_suggest_kennedy_wasnt

Posted by gerontion | January 14, 2008 11:25 PM

gerontion

LOL, I guess the high BP gave him an exploding headache. Me loves The Onion.

Posted by nightjar | January 14, 2008 11:55 PM

"It's true that no one has ever considered that JFK simply got caught in a deadly ninjitsu battle with Texas governor John Connally," said Secret Service agent Kellen Forslow..."

See! I knew my interest in ninjas would be relevant!

Not only that, Kennedy was killed years before Andrea Corr was born! And he was Irish!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | January 15, 2008 2:02 AM

What is up with McCain's cheek/chin on the left side. It has ballooned in recent years.

Posted by sickly | January 15, 2008 3:23 AM