I don’t want anyone to die, but the thought of Mrs. Clinton dying in office doesn’t concern me other than that. We have systems in place to keep the doors open even if we lose the chief executive. As almost everyone has said, it’s better to have a sick president you (somewhat) agree with than a healthy one you don’t. Which, I think, is the point of the OP. Why would a candidate’s health change anyone’s vote?
Why do you want someone who admires Putin in power, then?
The issue for me is not so much good or poor health but lying about it. Everyone gets sick once in a while but Clinton was gallivanting around with pneumonia while dismissing the rumours about her health. And then it caught up with her and she was caught out. And this is her MO. Trump, at least, is an honest liar - you know he’s telling you what he thinks you want to hear.
This is definitely what I was getting at. My other point is that even during the Wilson and Reagan administrations when the POTUS was unable to perform his duties, the country still managed quite well.
What the fuck is an “honest liar”?? You know he is going to fuck you over, so that’s the reason to go back to him, instead of running like hell away from him?
Or are you like all his other victims that think, “He fucked over all those other fools who supported him, but I know he won’t fuck me over, because I support him!” There is absolutely nothing in his past to indicate that he will put this country on a special “Maybe I Shouldn’t Fuck This Over Just To Personally Come Out Ahead” list.
Woodrow Wilson suffered a debilitating stroke while president. Because of this he was unable to campaign for the League of Nations membership which the senate ultimately rejected. There is no way of knowing if his being debilitated made a difference but his illness kept the US from having a president when some very important decisions were being made. We have been very fortunate in the timing of presidential ill health but that may not continue. In the past the government was mostly able to cover up any ill health which is probably no longer possible. If everyone in the world knows that a president is sick and not up to making decisions certain countries or terrorist groups might try to use that as an opening to make a move counter to the US interest.
It is a legitimate issue but not a huge one.
Following Tom’s note upthread, that’ll earn you a warning, Czarcasm.
Everyone, keep it civil and on track. More of this and I’ll shut the damn thing down.
It’s important to remember that FDR’s 1940 opponent, Wendell Wilkie and his running mate, Charles McNary, BOTH died before the 1944 election. If they had been elected instead of FDR, the presidency would have passed to the 72 year-old secretary of state, Cordell Hull, whose own health was so bad that he resigned at the end of Novemmber 1944.
In 1992 Paul Tsongas ran for the Democratic nomination for President. If he had managed to beat out Bill Clinton and then win the election, he, too would have died before the end of his first term.
I think Samuel Taliaferro “Sam” Rayburn, as Speaker of the House, would have moved up.
Czarcasm, perhaps I should remind you that I’m not an American so don’t have a vote. I’m free to damn all sides. 
We all know accidents happen, and in this day and age, great pains are taken to ensure that the President is not hurt and stays in as good a physical condition as possible.
Not just protective detail against planned harm, but protected against car accidents and other general ways one might get seriously injured.
They get regular complete physicals to ensure they are in the best health possible.
Earlier Presidents hid health issues because they knew the public would not vote for them if they found out.
For the life of me, I cannot understand why the concept of a healthy President seems so foreign to some.
Yes, we have a line of succession in the case of serious health issues or death. But that is the backup plan, the hope you never need to get there plan. Not the, oh, we don’t care if the candidate has an issue, it is fine, there is a plan in place.
I am not suggesting that she is not in sufficient health to be President, she may outlive Bill. I am just saying that the health of the President (and barring something strange she will be) is an issue.
Exactly. I’m unsure why this is even a debate, but I suspect that the REAL issue is that Trump and the Republicans brought up the whole health thingy, so therefore it’s a non-issue unless you are a Trump follower or a Republican. I’m neither, and it’s still an issue…if Hillary does have a real serious health problem then it’s definitely an issue. I don’t THINK she does, certainly not if all she has/had was pneumonia, but if she does then it will make a difference…though I’d vote for her cold, dead body before I’d vote for Trump.
Agreed that it has been magnified due to partisan politics.
I cannot vote for either personally.
But if it were disclosed that a Presidential candidate had just been diagnosed with cancer and while treatable with chemo, would still have to deal with the compromised health during that period, I am sure it would affect voters decisions.
I mean, if it caused the coach of the Colts to step away for the season, surely the President of the United States would need to have a different schedule during the treatment and recovery phase.
Well back in 1992 when Bill was running for office and Hillary was by his side, they certainly made the impression of a vibrant, healthy young couple with a young daughter ready to be the first family. Heck Bill was running marathons and playing his sax. It made a great impression.
People like healthy people and are nervous around sick people. Would you go into an interview if you had pneumonia and were afraid of a coughing fit or of fainting? Would you hire such a person?
I’m on the opposite side, and I think it’s a non-issue. There’s virtually no conceivable circumstance under which I would vote for Hillary (or Trump), but I don’t see this as a consideration at all.
All else being equal, you’d rather the president be healthy, especially if you like the president better than the VP. And certainly if you knew the candidate was dying of something or other that would be a consideration. But I don’t think it’s such a big issue that even some outside possibility of it being the case is a consideration. It’s a small risk of a minor downside. No big deal. (Even less of an issue than HRC’s emails, IMO, which puts it pretty far down there … :))
I think it’s one of those things where once someone sets a president (chuckle-chuckle) for doing something, it’ comes to be expected.
Candidate X releases his tax returns, now all candidates must release their tax returns.
Candidate Y releases her medical records, now all candidates must release their medical records.
Under the Presidential Succession Act of 1886, the Secretary of State was third in line after the President and Vice President. That wasn’t changed until 1947.
Not all pneumonia is especially contagious. Supposedly, hers was not a contagious sort. So, no hazard to the child.
I think we handle that better these days - when the president has had to go for either some sort of surgery or even medical testing requiring sedation power is temporarily passed to someone else. If the president is abruptly incapacitated we have a procedure for that (don’t think it’s been used since Reagan was shot, though). Past experience has shown us that we need to be prepared and we are.
Actually, from what I’ve heard today both of them are in fairly good health for their age. Trump has cholesterol issues, like millions of other people. Clinton takes a blood thinner, which is a standard precaution for someone with a history of a past blood clot and almost common in people her age. In other words, nothing remarkable here. Clinton caught pneumonia, it’s treatable, she’s now resting sensibly, she’ll get better.
This is a Warning to refrain from violating Moderator instructions.
[ /Moderating ]
Both could be true, in the sense that while being president is indeed massively stressful, the nature of running for president means you might shake hands with dozens or even hundreds of random people at various campaign stops, exposing you to a wider variety of opportunistic pathogens. Compared to that, the presidential “bubble” is as sterile as an operating room and what kills you comes from within.