Does a candidate's "looks" affect his "electability?

[Blue_Roses]

I know, I know, very petty and superficial to base a candidate's ability to be a good President on his physical appearance, however, one instance stands out in my mind. During election 2000, I heard a DJ on a local radio station mention this and even though they didn't really "know" the issues, they thought Bush was a "fox" so he was gonna get her vote. Now, after picking my chin up off the floor, I began to notice this to be a question that came up alot--who was the best looking candidate.

Since first hearing that comment, I have noticed some who do vote this way--sad but true.

As shallow and stupid as it is to vote for "looks" I wonder if you know of anyone who has or does vote this irresponsible way?

Your thoughts?

[lcordero]

1. Nixon...need I say more?

[Blue_Roses]

10. Nixon?

yeah, he did lose to Kennedy:)

[muchacho]

2. uh...yeah!

Look up Q ratings.

[Blue_Roses]

9. got a link?

n/t

[CalebHayes]

3. Hell yeah!

Just look at this guy!

[beaconess]

4. I don't know

it seems that for every one person who is more likely to vote FOR Edwards because they think he's good-looking, there is at least one more who thinks that he's too pretty and assumes that he is a lightweight who is not ready for the presidency.

I think it's a wash.

[SharonAnn]

5. Sure, just like it affects hiring, promotions, sales, etc.

We're a very "lookist" society. Those who "look" better get better results in everything.

[lastknowngood]

6. we have an asshole in office

who looks like a chimp.

[Blue_Roses]

8. LOL

n/t

[NNN0LHI]

15. That may be why he lost the election? n/t

[JohnOneillsMemory]

7. Heck yeah! As animals, we've been identifying 'friend or foe' visually

for several million years.

Gender and family dynamics are primal forces in the chemistry of acceptance. Especially in an uninformed electorate who vote with their 'gut' fears.

Look up linguist George Lakoff's work on 'framing issues' and the model of the 'strong father' in picking leaders.

Sad but true, fascinating and predictable.

[MrSlayer]

11. Do a candidate's looks effect his electability?

Sadly, I say yes. In this day and age looks may not be everything but they play a huge role.

[SheilaT]

12. Absolutely.

Of course, we all have somewhat different standards as to what makes someone attractive to us, so not everyone will agree that one particular candidate is the best looking.

It's a simple fact that usually the taller candidate wins in the general election. It's common wisdom that homely Abe Lincoln would never have been elected in a television age, but I contend that since he would have been perhaps the tallest candidate ever to run, he'd have won anyway.

However, I don't think anyone here should change his/her vote to a taller or more attractive candidate (unless you're switching to my guy) but stick to supporting the man you honestly think would make the best president. And of course, you agree that my guy is best, right?

[MoonRiver]

13. To a degree. The Hunchback of Notre Dame probably wouldn't

get many votes. But I always vote on the issues and electability. It's nice if a candidate's looks are great, but that factor is definitely last on my list of priorities.

[Bonobo]

14. No brainer. Of course. n/t

[jjmalonejr]

16. Which candidate's "looks" are his biggest liability?

I'd say:

Sharpton
Kucinich
Lieberman

Whether it's because of racism, sterotyping or prejudicial thinking, I think these three find themselves at a disadvantage.

For Clark, Dean, Edwards and Kerry, I don't really think it's an issue.

[coloradodem2005]

17. Interesting.

My mother thinks that Al Gore is much better looking than George Bush. She probably thinks Clinton is too. To the lady Bush is not a fox, he's a chimp.

[Blue_Roses]

19. two different

"looks" I guess. One is the bow-legged Texan look and the other is the "Wall Street" look.. I always thought Al Gore was good-looking, however, I didn't use that as a factor.

[Blue_Roses]

20. Clinton is not only better looking

than both, he has much more charisma. I've heard Clinton oozes charisa when he walks in a room...

[Kipepeo]

18. Sad but True

I know a lot of people vote this way. I once saw a poster (on what was supposed to be a feminist message board at inception but which was quickly overrun by conservatives and girls who thought feminism meant listening to the spice girls) say that she voted for Bush b/c he "looked good in jeans." I kid you not. You know that a lot of people take looks or other superficial qualities into consideration when more people vote for American Idol than they do for a President. :p

But I think voting based on looks trails a close second in the "for shame" category, to voting based on 'electability' or voting based on 'who will win.' I think, unfortunatley, that a lot of people view voting like picking a winning lottery ticket or betting on a horse race: they view it as 'who's gonna win?? let me vote on who's gonna wiiiin!' instead of thinking about and voting for who they would like to win.

[mb7588a]

21. It is a factor,

I had a professor who claimed and firmly stood by, the idea that 10% of every general election vote were women voting for the more handsome candidate. Sadly, it DOES happen - though I don't buy 10% or anything anywehre near that.

A good example is how FDR kept the press off of his appearance. It would have caused discussion about his ability to execute the duties of the office etc, but also it was an image problem.

Another factor is speaking ability. It is widely believed that Thomas Jefferson had a rather quiet whispery and/or feminine voice. He was supposedly quiet in the Continental Congress, and often chose to use his pen rather than his mouth. George Bush also, obviously, has speaking problems. He puts his damn elbow on the podium and smirks to one side of his face and giggles and then stutters off some incoherent nonsense. (though I must admit his SOTU delivery was better than in the past).

Character traits and appearance are very important. You can see it happening in this election - "Kerry looks French," the Drudge photojournal on Dean, "Edwards looks too young to be president," etc...

[Blue_Roses]

23. FDR also was crippled

from polio so I believe he thought this was his nemois if the public took "notice" of it. Glad he didn't let that stand in his way.

Bush on the other is someone I watch closely--I lived in Texas while he was governor and he didn't come across as such a "Texas outlaw" but more of "in the shadows" (not doing anything for Texas), so the "macho" image didn't really present itself. I do think however, that he comes across as a "man's man" and this appeals to the male vote and believe it or not, "somewhat sexy"( I know, sickening) to the women, gaining their vote. I think he "plays" this up in public as it seems to work for him, however, he is extremely insecure and if people would tap into that they would see a much different Bush.

I guess he figured he would have to do all he could to get elected, since his brains didn't do it for him.

[Kipepeo]

26. Vomit

"...that he comes across as a "man's man" and this appeals to the male vote and believe it or not, "somewhat sexy"( I know, sickening) to the women, gaining their vote."

I agree that he (Dumbya) comes off to some women as sexy (see my previous post about a girl who voted for him based on how he looked in Jeans) and I think this is a reflection of how women are taught to value themselves and to value men in a sexist society. He looks like 'daddy' to a lot of girls I know. Gross. Gross. Vomit.

Anyway, I am only responding to this to say that my opinion on how to combat this long-term is for guys to always speak out against shallow representations of women (and men!) in the media. So in other words, the next time you see a commercial for a movie like "Something's Gotta Give," maybe ask people you know *why* they have to set it up like it's natural for a woman (who is young and fits the mainstream media idea of beauty) to want to be with a daddy figure like Jack whathisname in the first place. Why is the movie starting from that place? I know this seems off topic, but considering how the media influences so many people today (just look at American Idol) I think it's important that we take into perspective what women and men are told is 'sexy.'

[countmyvote4real]

22. Sadly I say yes.

But beauty as they say, is in the eye of the beholder. And that's where charm, intelligence and charisma come into play. Well, for those beholding or open to it. I believe that anybody on this board has to be interested in the issues/consequences and would vote accordingly.

But…

I know I’m going to sound like an elitist, still if you’ve overheard the reasons why someone was going to vote one way or another (in an elevator in NYC of all places), you know what I mean. There are millions of Americans that take the time to vote who seem to approach it as if they were dialing into “American Idol.” They’re voting on a singer, but not paying any attention to his/her song.

I’ll go on record as saying that Al Gore is much better looking than the chimp that was selected for his job. Having said that, the swimsuit scores didn’t really contribute much to my overall decision in casting my vote for him.

I can only conclude that looks don’t matter to the majority of the Supreme Court.

Oh the hell with it. I am an elitist. America at large IS stupid and I hold Florida responsible because hundreds of schmucks didn’t know how to mark their votes.

[OneBlueSky]

24. absolutely . . .

in fact, you'd be surprised at the number of people whose PRIMARY criteria for voting for someone in appearance . . .

[jsw_81]

25. Yes

Unfortunately, looks do matter in presidential politics.

Look at Kennedy vs. Nixon in 1960. Nixon had more experience and was probably better prepared to be president, but he was also sweaty, and seemingly uncomfortable in his own skin. Kennedy, on the other hand, looked like he just stepped out of GQ magazine and had millions of women screaming his name everywhere he went. Kennedy won.

1984 is another example. The 73-year old Reagan was clearly an idiot who should have been given an early retirement, but he retained some of his Hollywood charm and knew how to get an audience on his side, even if every word he said was an obvious lie. His opponent Walter Mondale, however, was droopy-eyed, dull, and boring. Reagan won.

Four years after that, we had Bush vs. Dukakis. Dukakis was a short and swarthy no nonsense kind of guy from Harvard who had a funny last name, while Bush was a tall patrician millionaire who pretended to be from Texas. Bush won easily.

And who can forget Clinton vs. Dole in 1996? Clinton was young, handsome, and charismatic, while Dole was old, tired, and forgetful. Plus Dole had a visible handicap. Clinton won by a landslide.

So yes, looks do matter. I wish that they didn't, but they do.