How much does a candidate’s appearance matter?

[Timefortruth]

My question is not whether it should matter but how much it really does matter.

[Racenut20]

1. Reference: Nixon/Kennedy debate

[hlthe2b]

2. To me, not much. To the majority of Americans, quite a bit...

We are a very superficial nation, forcefed 15 second soundbytes and reality tv which seems to teach that only the "beautiful people" deserve to fall in love and get married....

Yeah, the majority of Americans want to see an attractive face that they can project with all kinds of noble qualities (trustworthy, leader, honesty, etc.) Yes, the media reinforces that.

[GCP]

3. Sorry, but appearance means a great deal

And with apologies to Kucinich supporters, there's no way in hell he would ever be elected. On a platform against *, it would be a repeat of the Nixon-Kennedy debate, and he wouldn't be JFK.

[Clark Can WIN]

4. I would say equal weght

unfortunate but true. I cannot imagine that we will ever again see an obese president or a truly unsightly one.

I don't think most people vote ONLY on appearance, but rather that is does count for something. The number of people who vote solely on appearance is probably cancelled out by those who are completely unfazed by it.

[Catherine Vincent]

22. Awww. What a cute pic of the baby and that handsome man.

His first grandchild I presume....

[Doctor Pedantic]

5. Obviously....

It matters to some degree. I agree that we probably wouldn't pick a grotesque-looking person as president.

On the other hand, if looks were the primary concern, Edwards would have had the nomination sewn up long ago. I mean, I'm a straight guy, but if I were going to switch teams, I'd be all over Edwards!

[amazona]

6. appearance is everything

You have a severely brain-damaged man who, to some people's minds, fills out a suit and smiles nicely enough, and it doesn't seem to matter that he babbles utter nonsense. While it is true that * was installed, it is equally true that some number of people greater than zero did vote for him, a man who falls down more than Gerald Ford and spoonerisms more than Ronald Reagan.

And it is pretty much undeniable that a majority of voters picked Reagan -- twice!

[101 Proof]

7. It doesn't matter one bit...to me....

but in today's media, it matters completely. I hear people say they won't support Dennis Kucinich because he's "goofy-looking" and that his "ears are too big." I hate that. It bothers the hell outta me. I like Denny K., and I especially like his views. It's too bad that people rely on appearance rather than on the candidate's issues. :eyes: :(

[mlawson]

8. YES, it matters to a large enough group of voters to decide the outcome.

In a close election, a tiny percent margin means the whole world (literally), and "looks" matters significantly to probably several millions of voters. We can not ignore that, as silly as it is.

[loudnclear]

9. I think the last name has more influence on voters.

I wish Dennis Kucinich would change his name to a one syllable last name. Check out history and tell me how many men were elected the Presidency who had more than two syllables in their last name. I can think of Jefferson, Madison, Buchanan, Roosevelt (2). forgot Harrison.

[SheilaT]

10. Kennedy is three syllables. n/t

[Doctor Pedantic]

12. On the plus side....

The only president with a one-syllable last name who was elected to a second term was Ulysses S. Grant, so history's against Bush!

And since the one exception was a general, maybe Clark should be our guy after all....

;-)

[Malva Zebrina]

11. and I think that Wesley Clark is really , really very attractive

in all of his photos.

Dean is not bad looking, but Clark has the special spark, trust me.

[Ilsa]

13. It matters, unfortunately.

There are very subtle and subconscious issues that arise when it comes to candidates' appearances. I can remember how 60 Minutes or some other media show talked about it. The emphasis was on facial symmetry for an "attractive" or comely look.

[WherestheOutrage]

14. Appearance matters by voting segment

I think it matters, perhaps inversely to the degree that the voter is engaged with the issues. A cursory scan of the candidates by a voter hours/minutes before entering the booth might result in an appearance-based vote (recall the news reports regarding women voting for Clinton because of his appearance in 92); conversely, the degree to which the voter is engaged in the issues and the candidates position might result in a vote largely independent of the appearance, unless the appearance suggests some lack of care or concern on the part of the candidate.

[Timefortruth]

15. Very good point Outrage!

An insightful point.

Do you think it hurts Kerry that the right says he looks French?

[WherestheOutrage]

16. Oui!

Undoubtedly the french look will be Kerry's downfall ;-)

[Timefortruth]

18. Non!

The accusation that he looks French hurt him. Really he is just tall with unfortunate hair.

[WherestheOutrage]

19. The whole "French" thing was a WH cheap shot

I make light of it only because it was so pathetic.

[Timefortruth]

21. I could tell you were kidding!

In truth openly attacking on appearance is a sign that they have nothing substantive to criticize about a candidate. But we know there is no nadir, so it isn't surprising either. Let's hope Kerry was happy that they were spelling his name right.

[mandyky]

17. I don't agree with any of the poll choices

but I remember we Deaniacs were commenting a lot about Howard Dean at first - his smile and being stiffish.

With the TV age, presidential elections really are marketing campaigns, and looks, attitude, etc are important, I'm just not sure they overshadow the issues.

[baldguy]

20. When issues mattered

we got people like Lincoln.

Today, image matters. So we get people like Bush.

[Catherine Vincent]

23. It must not matter that much.

Get a load of that goofy bastard in the WH now.