|
Looks have little to do with politics, but quite a bit with electability. The sad truth of our appearance driven society, is that there's no upside to being ugly. Being ugly hurts when you are in, what is to large degree, a national popularity contest.
Say, average looks = 100%, meaning their looks have little to do negatively or positively with respect to electability. Two gray-haired men in their 60's look almost the same - looks are not an issue in this instance, but throw in a cougar like Palin, and things change.
A candidate with below average looks will suffer some loss because people do discriminate based upon looks. So the physically unappealing candidate will suffer, they will typically lose some votes and have a quality factor of less than 100% - they may come in at .98 or maybe less.
Conversely, other factors being even, a candidate with above average looks will typically garner 100% of the people that vote on issues or party lines, plus the people who vote on 'appearance and feeling.' They may have an appearance advantage that results in them garnering, 1.02 or 2% more votes.
When an ugly candidate runs against an attractive candidate, it's really bad for the less appealing candidate, as they get hit on both sides of the equation.
|
Threaded Mode