PDA

View Full Version : Voters use child-like judgments when judging political candidates




Mahkato
07-06-2010, 03:32 PM
Voters use child-like judgments when judging political candidates (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2009/02/26/voters-use-child-like-judgments-when-judging-political-candidates/)


During elections, what affects our decision to vote for one politician over another? We’d like to think that it’s an objective assessment of many different factors including their various policies, their values, their record and so on. But in reality, voters are just not that rational.

In the past, studies have shown that people can predict which of two politicians will win an election with reasonable accuracy based on a second-long looks at their faces. With a fleeting glance and little purposeful consideration, people make strong judgments about a candidate’s competence, that can sway their final choices. And they do this in a remarkably child-like way.

John Antonakis and Olaf Dalgas from the University of Lausanne found that when judging the faces of potential leaders, the decision-making technique of adults is no more sophisticated than that used by children.

They recruited 684 Swiss students and asked them to rate pairs of politicians who had run against each other in the 2002 French parliamentary elections. Based solely on black-and-white photos of the candidates, they had to say who was more competent and by what degree. There were 57 pairs in all, and each volunteer rated just one. All photos were official mug-shots, the researchers only used pairs of the same sex, and they excluded famous individuals such as Segolene Royal.

They found that the students’ competence judgments predicted the actual winners of the run-offs with a 72% accuracy. They even gave a good indication of the winner’s margin of victory – those who were deemed to “definitely” look more competent than their opponents were more likely to have beaten them by landslides.

It’s worth noting that this is a fairly conservative figure. Antonakis and Dalgas only used pairs of candidates where the loser was actually the incumbent and as they put it, “losers should not appear too incompetent given that they had previously won”.


http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/files/2009/02/voters_use_child-like_judgments_when_judging_political_candi/Choice.jpg


In a second experiment, Antonakis and Dalgas showed that children judge faces in similar ways. At a university open day, they asked 681 children aged 5-13 and 160 adults to judge the same sets of faces. They had just sat through a computer game that simulated Odysseus’s journey from Troy to Ithaca, and required a certain amount of decision-making skill. Each participant was asked to imagine that they had to repeat the same trip and asked to pick one of the candidates to captain their boat.

The children’s choice of captain correctly predicted the winner of each parliamentary election with an accuracy of 72%, a remarkably similar figure to the score achieved by the adults in the first experiment. Indeed, when the judgments of the 160 adults were included in the analysis, the results didn’t change. The children were just as good at predicting election results as the grown-ups were; in fact, the child ratings in the second experiment strongly matched the adult ratings in the first one.

These results strongly suggest that adults and children are relying on the same aspects of facial appearance in order to judge a person’s competence, whichever those aspects might be. Despite their greater experience and (one would hope) more sophisticated reasoning skills, adults are no better at predicting election results than people many years their junior.

This study fits in nicely with several others, which suggest that election outcomes often rest on snap decisions. Alexander Todorov has repeatedly shown that people’s judgments of competence, based on split-second glances at photos, could predict the outcome of Senate elections or gubernatorial contests with an accuracy of around 70%.

The problem with that, of course, is that first impressions are not always accurate. For example, it’s actually very difficult to judge someone’s intelligence based on their appearance, while some people can give the impression of competence and have anything but. Plato pointed at similar tendencies in The Republic, in a passage that inspired Antonakis and Dalgas’s second experiment.

He asked readers to imagine “a ship in which there is a captain who is taller and stronger than any of the crew, but he is a little deaf and has a similar infirmity in sight, and his knowledge of navigation is not much better.” According to Plato, the crew is so deceived by appearances that they had failed to select a competent leader. So it was in his hypothetical scenario, so it often is in 21st century politics.

Now of course, you could argue that first impressions are merely that, and we are clearly capable of changing our opinions based on information we learn at a later date. Surely our views about political candidates must surely fluctuate as we learn more about their policies, affiliations, behaviour, character, and so on?

Well, that might be true, but it seems to be the exception rather than the rule. As Todorov’s work shows, voters have an unfortunate habit of anchoring themselves to their initial choices regardless of information that becomes available later in a campaign. And as I’ve written about before, even undecided voters tend to have already made up their minds, unbeknownst even to themselves.

Ideally, democracies should elect politicians on their actual competence, rather than simply the appearance of it. But as Antonakis and Dalgas say, “These findings suggest that voters are not appropriately weighting performance-based information on political candidates when undertaking one of democracy’s most important civic duties.”

Kregisen
07-06-2010, 05:01 PM
We've all known it.....there's a reason why Ron Paul gets a few percent in 2008 while dumbasses like Romney, Obama and Palin all get popular because of looks alone.

The presidential election is more of a beauty pageant than anything.

Anti Federalist
07-06-2010, 05:07 PM
God damn the television.

MelissaWV
07-06-2010, 05:13 PM
Are you telling me people were choosing the guy on the right as their ship's captain? He has a weird smile, and he doesn't look like he's spent a day on a boat. The guy on the left, now, he looks like a sailor shoved in a suit :p His hair's even rumpled up, which might be from seafaring. He might not know a damned thing about sailing, even, but if I had to make a choice JUST based on looks, I would pick the guy on the left. At least he looks like he'd be good conversation if we got off-course.

I probably would have answered "I'll captain the ship myself," at which point a trap door would have opened and I would have been exterminated.

Ekrub
07-06-2010, 05:17 PM
We've all known it.....there's a reason why Ron Paul gets a few percent in 2008 while dumbasses like Romney, Obama and Palin all get popular because of looks alone.

The presidential election is more of a beauty pageant than anything.

I agree with you to an extent, but how do you explain McCain?

BoutTreeFiddy
07-06-2010, 05:17 PM
I'm not gonna lie, I do the same thing myself.

Debra Medina for instance. I don't think she should be the face of liberty, or the voice of liberty for that matter. Okay, her policies may be good, but her face and her monotone voice just turns me off to her campaign altogether. It's just BORING to me.

Personality means a lot especially when predicting how much of an influence a person will have in the house or senate. Seriously. Ron Paul has a personality, and a well defined one. But Peter Schiff has an extremely strong personality and charisma, unfortunately he has not a whole lot of name recognition. If he did, I'd have no doubt he win the seat in Connecticut.

Even Rand. Rand Paul will say some controversial shit just to say some controversial shit. That's the type of guy I like. For real. Civil Rights question? "I disagree with the part about making discrimination illegal for private businesses." That's why he's the man.

Although I respect Ron a whole lot, he's way too passive most of the time. He needs to rage and wile out on these MSM fools occasionally.

Southron
07-06-2010, 05:25 PM
I'm not gonna lie, I do the same thing myself.

Debra Medina for instance. I don't think she should be the face of liberty, or the voice of liberty for that matter. Okay, her policies may be good, but her face and her monotone voice just turns me off to her campaign altogether. It's just BORING to me.

Personality means a lot especially when predicting how much of an influence a person will have in the house or senate. Seriously. Ron Paul has a personality, and a well defined one. But Peter Schiff has an extremely strong personality and charisma, unfortunately he has not a whole lot of name recognition. If he did, I'd have no doubt he win the seat in Connecticut.

Even Rand. Rand Paul will say some controversial shit just to say some controversial shit. That's the type of guy I like. For real. Civil Rights question? "I disagree with the part about making discrimination illegal for private businesses." That's why he's the man.

Although I respect Ron a whole lot, he's way too passive most of the time. He needs to rage and wile out on these MSM fools occasionally.

We're doomed.

South Park Fan
07-06-2010, 05:26 PM
Funny, I've been thinking about what the results would be if there were a study like this. It must have been a premonition.

heavenlyboy34
07-06-2010, 05:28 PM
just more reasons elections are epic failures most of the time.

someperson
07-06-2010, 05:28 PM
I agree with you to an extent, but how do you explain McCain?
He Soldier. Soldier Tough. Tough Good. Good Vote. Me Can Haz Cave.

BoutTreeFiddy
07-06-2010, 05:29 PM
We're doomed.

No we're not doomed. I just want to elect a person that can hold their own in a debate and put some bass in their voice if necessary. That's not Ron. Would I vote for Ron? Yeah, but only if Peter weren't running in the same race.

someperson
07-06-2010, 05:32 PM
No we're not doomed. I just want to elect a person that can hold their own in a debate and put some bass in their voice if necessary. That's not Ron. Would I vote for Ron? Yeah, but only if Peter weren't running in the same race.
I can lkzxdf jt;l/dt mkxkld ;fjgmlfkxdg mjklxdfg nmsszkdj's erp;komfg already tell that 2012 will be a great year.

JeNNiF00F00
07-06-2010, 05:37 PM
..

BoutTreeFiddy
07-06-2010, 05:37 PM
I can already tell that 2012 will be a great year.......

.....for someone other than Ron Paul. He doesn't have the swagger or finesse it takes to win over the American people. We should focus on other liberty candidates.

Todd
07-06-2010, 05:38 PM
I'm not gonna lie, I do the same thing myself.

Debra Medina for instance. I don't think she should be the face of liberty, or the voice of liberty for that matter. Okay, her policies may be good, but her face and her monotone voice just turns me off to her campaign altogether. It's just BORING to me.

Personality means a lot especially when predicting how much of an influence a person will have in the house or senate. Seriously. Ron Paul has a personality, and a well defined one. But Peter Schiff has an extremely strong personality and charisma, unfortunately he has not a whole lot of name recognition. If he did, I'd have no doubt he win the seat in Connecticut.

Even Rand. Rand Paul will say some controversial shit just to say some controversial shit. That's the type of guy I like. For real. Civil Rights question? "I disagree with the part about making discrimination illegal for private businesses." That's why he's the man.

Although I respect Ron a whole lot, he's way too passive most of the time. He needs to rage and wile out on these MSM fools occasionally.

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a287/Sonicmegadrive/AAUGH.jpg

MelissaWV
07-06-2010, 05:39 PM
.....for someone other than Ron Paul. He doesn't have the swagger or finesse it takes to win over the American people. We should focus on other liberty candidates.

Mirror, mirror, on the wall: Who's the hottest liberty candidate of them all?

No, really; who do you think is good-looking and convincing enough to carry the torch of liberty?

BoutTreeFiddy
07-06-2010, 05:46 PM
Mirror, mirror, on the wall: Who's the hottest liberty candidate of them all?

No, really; who do you think is good-looking and convincing enough to carry the torch of liberty?

Not Debra Medina is what I'll say. Maybe that Indian woman running for governor in South Carolina. She ain't bad looking and doesn't drone on like Debra.

Ekrub
07-06-2010, 05:50 PM
Mirror, mirror, on the wall: Who's the hottest liberty candidate of them all?

No, really; who do you think is good-looking and convincing enough to carry the torch of liberty?

Me. I'm definetly the best looking, most convincing person here.

Philhelm
07-06-2010, 05:52 PM
As someone else had stated, we already knew of all this. This is why Romney, and his gorgeous hair and smarmy smile will win the day, his ideologies be damned.

Also, I would have chosen the man on the left for my captain as well. His jaw was a bit more squared.

someperson
07-06-2010, 05:52 PM
Me. I'm definetly the best looking, most convincing person here.
What about The Collins?

ClayTrainor
07-06-2010, 05:54 PM
God damn the television.

I think this childlike stupidity precedes the invention of the TV. :o

'tis the nature of democracy, really.

ChaosControl
07-06-2010, 06:01 PM
This just means we need to find some attractive celebrity to use as a puppet.

I mean heck, its what the "powers that be" do.

GunnyFreedom
07-06-2010, 06:03 PM
God damn the television.

+1776


Are you telling me people were choosing the guy on the right as their ship's captain? He has a weird smile, and he doesn't look like he's spent a day on a boat. The guy on the left, now, he looks like a sailor shoved in a suit :p His hair's even rumpled up, which might be from seafaring. He might not know a damned thing about sailing, even, but if I had to make a choice JUST based on looks, I would pick the guy on the left. At least he looks like he'd be good conversation if we got off-course.

I probably would have answered "I'll captain the ship myself," at which point a trap door would have opened and I would have been exterminated.

LMAO me too, that's funny, if I had to pick on picture alone the guy on the left looks WAY more sea-worthy than the guy on the right. :D and for the very reasons you list too.

Kregisen
07-06-2010, 06:06 PM
I agree with you to an extent, but how do you explain McCain?

Looks aren't the only reason people have to vote.

McCain is seen as a war hero and a "true american". There's much prestige and from that garners trust and admiration....he also barely beat Romney.

GunnyFreedom
07-06-2010, 06:09 PM
.....for someone other than Ron Paul. He doesn't have the swagger or finesse it takes to win over the American people. We should focus on other liberty candidates.

Did you really just say that you won't vote for Ron Paul because he doesn't wiggle his ass???????? REALLY? REALLY?????

catdd
07-06-2010, 06:15 PM
They vote for silly names and slogans too. Just in the local elections here guys with names like Dean Dickie and Ty Cobb were solid winners.
Then you have Clinton's "trickle down" economics, Scwarzenegger's "girlie boys" and Obama's "Hope and Change".
Just goofy stuff.

GunnyFreedom
07-06-2010, 06:17 PM
They vote for silly names and slogans too. Just in the local elections here guys with names like Dean Dickie and Ty Cobb were solid winners.
Then you have Clinton's "trickle down" economics, Scwarzenegger's "girlie boys" and Obama's "Hope and Change".
Just goofy stuff.

Reagan.

BoutTreeFiddy
07-06-2010, 06:19 PM
Did you really just say that you won't vote for Ron Paul because he doesn't wiggle his ass???????? REALLY? REALLY?????

Learn about swagger and finesse first, before replying.

You running for office or something? Congrats. Let's hope you got swagger.

catdd
07-06-2010, 06:21 PM
Reagan.

Handsome, cowboy movie star.

payme_rick
07-06-2010, 06:22 PM
I'm voting for Rick Perry... his grandmother was a part of the first graduating class at the community college I attended for a semester... we have a connection...

"Hey, John, who are you voting for?"

"Pat O'Henry"

"Uhm, Pat O'Henry? Didn't he say that the 2nd born of every woman should be killed and thrown into the streets to rot?"

"Yah, but he's Irish, and I like that!"

won't even comment on tree-fiddy 'cept to say: what a waste of a name on what reads like one dumbass poster...

Austrian Econ Disciple
07-06-2010, 06:36 PM
We're doomed.

From all 32 of his posts I can make a reasonable judgment the guy is a troll. I wouldn't worry too much about his posts. There has been an influx of new posters lately, and almost all have very little intelligable posts. I would love to be proven wrong, but thats my first judgment. We shall see how they act in the future.

Jordan
07-06-2010, 06:40 PM
Hmm...

Looks like we should spend the $2-3k to see if our liberty candidates that already have a chance of winning actually look like they could win. :D

robert9712000
07-06-2010, 07:05 PM
this thread reminds me of a email i got awhile back,while not my site he got the same email and i thought it was humorous

http://blog.planetpreterist.com/index.php?itemid=405

RideTheDirt
07-06-2010, 07:17 PM
Are you telling me people were choosing the guy on the right as their ship's captain? He has a weird smile, and he doesn't look like he's spent a day on a boat. The guy on the left, now, he looks like a sailor shoved in a suit :p His hair's even rumpled up, which might be from seafaring. He might not know a damned thing about sailing, even, but if I had to make a choice JUST based on looks, I would pick the guy on the left. At least he looks like he'd be good conversation if we got off-course.

I probably would have answered "I'll captain the ship myself," at which point a trap door would have opened and I would have been exterminated.
I was thinking the same thing...

BoutTreeFiddy
07-06-2010, 07:19 PM
From all 32 of his posts I can make a reasonable judgment the guy is a troll. I wouldn't worry too much about his posts. There has been an influx of new posters lately, and almost all have very little intelligable posts. I would love to be proven wrong, but thats my first judgment.

But of course, you think that anyone that doesn't agree with you has very little intelligible posts. Like the BP oil spill question I posed. When corporations have their own means of employing a mercenary army, what is an anarchist society with no standing army supposed to do? "Well, the common people will fight back, or some "nuisance judge will force them to stop." Yeah right. Well, I'm in the Midwest and would rather BP win the war, so my gas is cheaper. What say you, then?


We shall see how they act in the future.

I will not disappoint you, BIG BROTHER.

james1906
07-06-2010, 07:55 PM
http://www.tvcrazy.net/tvclassics/wallpaper/oldshows/gilligans-island/gilligan.jpg
Denver/Hale 2012

GunnyFreedom
07-06-2010, 08:28 PM
Handsome, cowboy movie star.

The guy who ran on trickle-down economics.

GunnyFreedom
07-06-2010, 08:34 PM
Learn about swagger and finesse first, before replying.

You running for office or something? Congrats. Let's hope you got swagger.

right, I know nothing of finesse. :rolleyes:

Few things are more annoying than people who make judgments without any kinds of facts to lead to such conclusions. As far as swagger, I'll kindly lose before I try to win votes by wiggling my ass. As far as you go, the idea of your choosing the ideologically inferior candidate because he is "prettier" that strikes me as irredeemably shallow.

catdd
07-06-2010, 08:43 PM
The guy who ran on trickle-down economics.

But Clinton turned it into a "cute" dirty joke and the lefties loved it.

Andrew-Austin
07-06-2010, 08:58 PM
Umm the study sounds flawed? If all you are doing is showing people two pictures and telling them to pick, then of course they are going to go off how they look. If you only give people one variable, then that is the only variable they can use to decide, so they will say "oh well person X looks disheveled and person Y looks more professional".

Look I don't exactly think highly of voters or the electoral process, it just sounds like they set up the experiment looking for a certain result in mind.





I agree with you to an extent, but how do you explain McCain?

The study clearly can't explain it. If they did the experiment on a group of people who had no idea who any of the Republican primary runners were, then a guy like Romney would have easily won over McCain.


Voters are stupid, which is why McCain won over Paul, but they go off of more than just looks.




Are you telling me people were choosing the guy on the right as their ship's captain? He has a weird smile, and he doesn't look like he's spent a day on a boat. The guy on the left, now, he looks like a sailor shoved in a suit :p His hair's even rumpled up, which might be from seafaring. He might not know a damned thing about sailing, even, but if I had to make a choice JUST based on looks, I would pick the guy on the left. At least he looks like he'd be good conversation if we got off-course.

I probably would have answered "I'll captain the ship myself," at which point a trap door would have opened and I would have been exterminated.

Uh no I think they only asked the kids to "pick a ship captain". Sounds like they asked the adults something else unless I just can't read.

Distinguished Gentleman
07-06-2010, 09:00 PM
EDIT in process

Brian4Liberty
07-06-2010, 09:11 PM
Umm the study sounds flawed? If all you are doing is showing people two pictures and telling them to pick, then of course they are going to go off how they look. If you only give people one variable, then that is the only variable they can use to decide, so they will say "oh well person X looks disheveled and person Y looks more processional".


Yep, there are a lot of variables. For minor elected positions, people often vote based on name only. Probably how people chose Democrat Alvin Greene in the South Carolina Senate race.

Other factors:
- If people get to see the candidates, it's a beauty contest.
- Taller candidate gets a bump.
- People listen to the mainstream media, and do what they are told...
- Can't forget celebrity, name recognition (and money can buy some of that).
- Democrat or Republican (go back to sleep).
- Seniority (i.e. it's finally your turn. Explains McCain).
- Issues (possibly the least important on it's face to the general voters, yet the real movers and shakers, especially in the media, know exactly where candidates stand).

Andrew-Austin
07-06-2010, 09:17 PM
Yep, there are a lot of variables. For minor elected positions, people often vote based on name only. Probably how people chose Democrat Alvin Greene in the South Carolina Senate race.

Other factors:
- If people get to see the candidates, it's a beauty contest.
- Taller candidate gets a bump.
- People listen to the mainstream media, and do what they are told...
- Can't forget celebrity, name recognition (and money can buy some of that).
- Democrat or Republican (go back to sleep).
- Seniority (i.e. it's finally your turn. Explains McCain).
- Issues (possibly the least important on it's face to the general voters, yet the real movers and shakers, especially in the media, know exactly where candidates stand).

Yes I agree. There are other variables voters use, some are as stupid as going off just appearance, for instance some people just blindly vote for the guy with a certain letter (R or D) next to his name. Some people go off more intelligent variables. But they obviously don't go off just appearance, which is what this study seems to be trying to say.

Distinguished Gentleman
07-06-2010, 10:04 PM
You are about to be stranded on an island with two kids. You need to pick one or two of these people to come with you fill the role of leadership. He or she must negotiate with savages, protect you and the kids from danger or sickness, and must be ingenious enough to come up with solutions to complex problems that may come up. Based only on the faces, who comes with you? If you pick more than a couple at least give priority.

Pick among the faces at the link or add your own.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51876863@N08/

Jordan
07-06-2010, 10:12 PM
You are about to be stranded on an island with two kids. You need to pick one or two of these people to come with you fill the role of leadership. He or she must negotiate with savages, protect you and the kids from danger or sickness, and must be ingenious enough to come up with solutions to complex problems that may come up. Based only on the faces, who comes with you? If you pick more than a couple at least give priority.

Pick among the faces at the link or add your own.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51876863@N08/

Duh, Schiff. His dad wrote a whole book about catching enough fish to survive living on an island!

Distinguished Gentleman
07-06-2010, 10:21 PM
Duh, Schiff. His dad wrote a whole book about catching enough fish to survive living on an island!

I'd pay to see Schiff lecture savages on the Gold Standard!

My leadership face picks were, Dennis, Lee, and Lawson. And Mattie Fein was much more attractive that I'd anticipated.

Ekrub
07-06-2010, 11:49 PM
The study clearly can't explain it. If they did the experiment on a group of people who had no idea who any of the Republican primary runners were, then a guy like Romney would have easily won over McCain.

That was my point.... looks have a lot to do with it. But its not the only factor.

MelissaWV
07-07-2010, 08:22 AM
...

Uh no I think they only asked the kids to "pick a ship captain". Sounds like they asked the adults something else unless I just can't read.

If the kids in the class are gravitating towards the guy with the creepy smile... I think more teachers need to be posted on the playground. Something is absolutely not right.

* * *

I agree about the study being flawed, but even just on the basis of the pictures, I wouldn't want the guy on the right anywhere near me. At all. For any reason. I cannot think of a single job for which I would pick the guy on the right over the one on the left purely based on looks.

MelissaWV
07-07-2010, 08:29 AM
You are about to be stranded on an island with two kids. You need to pick one or two of these people to come with you fill the role of leadership. He or she must negotiate with savages, protect you and the kids from danger or sickness, and must be ingenious enough to come up with solutions to complex problems that may come up. Based only on the faces, who comes with you? If you pick more than a couple at least give priority.

Pick among the faces at the link or add your own.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/51876863@N08/

Wait what? Protect my kids from danger or sickness? :confused: Is there an ex-military doctor in the house? :p

PURELY based on looks, I would pick one of the women, and I would pick (surprise?) the Judge. A lot of "savages" greatly respect elders. In addition, the Judge comes equipped with a tie, which would be of great use out in the wilderness. He does not need glasses (which could break and be a liability), and he doesn't look crazy. That actually would narrow it down to the Judge and John Dennis, but the Judge looks more... sturdy. Wider in the shoulders.

Why a woman? I don't wear pantyhose, but those women look like they do. Pantyhose are excellent to have out in the middle of nowhere. Additionally, the younger woman could always be traded to the "savages" for supplies. The older one might have better maternal instincts than I do (if not, the Judge has a friendly face; perhaps he's good with kids). Who the heck are these kids, anyhow? Can we trade them to the "savages" for supplies?

Come to think of it... this is a bonkers question in general.

Romulus
07-07-2010, 08:48 AM
I agree with you to an extent, but how do you explain McCain?

Those damn a-rabs. and of course the television.

Distinguished Gentleman
07-07-2010, 12:25 PM
Come to think of it... this is a bonkers question in general.

The study says voters make child like judgments and you insist on thinking like an adult. Shame on you! Promise to never think like an adult again!

I designed the question so that the face would have a "take on the terrorist" look that could also be empathetic, nurturing and display people skills. I'm sad to say Bush had these qualities.
If the question is too abstract for some, which face would you cast as President on a T.V. movie? I always thought the judge looked like a mob boss.

MelissaWV
07-07-2010, 12:53 PM
The study says voters make child like judgments and you insist on thinking like an adult. Shame on you! Promise to never think like an adult again!

I designed the question so that the face would have a "take on the terrorist" look that could also be empathetic, nurturing and display people skills. I'm sad to say Bush had these qualities.
If the question is too abstract for some, which face would you cast as President on a T.V. movie? I always thought the judge looked like a mob boss.

Steve Buscemi.

BlackTerrel
07-07-2010, 01:17 PM
We've all known it.....there's a reason why Ron Paul gets a few percent in 2008 while dumbasses like Romney, Obama and Palin all get popular because of looks alone.

The presidential election is more of a beauty pageant than anything.

I agree to a point. But it's not all there is too it. Otherwise we would see actual good looking people like Brad Pitt and Megan Fox winning elections. That isn't happening

The people who do well politically are generally the kind of people that Adam Carolla calls "good looking for..." rather than actually good looking. In this case "good looking for a politician". Kind of like Danica Patrick is good looking for a Nascar driver but not really that good looking by other metrics.

Bill Clinton, Obama, Palin - are all good looking for politicians. But compares to say actors, musicians etc... they are below average.


As someone else had stated, we already knew of all this. This is why Romney, and his gorgeous hair and smarmy smile will win the day, his ideologies be damned.

Also, I would have chosen the man on the left for my captain as well. His jaw was a bit more squared.

But it only goes to a point right? I mean Romney lost out to McCain.

This study validates that looks help a politician. I don't think anyone here is shocked by that. We all knew that already. It doesn't mean that's the only issue. If it was the only criteria we would have a much different set of politicians.

BlackTerrel
07-07-2010, 01:18 PM
I'm not gonna lie, I do the same thing myself.

Debra Medina for instance. I don't think she should be the face of liberty, or the voice of liberty for that matter. Okay, her policies may be good, but her face and her monotone voice just turns me off to her campaign altogether. It's just BORING to me.

Personality means a lot especially when predicting how much of an influence a person will have in the house or senate. Seriously. Ron Paul has a personality, and a well defined one. But Peter Schiff has an extremely strong personality and charisma, unfortunately he has not a whole lot of name recognition. If he did, I'd have no doubt he win the seat in Connecticut.

Even Rand. Rand Paul will say some controversial shit just to say some controversial shit. That's the type of guy I like. For real. Civil Rights question? "I disagree with the part about making discrimination illegal for private businesses." That's why he's the man.

Although I respect Ron a whole lot, he's way too passive most of the time. He needs to rage and wile out on these MSM fools occasionally.

Rand looks like a President. I can't exactly define what that is. But Rand looks like a President. And carries himself like one as well. I like his dad a lot - but that is something Ron does not have. Speaking objectively.