Does a candidates attractiveness matter?

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

A lot was discussed about Chris Christie and the "fat issue". What about other features like, for example, Scott Walker's bald spot? Does any of this matter (in the way a lot of people suggest height matters)?

[Torie]

Of course it does, but bald spots on the back of the head don't count much I don't think (Cruz has one too). Bald on the front is more problematic. I mean, look what Joe Biden did.

[Sprouts Farmers Market ✘]

Hillary Clinton's wrinkles matter cuz she's old. Lulz.

But yes - attractiveness is far more important than many other factors except havinf sanity. Christie was (somehow!) considered attractive in spite of his fat though while Walker's dumb face won't make up for the baldness. Obviously Rubio has the advantage here. That's why he's the favorite imo.

People who actually care about politics seem to go for the least attractive people oddly enough.

[Lincoln Republican]

Unfortunately, attractiveness does matter. 

Many people look at the outside,

If there are two people standing in front of you, dressed the same, one attractive, the other not so much, and they both give you a pitch, and say trust me, nine out of ten will find the more attractive person more believable.

[eric82oslo]

It's part attractiveness, but I think charisma is much more important to be honest. If you have both, like Obama or John F. Kennedy, you're blessed from up above obviously.

[Vega]

President Huntsman and President Romney say no.

[King]

Who was the more attractive candidate in 1976?

[EliteLX]

President Huntsman and President Romney say no.

Are you shi**ing me, lol?

Romney is an old gizzard and he still cleans up fabulously. His business & money-appeal made him lest trustworthy to the average Joe but he looks extremely well & attractive for his age.

[Maxwell]

It does matter, but it won't be the ultimate deciding factor I don't think.

[Orthogonian Society Treasurer]

Who was the more attractive candidate in 1976?

[okierepublican]

If say yes. I read a study where it said that in most minor races you can show someone the faces of the two canidates and they can predict who wins most of the time. It matters less so in the major races but it can definitely help you in a close race

[Likely Voter]

Of course it does, however it isn't as simple as traditional good looks. It's one of those things that you know it when you see it. Some combination of looks, charisma and gravitas. Some have it and some don't.

[Phony Moderate]

1960 - Kennedy won; he was more attractive
1964 - Neither were especially attractive, but LBJ had bear-like qualities.
1968 - Nixon was more attractive than Humphrey though less than Wallace (btw, could Lester Maddox have swept the South?)
1972 - Neither had an advantage
1976 - Obviously the grinning Southern Christian was handsomer
1980 - The actor won
1984 - Ditto
1988 - Ugh, both ugly
1992 - Bubba won
1996 - Ditto
2000 - Both were relatively handsome; the difference in handsomeness was as little as the vote difference in Florida, but I'd say Bush (geniunely) edged it here.
2004 - Bush had the prettier face; Kerry was attractive until one glanced at his face
2008 - McCain was about 40 years past it in this respect.
2012 - Really depends on one's taste.

[Horsemask]

It does, but it shouldn't.

[Vega]

President Huntsman and President Romney say no.

Are you shi**ing me, lol?

Romney is an old gizzard and he still cleans up fabulously. His business & money-appeal made him lest trustworthy to the average Joe but he looks extremely well & attractive for his age.

Pretty sure Vega wouldn't disagree with that. I read the comment as saying "Huntsman and Romney were attractive and they lost, so no, attractiveness does not matter."

Yeah, thanks. That's what I meant.

2004 - Bush had the prettier face; Kerry was attractive until one glanced at his face

Amazingly, people did (and do) find Kerry attractive. Different looks for different folks, I guess.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

NH-02 voters showed that they want more than a pretty face in DC.

[Indy Texas]

2004 - Bush had the prettier face; Kerry was attractive until one glanced at his face

Amazingly, people did (and do) find Kerry attractive. Different looks for different folks, I guess.

I always thought both George W. Bush and John Kerry looked like stereotypes of WASP-y upper crust semi-inbreeding. W had the small chin, the Roman nose, the big ears - he practically could have been a stand-in for an obscure member of the British royal family. Kerry's face is so long and his chin is so big that he's like some kind of purebred show dog where things got out of hand.

But no matter who the GOP nominee is, the media will rake Hillary over the coals for looking "old" while giving her paunchy, wrinkly male opponent who isn't much younger a pass.