Sexist but true, Fiorina is

[Anonymous]

OMFG: Behold, the Donald.

It is sexist. And irrelevant.

If Republicans want women to rise to the leadership of their party, they are going to have to start getting used to the sight of 60 year olds who are not just buying ice cream cones for the grandkids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's naive to think that looks is not a factor for male politicians as well. Maybe not to the same degree as for females, but it's still a factor. Case in point is Christie fat jokes.

For men, it's height not beauty. But the judgement isn't nearly as severe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's naive to think that looks is not a factor for male politicians as well. Maybe not to the same degree as for females, but it's still a factor. Case in point is Christie fat jokes.

For men, it's height not beauty. But the judgement isn't nearly as severe.

I don't agree with the height--maybe IRL (although I'm a woman and a guy's height never entered into the equation when dating). I think a lot of it has to do with the particular communication medium used. So, height was a big deal for Geo. Washington because he looked majestic on a horse over a crowd. His teeth didn't matter bc there were no cameras to go in close.
FDR was the radio guy…I suspect the tenor of his voice mattered, and radio did not show the wheelchair.
Nixon vs. Kennedy famous debate…

For TV cameras, sadly, it does matter to many people that a candidate is easy on the eyes. And that they give good sound bites vs. newspapers, which is good at taking issues into detail without boring someone (because if they are rushed, they can skim or skip to the end)
So for height, I don't think it matters as much. There are many actors that people are surprised to see are shorter IRL than they imagined.

For Fiorina, I wish there were more women in the field because if you have a bunch of men and the only other woman on camera is…say, Megan Kelly or some other interviewer, who has been selected for looks (and brains for many), it is a distracting contrast. I was thinking that when watching the GOP debate with Kelly (that Fiorina was not in, but imagining if she was).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's naive to think that looks is not a factor for male politicians as well. Maybe not to the same degree as for females, but it's still a factor. Case in point is Christie fat jokes.

For men, it's height not beauty. But the judgement isn't nearly as severe.

I don't hear anyone mentioning that Rand Paul is 5' 7". Ross Perot was 5' 5"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's naive to think that looks is not a factor for male politicians as well. Maybe not to the same degree as for females, but it's still a factor. Case in point is Christie fat jokes.

For men, it's height not beauty. But the judgement isn't nearly as severe.

bloomberg is 5'6/5'7

If he was serious about running for the D ticket, he would be formidable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wow, I think she looks just fine. And I'm a Democrat and hate her positions on most things.

She's 60 and a breast cancer survivor, and you all are going on about her looks. How admirable.

Other than candidate's young children, nothing is off limits when running for president.

The comments, though, are a reflection of the person commenting, not the politician.

[Anonymous]

If looks didn't matter why have the make candidates dyed their hair, whitened their teeth and tried to control their weight. I think there is some Botox in the mix as well

[Anonymous]

Ever read The Picture of Dorian Gray? Fiorina looks ugly because her positions are ugly. The traditional Republican hard-heartedness is even harder to stomach in a woman than in a man (and I'm a female). I can't think of a single Republican candidate I find attractive. OTOH I found Anthony Weiner attractive until his repeated sexting issues, and clearly no one would call him good-looking in the strict sense of the term.
For many people it's about character and personality than anything else.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ever read The Picture of Dorian Gray? Fiorina looks ugly because her positions are ugly. The traditional Republican hard-heartedness is even harder to stomach in a woman than in a man (and I'm a female). I can't think of a single Republican candidate I find attractive. OTOH I found Anthony Weiner attractive until his repeated sexting issues, and clearly no one would call him good-looking in the strict sense of the term.
For many people it's about character and personality than anything else.

Perhaps you should question your judging of character.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it's naive to think that looks is not a factor for male politicians as well. Maybe not to the same degree as for females, but it's still a factor. Case in point is Christie fat jokes.

For men, it's height not beauty. But the judgement isn't nearly as severe.

bloomberg is 5'6/5'7

If he was serious about running for the D ticket, he would be formidable.

You're aware that he's not a "D," right?

[Anonymous]

A very convincing argument can be made that Nixon lost to jfk because of looks.

I think HRC is going to look old and sickly, and assuming she makes it to the general, that is going to be an issue. If the pubs can get their shit together they could beat her based on that. HD will not be kind to her, and the makeup they cake on will just make it worse

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If looks didn't matter why have the make candidates dyed their hair, whitened their teeth and tried to control their weight. I think there is some Botox in the mix as well

Looks will always be an advantage. Everyone gets that. But she looks fine for a 60 year old woman.

The question is whether Republicans can nominate a woman as President, when realistically they are probably going to be 60 years old.


Nixon: 54
Ford: 63
Reagan: 69
George HW Bush: 64
Bob Dole: 73
George W. Bush: 54
John McCain: 71
Mitt Romney: 65

Average age: 64

[takoma]

On the issue of height for men, I don't think the issue is that anyone consciously votes for the taller candidate, but rather that height correlates remarkably well with winning. The easiest explanation is that voters subconsciously feel that the taller candidate is more presidential.

Perhaps one day we'll look back and realize that less attractive, sterner women strike people as more presidential -- Thatcher types. That's just a possibility, not a prediction.

[Anonymous]

takoma wrote:On the issue of height for men, I don't think the issue is that anyone consciously votes for the taller candidate, but rather that height correlates remarkably well with winning. The easiest explanation is that voters subconsciously feel that the taller candidate is more presidential.

Perhaps one day we'll look back and realize that less attractive, sterner women strike people as more presidential -- Thatcher types. That's just a possibility, not a prediction.

Yes, I'm curious if a truly strikingly attractive woman could be elected president - probably not the first president, but maybe further down the line. Women are held to a higher standard, and being "serious" and not overly concerned with looks (vain, frivolous, spending too much time on beauty and not enough on policy, etc) might be a requirement for the trailblazers (think Merkel, too).