Could you vote be swayed superficially?

I do not mean at this US election, I mean at any election, local or otherwise.

To what degree, even unwittingly, do you think you could be swayed by how attractive said candidate was.

Be honest.

Options to follow..

 

If we take the extremes: the fugliest guy ever with good politics vs. good looking impressive guy with mediocre politics. I'd choose the latter, if his policies aren't too bad. It's human to prefer more attractive people in everything. it matter some in foreign policy too i'd reckon. policy is the most important things tho.

 

Really?

Well at least you are honest.

Sadly, this is also part of the problem.

 

but imagine the most ugliest person, really some people aren't meant to be politicians. Part of it is to look acceptable.

 

What does it matter?

Looks are subjective, and if their policies are good, that is what counts.

Or should.

Anything other is a problem, imo.

 

Looks over brains? Let me guess, are you a conservative? But then you claim policy is the most important thing? If you're voting for Mr. Pretty with mediocre policies over Mr. Fugly with good policies, policies is not the most important thing for you, looks are. Sad.

 

No I don't care how attractive someone is if they're going to (*)(*)(*)(*) my life up.

 

I'm voting for Anne Romney.

 

Don't care for attractiveness in the slightest. Obama is still a mediocre at best president and that has nothing to do with looks.

 

Consciously, absolutely not. Subconsciously, yes.

I expect the same answer from anyone with a shred of introspective ability.

 

Odd that you would associate this superficiality with conservatism. The first person that comes to mind who got votes based on appearance is Bill Clinton.

 

Howling. You must be quite young. It's always been that way throughout history.

But in US political history I remember being told a long time ago at school, Nixon was a prime example of how important appearance is when he mucked up the tv appearance.

Of course, Jack...in Nixon's case...that appearance was accurate and people were right to judge him shifty and unreliable.

 

Well, I'm not all that young. Clinton was the first who came to mind, but if I were older, it would probably be JFK. Again, not seeing the connection with conservatism.

 

Or any affiliation, you're right.

It's bigger than just looks, JFK wasn't good looking.


In UK, Neil Kinnock and Michael Foot are examples of people who found appearance an obstacle. The current Labour leader Ed Miliband also has issues with it, people think he looks like a schoolboy and isn't Prime Ministerial.

Neil Kinnock is the redhead, Michael Foot the whitehead and John Smith is in the middle. People loved John Smith...:



Ed Miliband

 

Which one is David Millband?

I know...the one on the right is a Wallace & Grommit figure, right?

 

looks do have weight, subconciously like allevil said. Policies does to. lemme explain here: say we have 3 stages on how good one can look and how good policy is; ugly, normal, handsome and bad, mediocre, and good. the weigh 1,2 and 3 points from worst to best. Thus, good looking guy gets 2+3, and mr. fugly gets 3+1 with the result that mr. pretty wins. He's more good looking than his policies are bad. But that was just to explain my example, not my actualy stance. It's probably much more complicated. Also, I count in 'impressivenesss' in pretty. Guy's gotta act and look like a real president. Being a politician isn't only about politics you know.

 

Be specific.

How would that be?

 

reaganesque

most if not all of USA's presidents has had that presidential look. You simply are not meant to be if you're a thin, pale, ugly guy. Not saying I hate those, just saying that they don't look like leaders. Which is important; people subconcisouly trust those people, look up to them. Not saying what I want here, but what is.

 

My vote is going to Gary Johnson because it's all about policy.

Obama and Romney offer the same failed policies of the US government and are correctly identified as being nothing but opposite side of the same coin. The only difference I really see between Obama and Romney is that Romney opposes equal protection under the law for same-sex couples related to marriage and to women related to reproductive Rights - perhaps the only two positives for Obama that in no way compensate for his overall negative agenda for America.

 

Such subconscious effects can easily be overcome if people focus on reading and understanding the policies of the people involved and their parties. I have voted for some very ugly candidates, because I read what was on offer on all sides and I supported the policies of the ugly one over the policies of the pretty one. I vote according to the policies, with some consideration of the apparent character traits displayed by the candidate - looks aren't a character trait, and should have no relevance at all, IMO.

 

Kinnock had another perception issue to fight against, too - being Welsh. Being bald, ugly, ginger and Welsh all at the same time didn't go down particularly well with the 'UK' electorate.

 

Well, if that is true, what does it say about the voters?

Or maybe they would not care, and it is the media that draws attention to, and parodies such things?

Thus making a potentially good man, a figure of fun..

 

I agree with you that attractiveness doesn't matter, at least physical attractiveness. In fact, I think Romney is very physically attractive, but I don't trust ANY of his statements, as he changes his opinions to match the needs of his biggest donors, it shows he doesn't have an ounce of integrity!

And I think President Obama has done a great jobs in view of the circumstances over the last five years ( not ONLY the mess he inherited, but the hateful statements by the Right that their biggest goals was to make this President fail, no matter if the country failed also!)

Aother example, if' in 2016, i had a choice between Romney and Chrisite, or Bidden and Christie, Or Ryan and Christie, I would probably vote for Christie, because he has demonstrated that HE DOES put his country (at list his State) above partisan politics, he is honest and he demonstrate common sense and leadership.

And I don't think anyone can accuse Christie to be very physically attractive!

 

Except for John Kerry... then his looks said a whole bunch about his personality.

 

I cannot think of a really attractive female politician, in Britain.

Ever.

We do not seem to make them.