People are more likely to vote based on how healthy a candidate looks rather than how smart they seem


Finally, a scientific explanation for Sarah Palin.


How they look, or how they appear?
If only I could see what politicians have seen with my eyes…

Kennedy - Nixon TV debate?,8599,2021078,00.html

1 Like

Chris Christie?

Hence Mitch McConnell’s success: the tortoises will outlive us all.

“People”, as in 70%+ of American voters, vote based on the letter after the candidate’s name. Which 99% of the time is the only reasonable way to vote. Voting for someone because they appear smart is just as stupid as voting for someone who appears healthy. That guy wants to eliminate Social Security and ban gays…but he’s really smart! So he’ll be very effective at it!


But everyone knows people are also more likely to vote for incumbents! And yet everyone knows being President prematurely ages you, so you’d look less healthy on your second term!

Personally I can’t make heads nor tails of it. It’s almost as though there are a lot more factors going on!

Edit: apologies to antdude, I meant this as a general thread reply, just hit the wrong “reply” button.


no, I think you’re pretty much supposed to stop looking once you find a nice fit…

Less exciting than it sounds…

Maybe a smart ideologue is a contradiction in terms?

This is the perfect reason for replacing contemporary political offices with scientists. Would you rather trust a zoologist to run your zoo? Or trust the biggest monkey in it?

1 Like

Being an US President is a stressful job. :frowning:

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.