Kamala Harris for President appreciation thread

[brainbomb]

Hmmm um what?
Why is that

Going to bed now

[Jamiet99uk]

Since the advent of television, the more physically attractive candidate has won pretty much every U.S. presidential election.

I mean, really?

I am not sure this holds up.

1964 election - I would say Barry Goldwater was a lot more handsome than Richard Nixon.

1980 election - sure, Ronald Reagan was a former movie star, but by 1980 I'd argue that Jimmy Carter was the more attractive man, physically.

2016 election - She's hardly a Penthouse Pet but I would also say that Hillary Clinton is marginally more "attractive" than Trump, who is a disgusting fat orange toad.

[cormorant]

,la!

[Trigfea63]

Since the advent of television, the more physically attractive candidate has won pretty much every U.S. presidential election.

I mean, really?

I am not sure this holds up.

1964 election - I would say Barry Goldwater was a lot more handsome than Richard Nixon.

1980 election - sure, Ronald Reagan was a former movie star, but by 1980 I'd argue that Jimmy Carter was the more attractive man, physically.

2016 election - She's hardly a Penthouse Pet but I would also say that Hillary Clinton is marginally more "attractive" than Trump, who is a disgusting fat orange toad.

I think it holds up.

1964 - Nixon wasn't the nominee. (Nixon and Goldwater are both republicans.) It was LBJ vs. Goldwater. Nixon ran against (and defeated) bald, ugly Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and not-very-attractive George McGovern in 1972. He lost to handsome JFK in 1960.

1980 - Are you saying Carter was more physically attractive than the movie star Reagan, with his jet black hair? No way. Also, Carter was beaten down by the rampant inflation of the late 1970s. He looked old and tired.

2016 - I think your personal distaste for Trump is skewing your opinion here. In 2016 he wasn't bad looking at all. And Hillary Clinton is generally viewed as *not* physically attractive.

[Crazy Anglican]

And Hillary Clinton is generally viewed as *not* physically attractive.

Can't argue with that; apparently even Bill would agree.

[Octavious]

Ahhh, a few minutes of free time to engage with the finest political minds of webDip on the key issues of the day...

Hillary Clinton lost to Trump because he was more attractive than her??





Right... time for bed.

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Not sure why everyone is so sleepy all of a sudden lol.

It's a robust finding that more attractive people do better in politics.

It's sad but unsurprising that women in politics face unusually intense scrutiny about their looks.

The unfortunate reality is that Hilary's overall look and demeaner probably did hurt her in the race against Trump, though I doubt that was anywhere close to being the deciding factor. In a similar vein, I agree that Kamala's relative attractiveness is an electoral asset.

And some women really are attracted to Trump, which is easier to understand if you consider that many women prioritize status and wealth over looks. Besides, although he's old and has a dumpy body, it's partisan silliness to think Trump is a literal troll person - he's better looking than many former Canadian PMs and many other men his age.

[Crazy Anglican]

he's better looking than many former Canadian PMs

Not the current one though.

New Zealand's former Prime Minister though, she was a looker.

[Crazy Anglican]

Finland's former PM too.

Hot Babe's of Western Democracy FTW.

[Jamiet99uk]

Since the advent of television, the more physically attractive candidate has won pretty much every U.S. presidential election.

I mean, really?

I am not sure this holds up.

1964 election - I would say Barry Goldwater was a lot more handsome than Richard Nixon.

1980 election - sure, Ronald Reagan was a former movie star, but by 1980 I'd argue that Jimmy Carter was the more attractive man, physically.

2016 election - She's hardly a Penthouse Pet but I would also say that Hillary Clinton is marginally more "attractive" than Trump, who is a disgusting fat orange toad.

I think it holds up.

1964 - Nixon wasn't the nominee. (Nixon and Goldwater are both republicans.) It was LBJ vs. Goldwater. Nixon ran against (and defeated) bald, ugly Hubert Humphrey in 1968 and not-very-attractive George McGovern in 1972. He lost to handsome JFK in 1960.

1980 - Are you saying Carter was more physically attractive than the movie star Reagan, with his jet black hair? No way. Also, Carter was beaten down by the rampant inflation of the late 1970s. He looked old and tired.

2016 - I think your personal distaste for Trump is skewing your opinion here. In 2016 he wasn't bad looking at all. And Hillary Clinton is generally viewed as *not* physically attractive.

Forgive me, 1964 should say Barry Goldwater was more attractive than Lyndon Johnson. Clearly, he was.

You think 2016 Trump was an attractive man? EWW.

[Jamiet99uk]

You can fap to Donald Trump all you like but that's legit disgusting. He's a fat, orange, ugly cunt.

[Jamiet99uk]

You also have to remember that Trump has, since early adulthood,.battled with bone spurs, and other serious disfigurements which make him incapable of physically demanding tasks. He's basically a deformed mutant by his own admission. Plus there's the fact his hands are the size of a small child's hands. We all know that women are less attracted to men with tiny, deformed hands.

[Trigfea63]

You can fap to Donald Trump all you like but that's legit disgusting. He's a fat, orange, ugly cunt.

Don't hold back, tell us what you really think. :D

[Trigfea63]

I think you're right about Goldwater and LBJ though:

https://www.multco.us/northwest-wing-exhibition/gallery/1964-presidential-campaigns-gallery

We'll have to chalk that one up to LBJ running effectively as JFK II, to finish carrying out JFK's programs. The aura of JFK's good looks must have rubbed off on LBJ's campaign.

[Octavious]

Hang on for a second here... Is this legit? Are there significant numbers of Americans out there who, when they look at Trump, see a relatively handsome elder statesman and not, as pretty much everyone in the UK sees, an overweight elderly orangutan who has suffered the indignity of a nuclear accident in a tanning salon?

Hillary Clinton is an awful awful person and was a grim candidate, but she's not ugly by any stretch. She pulls off the dignified matriarch look rather well.

Is this a cultural thing? In the UK we're used to describing people like Judi Dench, Helen Mirren, etc as glamorous and beautiful people. Do you not have the concept of old and beautiful in the Americas?

Clinton is not a stunner, but she's not bad. And I don't think Kamala beats her in the beauty stakes

[Crazy Anglican]

Hang on for a second here... Is this legit? Are there significant numbers of Americans out there who, when they look at Trump, see a relatively handsome elder statesman and not, as pretty much everyone in the UK sees, an overweight elderly orangutan who has suffered the indignity of a nuclear accident in a tanning salon?

Hillary Clinton is an awful awful person and was a grim candidate, but she's not ugly by any stretch. She pulls off the dignified matriarch look rather well.

Is this a cultural thing? In the UK we're used to describing people like Judi Dench, Helen Mirren, etc as glamorous and beautiful people. Do you not have the concept of old and beautiful in the Americas?

Clinton is not a stunner, but she's not bad. And I don't think Kamala beats her in the beauty stakes

I cannot really speak to that. I don't hear lots of people talk about his looks one way or another. Despite my earlier flippant remarks, I don't think that physical attractiveness is that much of an important factor in determining my votes. For instance, I like Joe Biden but think he bears a strong resemblance to Walter (Jeff Dunham's grumpy old man ventriloquist dummy).

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Americans and Canadians have never had a matriarch thrust upon them by monarchy and they've never chosen it willingly at the polls.

There's still a misogynistic political culture that is dismissive of young women and disgusted by old women.

In the Canadian context the only women who had a noteworthy chance of becoming PM (Freeland, Ambrose) and those who have served as provincial Premiers (Notley, Smith, Wynne, etc.) are a very specific type: 40-60 years old, outspoken, relatively attractive.

It's hard to imagine that prominent women in world politics would have done well in Canada or the US. Thatcher would have been too severe, Jacinda too young, Merkel too frumpy, etc. For women in politics it seems like a minefield of conflicting standards apply.

If Hilary had been the exact same candidate by 20% more attractive it probably would have helped a bit. I'd rate Kamala as being at least that much more attractive than Clinton was in 2016. I wish all this didn't matter at all — I suspect it matters a bit.

Might be worth noting that Biden was a very attractive young man and wasn't particularly ugly until he became skeletal. Trump was a decent looking young man too and he remains over six feet tall, ostentatiously rich, and is an expert at hiding his physical flaws on TV (his supporters are only seeing the head-on TV content and not the tabloid pictures of his baldness and gut).

[Esquire Bertissimmo]

Is this a cultural thing? In the UK we're used to describing people like Judi Dench, Helen Mirren, etc as glamorous and beautiful people. Do you not have the concept of old and beautiful in the Americas?

I really do think there is a cultural difference here.

There is a general disdain and disregard for the elderly in North America, but old powerful white men get a pass. We're allergic to and suspicious of concepts like elegance or grace, preferring instead power for men and sex appeal (and occasionally motherliness) for women. All this creates a very narrow path for prominent women to maintain cultural power as they age.

Trump is very old, but his brand is energetic, angry, and fun-loving. These characteristics are way more appealing here than the dignified elegance of an older woman. I recall seeing Christine Lagarde speak at an event and thinking how she could never be a prominent politician in Canada — a pedigreed and educated older women in pearls and a pant suite is just antithetical to what our culture prioritizes.

We have our Betty White and Oprah Winfrey type characters, but their age is a liability. Hyper partisanship is giving more voice to some older women (Pelosi) who might otherwise be unfairly disregarded.

[Trigfea63]

Despite my earlier flippant remarks, I don't think that physical attractiveness is that much of an important factor in determining my votes.

Not *your* vote, but frankly, your vote was determined long ago. You will vote party line regardless of who the candidates are. For the middle 10-20% of the country who are not attached to one party or the other, and who basically determine the outcome of elections in this country, physical attractiveness matters more than you might think.

Tall vs. short is another manifestation of this phenomenon. Trump had a big advantage over Clinton in this department, and has a similar advantage over Harris.

[Trigfea63]

If Hilary had been the exact same candidate by 20% more attractive it probably would have helped a bit. .... I wish all this didn't matter at all — I suspect it matters a bit.

Again, I agree with this, except for "a bit." "A lot" is more like it.

We have our Betty White and Oprah Winfrey type characters, but their age is a liability. Hyper partisanship is giving more voice to some older women (Pelosi) who might otherwise be unfairly disregarded.

Agree with this, too. It's harsh that women still face these kinds of prejudices, but American TV and internet is inundated with sexual imagery of younger women. Pelosi is a rare example of an older woman who has gained respect in American politics. She has done it by being highly, highly effective. (And it doesn't hurt that she is physically attractive.)