US elections - may the polls be ever in your favor

[Weeping Sore]

1 hour ago, Dr. Pepper said:

  I'm as low and horrible as you.  

Is that really necessary? I really doubt there's any chance Kasich is trolling this site and would have his feelings hurt. And I don't think Rubio has more value as a person because he is good-looking. It's a factor we shouldn't mention in polite company, but since when is this site polite company?

http://www.hottestheadsofstate.com/us-presidents/

I noticed our last 5 presidents were ranked 6, 10, 14, 23, and 13 in order of hotness, not sure where Hillary will land.

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

Yes. 

 

 

Seems reasonable to me then that he would suffer the consequences.  

We can't have our trusted officials in government lying under oath without consequence.  

That would be totally unacceptable, and set a terrible president. precident.

[Ormond]

1 hour ago, Weeping Sore said:

Trump's an interesting case. He's clearly a formerly handsome man going to absurd and not-convincing lengths to still seem like a stud (the elaborate hair and spray-tan or whatever the hell he's doing). Still, he is a performer with a practiced visual schtick. I personally find Ted Cruz repellant, but his skin is glowing, healthy, and baby-smooth. And when I really think about it, my aversion to Cruz is much less physical than it is a reaction to his oily, self-righteous personality. Not actually ugly.

Kasich was far and away the most suitable Republican candidate, but I swear the beady eyes, long, ravaged looking face and the Kevin-Costner-haircut-from-The-Bodyguard made voters not want to consider him. To think that looks have nothing to do with political success since the advent of televisual media is shockingly naïve, imo.

I am absolutely sure that physical appearance has some influence on perceptions of candidates and who gets votes. I think I would like some polling data, though, before I accept your personal evaluation of the looks of Kasich correspond to those of most Republican primary voters. There are some aspects of "physical attractiveness" that are universal (such as facial symmetry). but not all.

Plus sometimes voters can have ideas of what the appropriate "look" is for an office holder that vary from their ideas about general "attractiveness." I remember a while back there was a U.S. Senate candidate in Utah who actually touted the fact the he was bald in his campaign ads, since there was some polling that indicated Utahns though Senators SHOULD be bald.

There's also some research showing that while physically attractive people have advantages, if others come to believe that the person is deliberately trying to unfairly use that to gain advantage, it can backfire on them.

Looks are certainly a factor -- as are names, by the way. The phonetic qualities of surnames seem to be somewhat predictive of who wins elections, especially when no incumbent is running. Surnames that have two syllables and end in -n (Clinton, Johnson, Reagan, etc.) seem advantageous for politicians in the USA. But none of these factors is overwhelming by itself. 

[Maithanet]

18 minutes ago, Ormond said:

But none of these factors is overwhelming by itself. 

Yeah, I remember reading something that if you just pick the taller candidate for president, that you will be right more than 75% of the time.  In which case Trump is in great shape. 

[Weeping Sore]

11 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Looks are certainly a factor -- as are names, by the way. The phonetic qualities of surnames seem to be somewhat predictive of who wins elections, especially when no incumbent is running. Surnames that have two syllables and end in -n (Clinton, Johnson, Reagan, etc.) seem advantageous for politicians in the USA. But none of these factors is overwhelming by itself. 

Well put. Kasich also didn't factor very much in the horse-race narrative, and recaps of tit-for-tat insults. He didn't generate much interest or excitement until far too late. I've just been thinking that something like a Kasich-Rubio ticket might have competed much more plausibly with Clinton-Kaine, not that I actually want Republicans to win.

[Weeping Sore]

5 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

Yeah, I remember reading something that if you just pick the taller candidate for president, that you will be right more than 75% of the time.  In which case Trump is in great shape. 

W was shorter than both Gore and Kerry, losing the popular vote against the former, and seemingly benefiting from some Ohio vote-count shenanigans vs. the latter.

[Weeping Sore]

1 hour ago, Castel said:

 a politician that good looking.

Only with the beard.

 

[Fez]

44 minutes ago, Ormond said:

Surnames that have two syllables and end in -n (Clinton, Johnson, Reagan, etc.) seem advantageous for politicians in the USA. 

I have high hopes that at least a few people vote for the Clinton-Kaine ticket because it sounds a lot like Citizen Kane.

[sologdin]

8 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

I see this blaming Clinton for NAFTA a lot, but that's not what happened. NAFTA was negotiated by George HW Bush and signed on December 17, 1992.

Clinton didn't take office until January 20, 1993. NAFTA went into effect on January 1, 1994.

WJC signed the implementing legislation for the NAFTA, which was not a self-implementing treaty and therefore needed a legislative act to become effective.

[TerraPrime]

59 minutes ago, sologdin said:

WJC signed the implementing legislation for the NAFTA, which was not a self-implementing treaty and therefore needed a legislative act to become effective.

And to be fair I don't recall Bill Clinton repudiating NAFTA at all. In fact I think he pretty fully embraced it (no points for cheap jokes about Clinton and embrace and Lewinsky).

[Swordfish]

6 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

And to be fair I don't recall Bill Clinton repudiating NAFTA at all. In fact I think he pretty fully embraced it (no points for cheap jokes about Clinton and embrace and Lewinsky).

Probably also no points for a 'free trade' cigar joke?

[DanteGabriel]

13 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

And to be fair I don't recall Bill Clinton repudiating NAFTA at all. In fact I think he pretty fully embraced it (no points for cheap jokes about Clinton and embrace and Lewinsky).

I believe Clinton campaigned in support of NAFTA, as did George Bush. If I remember correctly the bulk of Ross Perot's appeal was his opposition to NAFTA.

But it's worth remembering that NAFTA had bipartisan support and that it was initially shepherded through by Bush the Elder. The way the Trumpkins talk about it, you'd think the Clintons drafted it themselves.

[lokisnow]

9 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

I see this blaming Clinton for NAFTA a lot, but that's not what happened. NAFTA was negotiated by George HW Bush and signed on December 17, 1992.

Clinton didn't take office until January 20, 1993. NAFTA went into effect on January 1, 1994.

I'll be damned, I had no idea.

[maarsen]

NAFTA was an extension of the Free Trade Agreement  signed by both Ronald Reagan  and Brian Mulroney up here in Canada in 1988. Put the blame where it belongs. 

[Swordfish]

4 minutes ago, maarsen said:

NAFTA was an extension of the Free Trade Agreement  signed by both Ronald Reagan  and Brian Mulroney up here in Canada in 1988. Put the blame where it belongs. 

On Canada!!!

[The Marquis de Leech]

Interesting poll out of Iowa that has Trump +1. I'm not sure what his appeal is there, though if I had to guess, Iowa Bernie supporters have yet to cross over to Clinton en masse.

Oh, and there's South Carolina - Trump is only +2.

[DanteGabriel]

31 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Interesting poll out of Iowa that has Trump +1. I'm not sure what his appeal is there, though if I had to guess, Iowa Bernie supporters have yet to cross over to Clinton en masse.

Oh, and there's South Carolina - Trump is only +2.

I'd think the story is that Trump is only up 1 in Iowa. It's been a pretty reliably Republican state.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Just now, DanteGabriel said:

I'd think the story is that Trump is only up 1 in Iowa. It's been a pretty reliably Republican state.

Eh? Iowa has voted Democratic in five out of the last six elections (only going Republican in 2004).

[DanteGabriel]

15 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Eh? Iowa has voted Democratic in five out of the last six elections (only going Republican in 2004).

Oops, my mistake. Maybe I was thinking of Indiana...

I suppose Iowa has a lot of the demographic that goes for Trump -- white people without college degrees.

[Fez]

42 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Interesting poll out of Iowa that has Trump +1. I'm not sure what his appeal is there, though if I had to guess, Iowa Bernie supporters have yet to cross over to Clinton en masse.

Oh, and there's South Carolina - Trump is only +2.

Iowa is one of the rare states where Democrats heavily rely on white working class voters to win; and its the rare state where they can still win a majority or near majority of those voters (likely because of the supersized party infrastructure that exists for the caucuses). And as poorly as Trump is doing overall, he is doing better with white working class voters than the past several Republican nominees. So while I think Clinton will end up winning the state, I think it will be a close one, and I could easily see it be the rare battleground that Trump wins. Even if Clinton ends up winning places like Georgia.

By contrast, in South Carolina, Republicans already win nearly all the white working class voters so Trump has no room to grow from Romney's performance. But because he's doing so much worse with white middle class voters, Clinton does have quite a lot of room to grow.

In fact, it may not stick past this cycle because of how unique Trump is, but we're looking at a pretty major voter realignment right now; with a lot of the remaining Democratic white working class voters switching parties, but a lot of Republican non-religious middle white class voters (especially female ones) are also switching. And the result is that a lot of blue and red states are getting a lot closer than they used to be, because Clinton and Trump each only have room to grow in the other side's states. We've seen all the polls of Clinton barely behind, tied, or even leading in a lot of states that are usually Republican strongholds, but at the same time, Trump is actually doing quite a bit better in a lot of states that are usually Democratic strongholds as well. Those polls aren't as well publicized because Clinton still has large leads, but not nearly as large as Democrats usually do.