Got a baby face? Don't run for office, study says (Reuters)

(John Edwards Supporters, I'm looking at you...):evilgrin:

Got a baby face? Don't run for office, study says

Fri Jun 10, 2005 09:57 AM ET

By Maggie Fox, Health and Science Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A baby face may win hearts but it doesn't win votes, U.S. researchers said on Thursday. Students picked the winning U.S. congressional candidate nearly 70 percent of the time merely by glancing at their photos and deciding which one looked more competent, they said.

"This remarkable effect ... likely reflects differences in 'babyfacedness,'" Leslie Zebrowitz of Brandeis University and Joann Montepare of Emerson College, both in Massachusetts, wrote in a commentary. For their study, Alexander Todorov and colleagues at Princeton University showed pairs of photographs of real candidates for Congress, winners and losers, to more than 800 students.

They asked them to choose the candidate they thought had won or would win, and asked them why. On average, the volunteers looked at each pair of photos for one second. The students chose correctly 68.8 percent of the time, Todorov and colleagues report in this week's issue of the journal Science.

"In one of our studies, 143 participants were asked to rate the importance of 13 different traits in considering a person for public office. These traits included competence, trustworthiness, likability, and 10 additional traits," the researchers said. "Competence was rated as the most important trait." And the students correctly chose the winner based on how competent he or she looked in 71.6 percent of the Senate races and in 66.8 percent of the House of Representatives races.

(more at link above)

--p!

:rofl:

This is funny!

...about the lack of local politician awareness the Princeton students had, because if they recognized any of the pictures, they were knocked out of the study. Here the link:

Scientists Search for that Winning Look

Listen to this story... by John Hamilton

All Things Considered, June 9, 2005 · Forget political polls. Scientists usually can tell whether political candidates will win or lose by testing voters' reactions to the contestants' faces. A study in the journal Science shows that voters chose the face that looks more "competent."

Never see him looking competent.

...but that was one of * big selling points, that * "looked" more Presidential compared to the others.

And Gore "looked" more presidential than Bill Bradly, remember him?

Don't ever forget that.

that others who were picked by the students as more "competent" cheated as well?

With that assumption, the validity of this article's claims is called into question. Therefore, the whole article is crap. :D

they were disqualified, Rule # 2, they only viewed the picture for one second.

This was a study about first impressions.

Note: Fewer than 1 in 10 of these Princeton students recognized Sen. Edward Kennedy, and less than 1/3 recognized Sen. Obamma D-IL

if any of the candidates picked by these students cheated their way into office, the thesis that appearance affects one's electability is called into question.

Do you see what I mean?

Assume Candidate A is selected by the students as the more "competent" and therefore the more electable candidate.

Assume further that Candidate A "wins" by cheating. This would mean that:

1. Candidate A cheated and Candidate B actually won.

2. The students were wrong.

If we assume cheating on the federal level, why not on the state and local level? Therefore, the thesis presented in this article is, to steal a phrase from Louisa May Alcott, "for shit."

...at the link I posted in post #4, it explains it better than I can. They interview the people who conducted the experiments in the story, it's only about 5 minutes long.

Let's play out this scenario:

1. Two candidates run for a House seat. Let's call them Bob Jackson and Randall Jones.

2. The students in this experiment, having no recognition whatsoever of either Jackson or Jones, select the less baby-faced Jackson as the likely winner.

3. Election Day comes. Although Jones actually gets more votes, the Diebold voting machines are tampered with to give Jackson more votes.

4. Jackson is officially declared the winner, even though he cheated and is not actually the winner. If the votes had been counted fairly, Jones would be the winner.

Got that so far? Okay.

Remember #2? The students selected Jackson. As Jackson was declared the winner, it means they were correct.

But Jackson cheated. That means the students were wrong because the voters on Election Day selected Jones, the more baby-faced candidate.

The thesis that the less baby-faced candidate is more likely to win, therefore, would be called into question.

My scenario doesn't hinge on whether or not the students know the candidates. It hinges on whether or not the candidates themselves cheat on Election Day.

It may be an unlikely scenario, but if you are willing to believe that Bush cheated on a national level, with votes being stolen in several states, why is it so much harder for you to believe that votes couldn't be stolen in a Congressional district, where only perhaps 250,000 votes are cast?

I asked you about Bush v. Kerry in my original reply. Your response was something to the effect of "That doesn't apply. Bush cheated."

Well, then, why the hell does any of it apply? Maybe everybody cheated.

And Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) did beat an incumbent in his first House race. The next time he handily beat someone who had a recommendation from Ed Freakin'n Meese on his website. :eyes:

For instance, what is the typical age difference between a House/Senate incumbent and challenger? We know House incumbents win a surreal percentage, upwards of 95%. If incumbents are generally much older than the losing challengers then naturally the losing candidate will appear younger and more baby faced.

Many of the congressmen have been around for term after term. If they showed students pictures of the congressman from their district, there might have been some facial recognition, even if subconsciously, to allow them to pick the winning candidate. I'm inclined to believe there may be something to that based on the 5% higher correct percentage in Senate races than House. Senators are more well known and recognized than House members. That 5% margin is basically what I would have predicted.

I wish they would have shown pictures of candidates with facial hair and without to gauge the students' opinion. It is virtualy indisputable, IMO, that facial hair is a significant negative in a statewide race or higher. Jimmy The Greek Snyder figured that out in '48 and based his Truman over Dewey prediction and wager on it, knowing that women in general did not like facial hair and would vote against a candidate sporting it, even unknowingly. I made a large wager against Tom Strickland in the Colorado senate race of 2002 on that basis. In fact, in 2002 there were several other examples of mustached men being rejected and not meeting their poll numbers -- Ron Kirk in Texas, Kansas gov race, Wyoming gov race. The lock of all eternity is Jon Corzine will not match his final poll numbers in this year's New Jersey gov race. If he is not ahead in the final polls by at least 3 or 4 points he is gone, i.e. still a mere senator. Corzine could save millions via a cheap razor.

Did he run for election after that - not including the 2002 race?

I finally found one link that confirms it: http://www.clickmehard.net/clickmehard/archives/aprairiehome.html

"For the record, Mr. Wellstone hailed from Richmond, Virginia. Mr. Wellstone was also sporting a beard until Norm Coleman moved ahead in the polls…"

I'm not sure if Wellstone had a beard in his prior senate races in 1990 and 1996. Interesting question. If so, remarkable to overcome that.

Of course, the Abramoff/Indian casino deal might bring him down before we have a chance to find out if he could have made it in spite of his baby face.

...for that. My vote hasn't counted since 2000 (and maybe before that).

2002 Georgia switched to ALL Deibold "Accuvote TS" machines.

It REALLY SUCKS.:mad:

if it they chose at random.

... classified as baby-faced, but did he ever look squinty and smirky! Like a baby about to have a tantrum. I think their photo editors have been having a field day with this!