The height of male presidential candidates seems like it might matter to some degree, and I don’t think there’s any doubt that culturally Americans tend to respect men for being tall. But does that hold true for female candidates at all? Would someone look at this picture from before tonight’s Republican debate and feel worse about voting for Michele Bachmann, who looks tiny between Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty? Are things simply different when women are candidates?
And that is with heels! (pun not intended)
Seriously, she looks so much smaller it seems she’s Photoshopped in out of scale.
As to the question, well, it made no difference in the straw poll.
I think the biggest impact it would have would be the potential trap. If any media personality mentions the height difference, you can jump on it as evidence of sexism.
Ah, but it’s like skin color. If it matters to a voter, not a word needs to be said.
yes she won the straw.
Net says she in 5 ft 2. That is not very tall. It does not matter. She is a short idiot or a tall one.
She’s actually pretty short for a Norwegian gal.
I’d still hit it. (The crazy ones are always better in bed.)
Until they show up at your job two days later.
Not. Worth. It.
I don’t think there’s enough data to really answer this one. Historically the taller male presidential candidate usually wins, but that doesn’t mean those candidates are winning just because they’re taller. We don’t even have data from a race between two women of the same party, much less a woman vs. a man in the general election. The only woman who’s come close to winning the nomination to this point is Hillary Clinton, who is around 5’6," and I don’t think many people would say she lost because of her height.
What other explanation is possible? It had to be height.
Good point.