It has been said the tallest candidate for president wins.
Has this Always been the case?
AND
Who is taller, Kerry or Bush?
The tallest man always wins. And when he doesn’t, there’s always an excuse.
Kerry is taller than Bush. But so was Al Gore. But Gore won the popular vote, so that makes it OK.
Gerald Ford was taller than Jimmy Carter. But Ford wasn’t a “real” elected President, so that makes it OK.
This formula always works as far back into history until it doesn’t.
:rolleyes:
Here’s a Straight Dope article on the subject.
Well, it works for the mighty Urkans.
How about a tall man almost always gets elected president?
If a 6’1" guy defeats a 6’2" guy, the fact that they BOTH got to be presidential nominees is due to the fact that they are tall - period.
In today’s society (or maybe always), being tall is always a plus.
Probably because height seems to be their only citeria for selected a leader. One of them isn’t exactly gifted in the brains department.
To answer the OP, John Kerry is 6’4" while George W. Bush is either 5’11" or 6’0." This is the biggest height difference since Bush 41 beat Mike Dukakis (whom Cecil referred to as a “dwarf” in the above linked article) in 1988. I’ve heard many Bush backers refer to Kerry as “Lurch” in what I think is an attempt to undercut Kerry’s height advantage.
Historically, the taller candidate almost always wins. There have been too few elections to draw definitive conclusions concerning the correlation between height and victory, but the trend seems obvious. In a closely related matter, the CEOs of major companies are, on average, easily taller than the average man.
Seems to be? It is the only criteria! It’s a heresy against the Mighty Tallests to to even consider anything else!
What the? How dare you! It’s spelled “Irken.”
I’ve read quite a lot about this. As I remember;
[ul]
[li]Being tall, over 6’ or so, is an advantage.[/li][li]Being average, around 5’ 9", is ok but no help.[/li][li]Being short, 5’ 6" or less, is a great disadvantage. Often insurmountable.[/li][/ul]
These generalities apply to men only. I don’t know about women.
I’m 5’ 9", and I have seen taller men advance for seemingly no other reason. My old boss tokd me that taller men make a better impression. On clients.
There’s a whole psychology around men and tallness. Men who don’t quite make 6" (like Bush) often claim to be, and tend to uncomfortable around other men who really are. They seem to prefer short women as mates.
Peace,
mangeorge
mangeorge
So you are 5’9"? Well, I didn’t think it necesary to mention my height in my original posting (#5) but my height is a “whopping” 5’3".
And you think YOU have problems?
That is pretty short. Do you find it to be a disadvantage? I’m right in the middle, which is advantageous for observation. I notice that some people immediately cop an attitude when encountering a short man. Any accomplishment (good build, talent, confidebce, even intelligence) is automatically attributed to a “napolean complex”.
But some women are really attracted to short guys. Aren’t they.
Are you old enough for women? I assume so.
mangeorge
Yes, I am “old enough” for women and I have never found being 5’3" to be an advantage for anything.
I’ve heard that women are usually attracted to tall guys who are executives who make huge salaries.
People who are overweight (which I’m not) or have a Southern accent (which I don’t) are also at a disadvantage. But as I’ve often said, it is much more realistic to imagine someone losing weight or their Southern accent than someone making themselves taller. (and I always tell this to people whenever they complain about being overweight or having a Southern accent). What did you say in one of your postings? Being 5’6" or under is an “insurmountable” disadvantage.
If the OP was worded “Is it true that in any presidential election someone who is 5’3” or smaller never wins or even gets a nomination?", that would be true 100% of the time.
Just look at Kucinich. Who here even remembers the guy? He looked like a little elf every time I saw him on TV. Too bad, he had some decent ideas.
James Madison was under 5’3’’ and weighed less than 100 pounds buthe was elected in 1808 and reelected in 1812!
Splanky
I was going on the information at the link that Nightwatch_Trailer had posted:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_308.html
According to that link (and it’s an official Cecil™ posting), James Madison was 5’4".
It’s kind of disputed actually, I’ve seen stats as low as 5’2’’.
The fact is Madison was a really tiny guy. Washington Irving once described him as a “withered little apple-john.” (I thought that was funny).
It kind of goes against it, since it seems to be that height is an indication of prowess and prescence, and little James was a very tiny, weak fellow.
Weird. The White House website for kids lists Madison as 5’ 6". Says Bush is 5’ 11".
From CBS News. The rules for the coming debates include…
I would think that being able to sit comfortably in virtually any car (front or back seat) has its advantages over someone who is 6’3" (like myself).