Who's the Stud?: Does "The Stud" Usually Become President?

I think who is the Stud is part of it - but I think most of it - the best sound bite wins. Most Americans cannot get ahold of many issues at once.

That is why the vote for the 'nice guy' or the 'stud' or the 'handsom' guy - it is sad but true...

TF

Carter was more "studly" than Ford?
JFK more than Nixon?
LBJ more than Goldwater?
Wilson more than Teddy's designated heir?

Lets skip over most of the 19th century Presidents that seem almost forgotten now to most Americans. The list of exceptions is great even in that group which included such "studly" types as Grant, Zack Taylor, Harrison and Jackson. Was Lincoln "studly"?

Jefferson more than Adams?

JFK more than Nixon? Certainly. That's the textbook example, and further is the turning point -- when average people started seeing their candidates up close and personal via TV.

I think it's valid since then.

It's why I favored Kerry over Edwards -- the studliness needs to not just be handsome but tough. Edwards is too soft yet.

Kerry vs. Bush, I dunno.

For your list, I'd like to see your reasons for the winner being more studlier.

I offer, in support of your argument, Nixon-Kennedy. Kennedy was better looking, stood up straighter, looked more directly into the camera during the debates, and had a good looking, young wife.

In refutation of your argument, I think Nixon beat Humphrey because Humprey represented the party which would not get us out of Nam. Humphrey still came across as better looking and more studly.

Kelly

JFK was "prettier", but it was Nixon who took the hard line against the Soviet Union and world Communism. If you had asked which was the more "macho" back at the beginning of the 60's Nixon would have won, hands down.

This is a specious way of looking at political contests. What constitutes being "studly" is open to question, and it is a great over-simplification of complex human motivations in choosing which leader to follow. "Wisdom" is just as likely to be the test as "Warrior Spirit". Long before modern mass communications, Regal Bearing (good-looks, or whatever else you might take that to mean) has always been important.

This thesis is explicitly "studlier", as separate from "tough". Women liked JFK WAY more than Nixon.

That's why women should never have been given the franchise. :wink:

Perhaps I should have clarified a bit:

The pure "Studly*" idea probably should have (at least) one asterik added:

*If the guy is really handsome, that may trump the physically dominant male aspect, so to speak.

And there are a lot of limits to this theory. For example (hopefully) if one candidate was far more qualified than his studly opponent, one would hope the more qualified would win. Hopefully the stud factor only decides when all other factors are relatively close. But who knows...

Again, its not 100%. Exceptions can be found. Just saying: Its a big factor. Perhaps bigger than we'd like to admit. And perhaps this factor has increased in importance along with the rise of importance of television. I think Asherman's post illustrates that and I readily agree that its more of an issue since Nixon-JFK than prior to that. It does appear that 100+ years ago, the stud thing was much less an issue. Nowadays we visual mammals can more easily see who the stud mammal is, right on television.

I won't even get started on Arnold Schwarzenegger. Obviously he's the most qualified person to lead the state of California, and his studliness had nothing to do with his winning the election.

Hey, extra medium. I once told Roger that some woman cast her vote depending on how she visualized a candidate's portrait as it hung in the hall of presidents. I'm sorry that I can't verify this, but I do recall her having said that 90% of the time, her choice won the election. I don't think it's so much the macho image as it is our idea of stateliness, if you will. As for all this military stuff, I recall a historian having written that generals do not usually make good presidents. The only case in point that I can cite is Grant. I need to do a little more research on Eisenhower before I comment on him.

Presidents are first of all things men. Each of them regardless of their background had both flaws and strengths. Many are virtually forgotten today, but during their administrations they played significant roles in making this nation what it is today. For most of our national history, the Chief Executive was not expected to take a leading role in sponsoring legislation, much less imposing the Executive Branch into the affairs of States or private citizens. Some Presidents seldom left the Executive Mansion except on holiday from signing Bills passed by Congress. Others imposed their ideas and character on the nation, just because they were such strong personalities. We should not judge any of them too harshly, for they were almost all good men dedicated to the well-being of the nation.

Washington was argueably the best of all Presidents.

Jackson certainly had his faults, but his administration had many positive consequences that are still around today. He had a strong, but stubborn personality. He withstood the nullification crisis that might have easily resulted in secession if a lesser man had been President.

Harrison died shortly after assuming office, so we'll never know what sort of President he would have made.

Taylor wasn't great President, but he performed reasonably well under the circumstances of his time.

Grant takes a lot of flak for the corrupt nature of many in his administration, but Grant himself was one of those who left office much poorer than he went in. Grant was always loyal to old comrads, and that was his major weakness. Grant failed at almost everything in his life, except in directing Armies and writing his autobiography.

Hays, like many post-war Presidents in the 19th century, did not take an activist role. He was a good Party man and discharged his duties, but beyong encouraging the "settlement of the West" and implementing Reconstruction wasn't very remarkable.

Garfield is best remembered for being assasinated in a Washington train depot by a disappointed office seeker.

McKinnley has been described as one of the nicest men to serve as President. He hated war, but faught the Spanish-American War. He favored business and technilogical advance as the foundation of a strong economy. In many ways McKinnley's assasination was the end of an era.

Eisenhower was a man of great intellect with a fine grasp of the Big Picture. He was loved by our parents who were tired of war and wanted only to enjoy the fruits of peace. We owe our transcontinental road system to Ike. My generation was impatient with him. All he ever seemed to do was play golf. Our generation wanted to actively attack the problems of the world. If the Communists were a threat, then lets take them on wherever and whenever. Civil Rights HAD to be addressed, and Jim Crow laws gotten off the books so Blacks could finally become full citizens of the country. We elected JFK, a war hero, to lead us on a grand crusade to make America and the world into a near utopia.

These are President's who had served as Generals, but many other Presidents were miltiary men, or owed in part their election to their participation in the military. Natalie is pulling me toward the door, so high-dee-ho.