The thin truth?

This headline, from CNN, caught my attention.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/19/doctored.photo.ap/index.html

There's a bit of research in political science that explores the relationship between candidates' looks--usually measured through follicle endowment (one of my favorite journal article titles: "Hair Loss and Electability: the Bald Truth") or overall measures of attractiveness--and their electoral success. Indeed, several countries--Brazil and the UK, being two of them--include photos of the candidates who, presumably, try to strike as debonair a pose as possible to appeal to indecisive voters. The logic is that, particularly in low information elections, voters use whatever cues are available. Voters, it seems, find handsome candidates irresistible (so do employers, it seems). Here's a link to one nice example of this research.

The implications, and criticisms, of this line of research are endless. One wonders, for instance, whether there are racial effects and whether certain races voted for other races less/more frequently, and how this was related to partisanship or ideological orientations? This has taken on added relevancy with the recent surprise second place finish of Obama in New Hampshire, and the bizarre theories that have been unearthed to explain this. Or, even whether evaluations of attractiveness vary across cultural frontiers? For instance, plumpness is prized in Mauritanian women, but thinness and unnaturally tanned women seem to appeal to many American men. But, of course, perceived attractiveness may be difficult to nail down objectively, particularly since it may be related to your own physical traits. And, it isn't clear what elements of attractiveness have the most....weight (pardon the pun)...in these evaluations. I'm afraid the chubby-chaser demographic may throw a wrench in the whole research agenda.