It may be the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT"), but methinks they should stick to rocket science. Pointing to such political pieces of tail as Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann -- not to mention well-hairlined candidates like "MIT(T)" Romney (go figure) -- the new MIT study suggests that good-looking candidates simply get more votes from an adoring public than do cretin candidates.
But simply applying common sense and a few real-life, big-ticket examples quickly debunks the findings of this story. Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann -- despite America's clamoring to see their hot asses in a mud catfight -- are both unelectable in a general election race for president. That's the way it tends to go for screeching, loud-mouthed, deranged right-wingers, no matter how good they look. Neither is likely to ever even win her own party's nomination.
And that brings us to Hillary Clinton. Pippa Middleton or Jenna Jameson, she's not. But she was this close to wrestling the democrat party nomination from Barack Obama in 2008, and from there would have easily defeated tired old man McCain to become to first woman president.
Also, if she chose to do so, I believe she'd kick Obama's hapless ass back to Halstead Street in a 2012 democrat party primary challenge. And while she'd might not be able to beat them in a catfight (and certainly not in a beauty pageant), Hillary would destroy Palin or Bachmann in a general election. So I call bunk, MIT. Stay with genetics and robotics next time, boys.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2026224/Good-looking-candidates-like-Michele-Bachmann-votes-study-shows.html
Posts
