The New York Times recently published a chart with all major party presidential candidate heights and weights since the 1896 election. They explicitly ask:
Does candidate height and weight play a role in electoral success?I decided to run a linear regression using height and weight to examine the role of each variable. It seems that while neither significantly contributes (p > 0.05), there is a trend for weight (p = 0.10). Adding height to the model does not improve it, which makes some sense given the highly significant correlation between height and weight.
In the group, the average weight of winners was nearly 12 lbs heavier than that of losers, although again, this is not enough to reject the possibility that this difference is due to chance.
One last note: I looked to see whether heights and weights have changed much over time. It seems that there is absolutely no change in average presidential candidate weight since 1896. However, presidential candidates have gotten significantly taller (statistically speaking) through the 20th century. from 1896-1960 (beginning of the TV era) presidents were about 5'10.6". Since then, they average 6'0.5". I suppose that these data suggest that modern presidents have been more physically fit than early-to-mid 20th century ones.
7 comments:
We need more post. I have an interesting idea, re-define the 4000 tax credit and invest it into a Public works program for improvement of the national infrastructure.
sorry, we need more posts
Public works program eh? Are you channeling your inner Paul Krugman? The day you posted this, Krugman (who just won the Nobel Prize in economics) suggested the very same thing in the NY Times Op-Ed page under the title "Let's Get Fiscal."
He states that right now fiscal discipline (e.g. limiting budget deficits) is far less important than government spending that can boost the economy.
I don't have any problem with the idea of another public works program. I'm not sure that it can really solve major economic problems though. I see it as more of a crutch to help those additional 2-3% who become unemployed during this slump (and of course we get the benefits of improved infrastructure). The downside is that we continue to spend money we don't have which translates into increased borrowing, increased inflation (which is essentially a highly regressive tax), or both. So it's not as though such a program would have no downside.
Kurgman notes that if McCain pulls of an upset, this kind of program won't happen. Obama may be more open to this idea.
Hasn't the average population height increased slightly since 1896? I was under the impression that better nutrition was generally leading to taller people. So maybe this has little to do with Presidents per se, but is a reflection of that general trend.
See: http://www.econ.upf.edu/docs/seminars/baten.pdf
Interesting point, and thanks for the comment. While average height has increased in the last century, presidential height averages have been well above that of the general population. Perhaps because of this discrepancy we do not see presidential candidate height increasing in the last hundred years. The interesting article you linked discusses the relationship between height and the wealth of a country. It makes perfect sense to me that if there is a strong relationship between nutrition and height that the sorts of (generally aristocratic) individuals who have historically run for president have generally attained adequate (or better) nutrition throughout the course of their lives.
I'm confused, I thought you said that presidential heights have increased - now you say they haven't.
No you're right. I confused myself. While candidates have gotten taller there was no relationship between height and winning the election. I think that regardless of the era, however, presidential candidates have tended to be taller than their respective population averages. I have heard that taller individuals tend to get promoted more quickly and make more money in the private sector than their shorter counterparts. I wonder if this tendency for presidential candidates to be taller has something to do with an unconscious trust and/or respect for taller individuals. Of course, a losing presidential candidate has been politically successful to that point, which underscores the idea that the self-selected pool of presidential candidates (regardless of whether or not they win) tends to be taller.
Post a Comment