well, hell, this has been a known fact since the Reagan Administration

Well, not to get political or anything. But after watching Fox News, you might just think they have something here. I'm not sure I've seen an ugly woman on that network.

This is true. Those Democrats want to impeach Trump because they so pissed that they so dam ugly like Hillary

Hillary is uglier than any lot lizzard I know

you need to read the article, DC

I always wondered why Bill hooked up with her. She was a plain Jane back in college days.

Idiotic study from Susquehanna University and Illinois State University, both bastions of higher learning. But then consider the OP, who's quite an idiot himself.

Both Trump and Reagan were senile and dotards by the time they were were in office. Before my time, but I've read that Nixon was one of the goofiest-looking and most socially awkward president of all time. GWB's appearance is somewhat simian. In any case, I don't care what my political leaders look like; the only thing that matters is their intelligence, judgement, and competence.

Ivy-league professors vote democratic by a factor of something like 15-to-1. Not just political science professors, but those in physics, math, chemistry, etc.. I wonder how that fact squares with dipshits like @GammaNu? Is it just another conspiracy theory to keep conservatives out of academia?

vm,

I heard crowds chanting that she sucks! However, they didn't mention swallowing. :)

In other news on the same channel Denaris and her fire breathing dragons are causing global warming, and Elvis was seen at the 7-11 on Palmetto and Powerline drinking a peanut butter and banana smoothie yesterday afternoon.

@RandomMember,

1) The article isn't talking about elected officials, it's talking about the voters. Presidents and other politicians are typically as average and ordinary looking as possible. In general, their looks can be described as a slightly handsome version of an average person. That way they are perceived as non-threatening. Are there exceptions? Sure, but that's the general rule. A politician who is very ugly probably has a handicap, and actually a politician who is extremely good-looking has a slight handicap, too. And as for social skills, generally politicians of all stripes are very comfortable with social interaction because that's the nature of the job. Nixon was awkward but he could turn on the oily charm when he was doing "retail politics," shaking hands and kissing babies. Reagan had very few close friends, but I don't think anyone is going to deny that he was charming and sociable.

But again, the article is talking about the individual voters and party supporters. If you're only looking at
the people who actually become president, that's a very small sample size.

2) It's definitely true that professors are left-leaning. The higher up the academic food-chain, the more likely they are to vote democratic. Ivy league professors are more likely to be democrats than community college professors from Kansas City, for example. And it also varies by academic discipline: anthropology professors are something like 99% Democrat, while economics professors come closer to 50-50. But yes, all academics are more likely to skew Democratic than the population as a whole. There are exceptions, like Hillsdale College, George Mason, Chapman, Clermont, Pepperdine, various Jesuit colleges, etc., and I can also give you the names of a few libertarian professors at some very prestigious schools, but still, the rule is that professors are usually liberals.

But why? Well, two reasons. First, obviously there's the institutional reason. The culture of the academy has been very left-of-center since the Vietnam era, and they prefer to hire their own kind.

And second, there's the policy aspect. Educated people tend to be less religious than society as a whole, and less religious people tend to be socially liberal, especially on hot button "wedge issues." Namely, gay rights and abortion. Gay men have long been a high-achieving group, and they are overrepresented in the academy. Same for immigrants. So you start out as a professor being surrounded by colleagues who are gays and immigrants, and you quickly come to realize that they don't deserve to be demonized. Also, the gun issue: big colleges tend to be close to urban areas where support for gun rights is low. Professors are also often supportive of various nanny state laws, like seatbelts and soda bans, which seems understandable: the highly educated often believe that they can run others lives through technocratic tweaking. So taken together, you would expect professors to be socially liberal.

On foreign policy issues, it's probably difficult to support more war when you're surrounded by young people and you know that a war means sending similar kids to their deaths. Also, living in a diverse urban area and being surrounded by immigrants on a campus might make professors a little less xenophobic about foreigners and perhaps less likely to want to bomb them.

And on fiscal policy, I would think this would be obvious. If you have a PhD and you only make $100,000 a year, and then you see some of your former classmates making $1,000,000 a year on Wall Street, you might support some kind of Marxist rearranging of the economy to "redress" this.

Not to mention that all educators are ultimately paid by the government, whether directly (at a public university) or indirectly (at a private university that gets government subsidies and where students receive government aid). And government research grants tend to go to people whose research supports big-government policies. So if you're a professor, a big government is how you get your gravy. If you take all this together, you get an ideal environment for recruiting and producing liberals.

But if you compare college professors with the overall population of post-graduate degree holders, you'll see that plenty of educated people actually do vote republican. In the last four presidential elections, people with post-graduate degrees have voted Republican between 37 and 44%. That's lower than the population as a whole, but it isn't 15 to 1, as you claim with Ivy league professors. So clearly being a professor may turn you into a democrat, but being well-educated won't necessarily do the same.

25,

I know, hot women confuse your thinking process. :)

^^^That's what they count on ;))))))))))))))))

@Burlington: The title of this thread refers to the "Reagan administration" and I assumed that the election of a B-rated television actor is supposed to (somehow) demonstrate that Republicans can sail through life because they look like television actors.

Full professors at major schools make more like $150K to 190K -- and that's before additional consulting work in industry. My direct experience is with professors in the hard-core physical sciences. These are wealthy professors who could do absolutely anything with their lives -- but the thrill of climbing to the top in terms of ground-breaking publications is far more important than buying their next yacht or gold-plated toilet. Elite academics is correlated with liberal voting. That's my point.

The OP's article doesn't show the methodology used to prove a subjective conclusion that Republicans are more attractive. It's just a shit-piece put together by third-rate research sponsored by third-rate schools. But what do you expect from the OP who's known for stupid conspiracy theories?

25,

That is in the males genes, or perhaps I should say jeans!

@RandomMember,

Well, I could be totally wrong about it. I remember talking to a professor at my school and he told me he was leaving the university because his salary wasn't high enough. He said he had to cobble together an income of $65k by teaching as an adjunct professor at several colleges each semester, and that he had just been offered $70k to teach full-time at a different university. In full disclosure, I don't remember the exact figures he gave me because this was a long time ago (late 2001). Oddly, he said this in the context of his attempt to convince me to go into academia myself (he really didn't sell the concept very well LOL). But whether it's $70k or $100k or $190k, the point that I think we can agree on is that college professors earn more than the average person... but not nearly as much as a successful hedge fund manager. (And personally, I think that's a good thing.) Then again, having gone to a third-rate school myself, what do I know? LOL.

I will say that I take issue with your characterization of finance industry professionals as only being interested in "buying their next yacht or gold-plated toilet." Having worked among them for a while, I can tell you that money is only half of the motivation for many of them. They're like well-paid athletes playing a sport: the money matters a lot, but the game matters, too. At least that was the impression that I got from them.

As for the article and the study itself... I have no idea. Probably we need further studies to confirm this. In my limited experience, there isn't much of a correlation between politics and physical attractiveness. And you're right, the OP mentioned Reagan. Reagan was fairly handsome as a young actor, I suppose. Of course, one could counter that argument by mentioning JFK. But then the Republicans could respond by bringing up Mitt Romney and Rick Perry. And then the Democrats could fight back by mentioning Kirsten Gillibrand and Kamala Harris... and on and on it goes. I guess now the two sides have something else to fight over: who's better looking.

Naah, Clubber and I aren't Republican, and we are gorgeous. :)

BHF, my choice of Reagan in the title was fairly arbitrary. Subconsciously it may have been that he fostered the rebirth of conservatism in America, and is objectively regarded as the last great American president since Kennedy, maybe even Eisenhower.

"Ivy-league professors vote democratic by a factor of something like 15-to-1. "

No surprise. Professor types like being in protective bubble environments where it is very tough to get fired. I doubt that real world practitioners who graduate from those schools vote that way at the same ratio.

gamm,

Today, JFK would likely be labeled a moderate or left leaning Republican. Trickle down and cuban missile crisis, ya' know!

Gammanu, you've tried to argue this kind of an idea before, pertaining to the Trump's versus the Clinton's.

Well, many conservatives are also very rich, either old money or new money.

There are advantages to being rich, like a wider range of mating opportunities.

And then as the actor George Clooney is always saying, there are advantages of being attractive. I think he says this because people call him a pretty boy. But he is right, there are such advantages, and some attractive people have used this to get rich. And Clooney is no conservative.

So you get people with self made money and with inherited money, who also may be more attractive.

Good:
https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-…

But Gammanu, talking about these sorts of things, all you are doing is trying to promote the bogus science known as Social Darwinism, saying that the rich deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor.

SJG

^^^^^ :) :) :)

SJG

vm,

That's not my term, but what is usually used. Economics 101 is most on many!