Why Michael Kinsley Is Wrong about Chris Christie’s Weight

by John Sides on September 30, 2011 · 3 comments

in Campaigns and elections

It’s because he prefers to toss off some musings instead of just reading some political science.  Here again is my post from three weeks ago.  And here is the paper it discussed, by Beth Miller, Jennifer Lundgren, Diane Filion, and Lauren Thompson.  In their study, obese male candidates were actually evaluated MORE POSITIVELY than non-obese male candidates.  This is hardly the last word on the subject, but, you know, it seems relevant.  Maybe Beth Miller and colleagues deserve a Bloomberg column.

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

Andrew Gelman September 30, 2011 at 12:02 pm

John:

The good news is that Kinsley published this silliness in a pretty obscure location. It wasn’t the New York Times, the Washington Post, Slate, or even the New Republic (which, as you may recall, told its readers not long ago that politics is just like high school). “Bloomberg View” is pretty obscure, no? In fact, maybe Beth Miller and colleagues could get a Bloomberg column if they really felt like it. Or else there’s the Daily Caller . . .

P.S. Yes, I realize that I’m writing this from the perspective of a blogger who surely gets many fewer readers even than Bloomberg View columnists!

Reply

OneEyedMan September 30, 2011 at 1:43 pm

What about height? He’s also a lot shorter than Obama and I vaguely recall the taller man usually wins the presidency

Reply

Joshua Tucker September 30, 2011 at 4:35 pm

NEWSBREAK: Wealthy Republican donors reportedly urging Yao Ming to run for Republican nomination….

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: