Theory: In a typical U.S. presidential election, the person who wins will be the one who sounds and looks the best.

The basis for this theory:

• Since 1960, the first election for which the theory holds as it was the first in which television played a significant role, all but two of the ten presidential elections has been won by the candidate most would say looks and sounds the best. The two exceptions were atypical elections. Lyndon Johnson beat Barry Goldwater in an election held less than a year after the JFK assassination (Johnson got the "carry on Kennedy" sympathy vote), and Jimmy Carter beat Gerald Ford (Carter got the "I'm not voting for a Washington insider especially one picked by Richard Nixon" vote).

 
• The most popular presidents since 1960 are Kennedy and Reagan; the best looking and sounding presidents of that period. (Clinton is third best looking and sounding and he is considered the third of the teflon presidents.)

 
• In a presidential election, about a third of the voters will vote for the candidate of each of the two major parties, no matter who it is (the vote is on political philosophy), while the election is decided by the remaining third of the voters. One reason we've had the balance of five Republican wins and five Democrat wins in the last ten presidential elections is that the majority of people do not find the basic philosophy of either party compelling.

 
• How does this deciding third of the voters make their choice? National politics involve so many complex issues that it is practically impossible for a voter not to have significant disagreements with each candidate on at least a few issues. If you vote, you'll likely have to vote for someone with whom you disagree on some important topics, or for someone who sent mixed messages about an issue important to you as each candidate, seeking not to offend, often declines to take a clear position on hot issues.

 
• Presidential candidates of both parties, striving for the votes of the "undecided", take to the center on many controversial subjects, leaving little to distinguish them from each other. Besides, they are both "politicians" (a strong negative connotation for many of these voters).

 
• People understand that much of what happens to them and the country during the course of a presidency is outside the president's control. What a candidate says he wants to make happen, may or may not happen because or despite him. It is quietly recognized that candidates overstate the importance of their potential presidency.

 
• So, the election-deciding people are told and re-told about their right, honor, and duty to vote. They don't see compelling reasons based on public stands on issues to favor one candidate over the other. They understand that it doesn't make that big a difference who gets elected president. They vote based on gut feel; "I like (or trust) this guy more". Where does the gut feel come from? From how the person looks and sounds. What they say or do, unless it's outrageous, is largely irrelevant.

 
• Seymour Hersh's wonderful book on the Kennedy presidency, The Dark Side of Camelot, offers a tidbit that lends support to this theory. In the first of the 1960 debates between Kennedy and Nixon, Kennedy was favored by those who watched it on TV while the grubby looking (he'd been ill) but deep-voiced Nixon was favored by those who listened to it on the radio. Today, presidential candidates wear make-up whenever they are about to appear before cameras. In 1996, politcial makeup artist Rose Procopio "did" the faces of both Clinton and Dole. She noted that Clinton preferred Joe Blasco under-eye concealor, Yves Saint Laurent No. 3 eyebrow pencil, and Chanel Taupe brow shaper while Dole favored Joe Blasco natural blue neutralizer (to erase stubble), Visiora Creme face makeup, Prescriptives powder cheek color, and William Tuttle color foundation. Presidential candidates are coached in hand movements when giving speeches and it's likely they have voice coaches too. Why is that? Does make-up or hand-waving affect national policy? No, they affect how your audience perceives you which will affect whether or not they'll vote for you.

 
• Unfortunately for the major political parties, winners of primary elections may not be the best candidates for a national election. In primaries, a candidate can connect on issues of regional importance with the undecided voters. Ugly looking and sounding people can win primaries. In a national election, ugly wouldn't stand a chance. If Robert Redford ran for president for a major party in the general election, even with very little background in politics (which is often considered a plus), he'd quite likely win.

Below are the results of the past ten US presidential elections. See if you agree that the better sounding and looking man won each time (with the two exceptions noted above).