candidates who measure up

8/13/2019 Candidates Who Measure Up

1/5

This article was downloaded by: [Central U Library of Bucharest]On: 19 April 2013, At: 09:44Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

CHANCEPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucha20

Presidential Candidates Who Measure upPaul M. Sommers

Version of record first published: 20 Sep 2012.

To cite this article:Paul M. Sommers (1996): Presidential Candidates Who Measure up, CHANCE, 9:3, 29-32

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09332480.1996.10542496

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form toanyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae, and drug doses shouldbe independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with or arising out of the use of this material.
http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditionshttp://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09332480.1996.10542496http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ucha20


2/5

Clinton nd Dole: The 1996 presidential racecould e decided y a matter of inches

residential andidates oeasure UpPaul ommers

Me n of or di nar y physi que an ddiscretion cannot be Presidentsand live, t he s tr ai n be no tsomehow relieved.

-President Woodrow WilsonNo one takes orders from a dwarf.

-Nicholas II

United States presidential elect io ns are decided on the b as is ofmany factors, i nc ludi ng t he pers on al m er it s of t he c an di da te s,their ability to de al with key issues, an d the effectiveness of theirparty organizations Gallup an dGallup 1994, p. 276). Yet comparison s from the elect io n of 1904 sees ideba r) to the p re se nt m ak e c le arthat the candidate s h ei ght c analso be used as a p re di ct or of c am p ai gn s uc ce ss . Height ha s prev io usly b een l in ked with u pwards oc ia l m ob il it y and economic HJHflSpnnger-Vorlag New Yor k, I nc .

well-being see, e.g., the collectionof essay s of Komlo s 1994). In t hi sbrief note the study of height isseen as a guide to presidentialelection outcomes.Tables 1 an d 2 list winners an drunners-up, their party affiliation,an d their h ei gh t in all presidentialelections beginning in 1856 whenJohn C. Fremont became th e firstpresidential candidate of the Republican p ar ty . H ei gh t data areprimarily from Kane 1993, pp .344-345) an d Southwick 1984).Th e h ei gh ts of W il li am J. Bryan,Walter Mondale, and MichaelD ukakis w ere obtained fromAshby 1987), Gillon 1992), an dKenney an d Turner 1988).A t test for paired data on thenominees of the two major partiesc an be done c om pa ri ng t he difference in h ei gh t between winnersan d runners-up. Since the election

Until 1904, none of the four vicepresidents who had succeededfallen presidents-Tyler 1841),illmor 1 85 0) , A. J oh ns on 1865), and Arthur 1881)-hadeamed his party s nomination fora secondterm.

of 1856, th e mean height differentia l is less than an inch winners:71.429 inches, runners-up: 70.483inches). The p-value for th e t est is.17. When th e reruns of McKinl ey /B ry an i n 1 9 0 0 and Eisenhower/Stevenson in 1 9 5 6 ar edropped, t he p-val ue falls to .10.)Since th e turn of th e century theyear 1904, no t 1900), however, th epaired t test reveals that this difference 1.26 inches) is statistically significant = .030). Photographs of James Cox in 1920),

CHANCE 29


3/5

Table The Stature of Presidential Candidates, 1856-1992Election Winner Winner height Runner-up Runner-up . heightyear1856 James Buchanan 0)8 6 0 John C. Fremont R) n.a.*1860 AbrahamLincoln R) 6 4 StephenA. Douglas D) 5 41864 braham Lineal,/ R) 6 4 GeorgeB. McClellan D) 5 81868 UlyssesS. Grant R) 5 81/2 HoratioSeymour D) 5 111/21872 . Ulysses S.Grant R) 5 8112 HoraceGreeley D) 5 101876 Rutherford B. Hayes R) 5 81/2 SamuelJ. Tilden D) n.a.1880 James A. Garfield R) 6 0 WinfieldS. Hancock D) 6 21864 GroverCleveland D) 5 11 James G. Blaine R) n.a.1888 Benjamin Harrison R) 5 6 GroverCleveland (D) 5 111892 GroverCleveland D) 5 11 enjamin Harrison R) 5 61896 WilliamMcKinley R) 5 7 WilliamJ. Bryan D) 6 01900 William McKinley R) 5 7 WilliamJ. Bryan D) 6 01904 TheodoreRoosevelf R) 5 10 Alton B. Parker D) 6 01906 WilliamH. Taft R) 6 0 WilliamJ. Bryan D) 6 01912 WoodrowWilson D) 5 11 TheodoreRoosevelt p)d 5 101916 Woodrow Wilson (D) 5 11 CharlesE. Hughes R) 5 111920 WarrenG. Harding R) 6 0 James M. Cox D) n.a.1924 Calvin CoolldgeC R) 5 10 John W. Davis D) 6 01928 HerbertC. Hoover R) 5 11 AlfredE. Smith D) n.a.1932 FranklinD. Roosevelt D) 6 2 HerbertC.Hoover R) 5 111936 Franklin D.Roosevelt (D) 6 2 AlfredM. landon R) 5 81940 Franklin D.Roosevelt (D) 6 2 WendellWillkie R) 6 11944 Franklin D.Roosevelt (D) 6 2 ThomasE. Dewey R) 5 81948 HarryS Trumsrf (D) 5 9 ThomasE. Dewey R) 5 81952 DwightEisenhower R) 5 10 1/2 Adlai E. Stevenson D) 5 101956 DwightEisenhower R) 5 10 1/2 Adlai E. Stevenson D) 5 101960 John F. Kennedy D) 6 0 Richard M. Nixon R) 5 111/21964 LyndonB.Johnson (D) 6 3 Barry M. Goldwater R) 6 01968 RichardM. Nixon R) 5 111/2 HubertHumphrey D) 5 111972 RichardM.Nixon R) 5 11 1/2 GeorgeMcGovern D) 6 11976 Jimmy Carter D) 5 9 1/2 GeraldR.Forrf R) 6 01980 RonaldReagan R) 6 1 JimmyCarter(D) 5 9 1/21984 RonaldReagan R) 6 1 WalterF. Mondale D) 5 101988 GeorgeBush R) 6 2 MichaelDukakis D) 5 81992 Bill Clinton D) 6 2 George Bush R) 6 2*n.a Notavailable.Party affiliation: 0 Democrat, RRepublican, P Progressive.bNames In italics are presidential Incumbents.clncumbents who succeeded tothepresidency onthedeath orresignation of their predecessor.dwi l m H.Taft, theRepUblican IncUmbent, finished adistant third.

who appears shorter than WarrenG. Harding, and of Alfred Smith(in 1928), who appears shorterthan Herbert Hoover, suggest thatthe actual difference is probablyunderstated. (Since the election of1948, winners have stood taller30 VOL.9,NO.3,1996

than their runners-up, p = .099).Democratic winners as a group aretaller (72.5 inches) than Democratic runners-up (70.75 inches), p= .04; Republican winners as agroup are only s lightly (but notdiscernibly) taller (71.583 inches)

than Repub li can runners -up(70.773 inches), p = .53. In thetwentieth century, when Democrats won the election, the averageintrapair difference between winners and losers was 72.5 - 70.773or 1.727 inches (p = .051); when


4/5

Table Average Heights ofPresidential Candidates1904 1992

Republicans won the election, thisdifference was 71.583 - 70.750 or.833 inches = .33). When incumbents ran for re-election andwon, the winners were on averagemarginally tal ler (72.0 inches)than the runners-up (70.567inches), = .15.

w nn rsDemocratsRepublicans

All runners upDemocratsRepublicans

72 022 inches72 50071 58370 76270 7507 n3

(6 2 ), the nominees of the twomajor parties in 1996, are both tallmen, suggesting a statistical deadheat in November. But the powerof Clinton s incumbency and relative youth may enhance his stature with voters, unless of coursehis rival stretches the truth by portraying himself in computer-generated images slightly taller thanhe really is.

References and urther ReadingAshby, L. (1987), William JenningsBryan: Champion of DemocracyBoston: Twayne.Gallup, G., Ir., and Gallup, A. M.

(1994), Election of 1956, in Run-ning for President: The Candidatesand Their Images Vol. 2, ed. A. M.

Scheslinger, [r., New York: Simonand Schuster.Gillon, S. M. (1992). The DemocratsDilemma: Walter F. Mondale andthe Liberal Legacy New York: Co

lumbia University Press.Kane, N. (1993), Facts About thePresidents New York: H. W. Wil

son.Kenney, c and Turner, R. L (1988).

Dukakis: An American OdysseyBoston: Houghton Mifflin.Komlos, ed.) (1994), Stature LivingStandards and Economic Develop-ment: Essays in AnthropometricHistory Chicago: The University ofChicago Press.Southwick, L H. (1984). PresidentialAlso Hans and Running Mates

1788 1980 Jefferson, NC:McFarland.

oncluding RemarksHeretofore the dimensions ofcharacter and personality havebeen important grounds for choosing a president. After all, voterswant someone they can look up to,even though the president-elect isprobably someonewho has not yetattained the height of his influence. Crowds have always beenswayed by the rising political starwho stands tall. But, to what extent does the electorate focus onthe candidates appearance? Doesimage predominate over issues ina campaign?A look at the array of men whohave achieved the presidencysince 1904 reveals an interestingpattern: The most popular man forthe highest office has been thetal ler major party nominee. Thatis, in presidential elections thiscentury, the closest challenger hascome up short. Winners have enjoyed better than an average 1.25inch height advantage over theirnearest rival.Bill Clinton (6 2 ) and Bob Dole

6 2

Illustration courtesyof AndrewPink 1996 AndrewPinkCHANCE 31


5/5

I

l un inr i u t r p r

rr,-,1;N >t,U: ::/...,{,

~

\hll. JFillmort 11

lhr>m .. ldftfO n _1 0

candidates who measure up

Documents