The 2020 election cycle has been dominated by the pros and cons of identity politics. Is the path to a Democratic victory next year tied to the energy among voters of color, especially black women? And much of the punditry has focused on whether there has been media bias covering the five female candidates versus their male counterparts. In a field as diverse as the 20 contenders for the Democratic nomination, the commentary is peppered with questions such as:
- Are some too old?
- Can another white male energize the party’s base?
- Are Americans ready to send a woman to the White House?
- Can an openly gay mayor really get elected?
- Will Democratic identity politics energize the Trump base?
Well, we’ve had old presidents. And more than our share of white male presidents. We may have even had a gay president without knowing it. And we know that with a little help from his BFF (best foreign friends), a candidate who appeals to old white voters without a college degree can carry the electoral college. We can even elect a black male. TWICE! So that leaves the gender question as the outlier. Is sexism the single most dominant form of discrimination when it comes to presidential electoral politics? Sure seems to be the case.
But if it’s not, what else could it be? Which brings me to the title of today’s entry. What if it’s not the fact they are women per se, but there is something about women that puts them at a distinct disadvantage compared to their male counterparts? Enter Randy Newman and his musical treatise on “Short People.” First, he suggests, “Short people have no reason to live.” But it is the third verse which spells electoral defeat.
Well, I don’t want no short people
Don’t want no short people
Don’t want no short people
Round here.
It seems voters don’t want short people in the White House either. For over one hundred years, since 1904 to be exact, with only one exception, no candidates have succeeded in becoming the nation’s chief executive if they were more that three inches shorter than their opponent. The single anomaly was 2004 when 5’11.5″ George W. Bush defeated 6’4″ John Kerry. I would have thought another example was 5’9″ Harry Truman. But much to my surprise Thomas Dewey was actually shorter (5’8″). Maybe that explains the above picture.
What was the greatest differential in height between the nominees of the two major parties in American history? You guessed it. Hillary Clinton at 5’5″ or 5’7″ depending on the source is either eight or 10 inches shorter than the 6’3″ Donald Trump (if you believe his questionable physical exams). Even in the best case scenario, the difference exceeds that in any past election.
So what does this suggest for 2020 and the five announced female candidates who might face off against Trump next November. In order of height, they are:
Senator Kamala Harris/5’2″
Senator Kirsten Gillbrand/5’5″
Representative Tulsi Gabbard/5’8″
Senator Elizabeth Warren/5’8″
Senator Amy Klobuchar/5’9″
The male front-runners Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders fare a little better, both being 6’0″, but would still lose the tale of the tape to Trump.
As we consider the Democrat best positioned to retake the White House, maybe we should take a second look at 6’4″ Beto O’Rourke. Or if we’re serious about electing the first female president, maybe trading a couple of those currently announced candidates for Lindsay Taylor of the WNBA Houston Comets (6’8″) or Brittany Griner of the Phoenix Mercury (also 6’8″). Maybe, it’s not who can stand UP to Trump on a debate stage, but who can stand OVER him.
For what it’s worth.
Dr. ESP