Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 03/24/2026 8:00:23 AM PDT by Twotone
THE DEBATE AMONG DEMOCRATS over how to win back disaffected voters has touched on virtually every aspect of campaigns, policy, and politics. But what if the answer is so primal, so shallow, so inherently biological that to hear it out loud would make you uncomfortably chuckle?
What if the key to winning was to run more “hot” people?
Don’t laugh.
The idea that the Democratic party has a hotness deficit it needs to address has come up repeatedly in conversations I’ve had over the past few months as I’ve talked to strategists about what the party can do to improve how it’s perceived. Yes, they say, Democrats need to shed litmus tests, put aside purity politics, and drop the academic-sounding language. But they also would benefit from simply having more thirst-traps on the ticket, more candidates who could make voters swoon.
“It’s easier to elect hot people. America is a superficial nation, and we want our politicians—especially those that are representing us on an international stage, as the number-one world power—to be hot, to look good,” said Yemisi Egbewole, the former Biden White House press office chief of staff, adding that this had become a “foundational brunch time conversation” among the D.C. Democratic class.
“We are drawn to attractive people. That’s just science.”
Wait, is it science?
In fact, it is.
“There’s lots of evidence that people focus on appearances just all the time,” said Gabriel Lenz, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley who coauthored a 2010 study that found that the physical appearance of candidates strongly influences voters.1
“We’re asking [voters] to make really hard decisions—which is who’s going to be the best leader, representative, whoever it is. And we’re often not making it that easy for them to get a lot of other information about the candidates. So people exhibit a very basic pattern that’s well established and well documented,” he added. “They swap in who just looks like a leader, and don’t realize they’ve done that.”
Whether motivated by the data or more carnal desires, the “hot people” conversation has begun to take over parts of the political internet, where a number of left-leaning influencers and podcast hosts have expressed their desire for the next class of Democratic leaders to have some sex appeal.
“Oh my God, I want a hot president,” Jennifer Welch of the I’ve Had It podcast said in an interview last week. “Hot democrat alert,” posted Democratic influencer Keith Edwards in response to a video clip of Sam Forstag, a 31-year-old smokejumper running for one of Montana’s two House seats. If you search Jon Ossoff’s name on X or TikTok, you’ll be met with a number of thirsty posts calling the Georgia senator a “total hottie.”
“Jon Ossoff—there was just something about him,” said the content creator Qondi Ntini, who runs what can best be described as an Democratic thirst-trap X account, where she frequently refers to Ossoff as “Senator My Boo.” She’s raised thousands of dollars for Democratic candidates through the account and has been invited to the White House and the DNC as a part of their content-creator programs.
“The way I see thirst and the people that I choose to support, it’s more about their values and what they can do for their constituents. The hotness stems from that, and it makes them hotter. It’s also kind of a rebuke of toxic masculinity,” she added. “It’s a fun way to still stay engaged with politics without burning out.”
It goes without saying that simply running for office as a “hot” candidate doesn’t guarantee your election, even if the research suggests it could enhance your chances. For starters, there is no universal definition of what constitutes “hot.” Beauty, in this case, is in the eye of the voter.
HERE’S THE THING: Good looks are fairly synonymous with an aura of youth or vitality—and that seems to be a real driving motivation for Democrats. The party is in the middle of a mass rejection of its gerontocracy—slamming the door shut on the Biden presidency that wasn’t exactly known for its, uh, sex appeal. There is a deep desire to recapture the cultural relevance the party enjoyed during the Barack Obama and Bill Clinton years and to shed the current perception that Democrats are the dweeby teacher’s pets who sit at the front of the classroom.
“Obama and Clinton both had kind of intoxicating personalities; they were young and they were the cool ones. I do think that’s a huge part of this—people think of Democrats in this era as the ugly, hall monitor indoor kids,” said Democratic strategist Jesse Lehrich. “It’s just time for us to have a hot, young, charismatic face in the party.”
It’s not an irrational or even materialistic concern. Some of the most influential voices in the media have remarked that Democrats lack a certain panache that they had in the past—dating back to John F. Kennedy. But there are also real complications and discomforts that come when the conversation moves to this place.
Case in point: Last year, comedian Andrew Schulz—one of the biggest stars of the so-called “manosphere”—went on the TRIGGERnometry podcast and offered his candid thoughts on why the Democratic party had lost its appeal.
“When I was younger, like, Democrats were cool. They were getting their dick sucked in the office,” Schulz said. “It was cool to be a Democrat. Now, conservatives got three baby mamas, the president got three baby mamas. He’s getting pussy left and right. He’s cool. . . . You want me to be a Democrat again? Get some pussy.”
In an interview with the New York Times, Schulz later explained that he was being “purposely reductive” to make a point—and no, of course he didn’t actually think that Democratic leaders simply needed to get laid more in order to win. But his point still resonated with Democrats, for two reasons. The first was because it was a clear signal about the current state of the cultural-political zeitgeist. The second was because it was crass and outdated. Monica Lewinsky was an intern—an employee—in her early twenties when she and the three-decades-older Clinton had an affair.
Even less scandalous discussions of sex appeal and “hotness” can quickly become awkward, such as back in 2008, when Amber Lee Ettinger became internet-famous for lip-syncing a music video called “(I Got a) Crush on Obama.” The video of Ettinger dancing in a bikini singing lines like “never wanted anybody more than I want you” and “universal health care reform, it makes me warm” was a viral sensation. And as the New York Times observed at the time, Ettinger, who became known as “Obama Girl,” helped “crystallize the view of the candidate as a pop culture figure and, to some, a sex symbol.”
The Obama team embraced the cultural phenomenon element of it. But they were not particularly thrilled when, a few months later, Washingtonian magazine put a shirtless photo of the then-president on the cover of their May 2009 edition and declared: “Our new neighbor is hot.”
The issue for the Obama team was that the focus on the aesthetics felt incompatible with the seriousness of the job. The issue for Democrats more broadly is that the soundness of the message (and the merits of the policy) should matter more than the symmetry of the face.
And then, of course, there are the thornier questions about the objectification of women. Can, or should, an open push to run hotter candidates extend to them? Would anyone dare say so publicly? As of now, no. Democratic operatives I talked to all agree that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is indisputably “hot”—but not a single person wanted to be on the record saying it.
If all this feels uncouth, I get it. I am acutely aware that the very act of turning this topic into a newsletter is bound to induce groans and even a few perplexed or angry comments. But the issue is very real—you can see it playing out on the campaign trail. Staffers told me that all those social media videos of candidates working out in muscle tanks and tight biker shorts tend to do quite well online. An adviser to Michigan senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed told me they were left completely stunned at a campaign event last year after a throng of older women came up to El-Sayed and “latched on to his biceps.” I witnessed a similar phenomenon last fall at an event for Graham Platner’s Senate race in Maine; a voter sheepishly admitted to me that she’d come to the event because she thought he was attractive.
Then there is California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who, as Vogue put it in a profile earlier this year, is “embarrassingly handsome.” As vain as it is, this is going to be a real element of his 2028 campaign, should he choose to run for president. In fact, some Democratic officials told me that they think Newsom might be too good-looking, arguing that candidates still need to feel relatable.
Yet that’s not how looksmaxxer influencer Clavicular views it. In an interview with the Daily Wire last month, Clavicular said he would vote for Newsom over Vice President JD Vance in the 2028 presidential race because Newsom was, well, hotter.
“JD Vance is subhuman,” he declared. “Whereas Newsom is a 6′3′′ chad.”
The hotness election is upon us, whether we’re turned on by it or not.
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Their ideas are stupid anyways so you might as well get someone moderately attractive to spout them.
My advice would be that Dems can just drop all their 80/20 issues and just move on to other liberal ideas (open borders , pro illegal aliens , anti voter ID laws and tranny stuff)
Third worlders are a net drain on our “welfare system” so people who actually support free money should be against endless hoards of parasites coming here .
The trouble is how they define hotness..................hillary, perverts, etc.
They lose their AWFLS on this issue
A woman on a firing range is sexy.
“the president got three baby mamas”
I think that is the first time I have seen it expressed in that way.
Best argument yet for them to run Pritzker for president. /s
This is why the Democrat hierarchy are pushing Gavin Newsom. They know how stupid their voters are. I’ve seen more than a few dumb as sin Democrat women voters swooning over this buffoon.
Newsom is not that bright, and despite what some people say about his adept political skills, I think he’s not sharp enough to evade hard questioning. I’ve seen him struggle to give clear answers the few times the media has asked him about issues in California.
He’ll be exposed as the political lightweight he is during the primaries to the point I feel the Democrat bigwigs will have to consider someone else for the role.
“The party of ideas” LOL
The Dems Swoon over good looking smooth talking candidates. I don’t know what happened with the Governor of Illinois 🤔.
“I’ve seen him struggle to give clear answers the few times the media has asked him about issues in California.”
He doesn’t have to struggle. It comes naturally.
Good luck trying to hide those crazy Dem eyes.
Remember how Biden got the nomination in 2020. He looked like an idiot in the primary debates, then the weed-filled rooms decided he was going to be the nominee, and it was "suggested" to every other candidate to drop out of the race. The same is likely to happen here, with the Obama and Clinton "families" coming to an agreement.
This brings to mind the parable of the Dog Food Company:
Maybe the dogs donít like it, he said.
I use this parable to illustrate the problem the Left has now:
They have all kinds of ideas about how things should be done, the way people should act, the foods we should eat (or not eat, like Bloomberg and his soda ban) the language we should use (or not use) and the list goes on and on. They have focus groups that analyze aspects of what a candidate should be all about, they are running commercials nauseatingly non-stop (which I believe will eventually have a negative impact) and overall, they think they are the smartest, most organized, most moral, most "woke", most environmentally conscious, most tolerant, most democratic, and most American group of people around.
Their problem is a fundamental one:
Their Ideas Suck.
They exist inside a Leftist echo chamber, and they have no understanding of that fact. They think that if they keep saying over and over again what they believe in, inundate America from all sides of the media with their ideas, spray those ideas at us with the firehoses of media and entertainment, scold us, yell at us, tell us how stupid we are not to see them for the geniuses that they are...well, they think that approach, like that of the marketing executives in the Dog Food Parable, that they can somehow fix their "product" composed of ideas.
They can't.
Their Ideas Suck.
And normal people who don't live in that Leftist Echo Chamber have (I hope) begun to see it, especially with the contrast between the eight years of Obama and his ilk, four years of a shackled, hounded, and defanged Trump who STILL managed to enact changes and stoke the economy, followed by the absolutely most destructive to American interests in the form of the Biden Presidency, and now, an effective and decisive Trump administration. People are seeing it. Even a percentage of Liberals are seeing it. "Leftists" (as opposed to "Liberals") can't and won't see it, as this article the thread is based on highlights. They are willing themselves NOT to see it.
And that reality, the simple fact that they on the Left with their sucky ideas can do nothing about it, that they cannot massage their message (because no matter how much you polish a dog turd, it is still a dog turd) is driving them out of their minds.
And so we get these "books" trying to show us the light, these podcasts of spitting, frothing, Leftists, these ex-DOJ officials and members of a judges union producing media releases talking about what a danger Donald Trump and his ideas are to the very fabric of this country.
And so we are subjected to the spectacle of these foam-mouthed Leftists, hermetically sealed inside their Leftist echo chambers engaging in their increasingly frenetic Leftist circle-jerks telling us how wrong we are and what danger our country is in, while Trump waves his non-existent magic wand, our unemployment rates go down and our wages go up.
It is driving them to both madness and violence, and they are helpless to do anything about it. Because fundamentally...
Their Ideas Suck.
The Dems have a hotness deficit. Most Democrats wear their politics on their bodies in the same fashion that nature warns you of dangerous creatures.
Who could be hotter than Tim Walz?
Come on people you know those things count and they did it with the Kenyan. BJ had the gift of gab and it was good enough. You can have good looking guys and gals but there still has to be ‘something there’. Eventually they get called on their leftist BS but only after the elections-win or lose. Others lack the likability gene. Imagine if JFK Jr. came out of the closet as a republican and wasn’t bumped off. It would have been over for them.
Our gals have always been hotter as conservatism is more attractive-trust me. Liberals need to be meaner to get their point across so their appearance matches their attitudes. BJ and the Kenyan were once in a century politicians able to get past the public. Give John Edwards a participation award-lol.
Next - Sex for votes.
No single personality/physical appearance trait can get a majority of voters, not for Governor or Senator or dogcatcher.
A winning candidate, R or D, left or right, needs to attract a coalition.
Currently Stephen A Smith, who has a big microphone on ESPN is the leading contender for the Democrats. His strongest asset is honesty. But that is not sufficient to get the Democrat nomination. What other “factions” can he add?
What winning coalition can Newsum or Booker or any Democrat put together?
A Republican must energize the Pro-life, Pro-family, Pro-2A factions to have a chance. Then a Republican must be able to attract the Libertarian types on small government/DOGE issues while attracting the big government types on immigration enforcement and other big police state issues.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.