Would America Elect a Bald President?

 

US Senator Marco Rubio

Recently, the Washington Post, International Business Times and Newsmax had a go at an increasingly common debate in US politics - does a presidential contender's hairline affect his chances of winning? (Read the full stories here: WP, IBT, NM.) This time the focus is on US Senator Marco Rubio, from my home state of Florida.

On the surface, let's admit it - this notion sounds pretty silly. Would anyone really not vote for a candidate just because he or she is balding? Hopefully not.

However, it would be wrong for us to overlook the importance that appearance does have on the US voting public. Since the classic - and often cited - 1960 TV debate between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon, it's been clear that Americans prefer a 'mediagenic' president. That means someone who is not unattractive, not too old and charismatic. Since 1960, Americans have only elected two presidents over the age of 60 (Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush). And let's not forget how ruthlessly the press often analyzes the fashion and style sensibilities of female candidates. 

So, does a healthy hair line matter? It's silly to say there's any direct link between a candidate's hair line and his or her chances of winning. But it probably does play a subtle role in how they're perceived by the voting public. To that end, it certainly makes sense for candidates to do what they can to keep their hair lines full and healthy.

In the case of Rubio, he would likely benefit from a multi-therapy treatment approach, including Propecia, Formula 82M and Viviscal Pro. A NeoGraft FUE hair transplant might also be needed, especially if he doesn't take action soon, to help restore the crown area and the frontal hair line.