According to political lore, the 1960 US election was, in part, determined by hotness. That year, John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon took part in the nation’s first televised presidential debates, giving a wide swath of the American public an alluring new metric by which to judge a could-be commander-in-chief. In one corner was the pale and clammy Nixon (who apparently refused hair and makeup on set), and in the other a freshly tanned, well-rested JFK. It’s said that those who listened on the radio assumed Nixon won, while those who caught the broadcast handily gave it to the camera-friendly Kennedy.
Some 66 years later, we’re a country obsessed with attractiveness—from looksmaxxing chads to a president who compulsively comments on others’ appearances. So perhaps it's no huge surprise that, less than a month out from the midterm elections, we’ve entered a golden age of handsome politicos. There’s the scruffy, kind-eyed smirk of Zohran Mamdani beaming from New York City; the brawny machismo of Abdul El-Sayed, the Michigan Democrat whose campaign uniform as he vows to keep outside money out of politics is largely made up of tight V-neck T-shirts. There are the boyish good looks of Jon Ossoff, the senator from Georgia who many think is a potential presidential nominee for 2028; the powerlifting Democratic Socialist Chi Ossé out of Brooklyn, New York; and Pete Buttigieg, the former secretary of transportation turned wonky talking head, with his carefully maintained stubble and steely blue eyes—and that’s to name only a few.
While attractiveness is, of course, a deeply subjective matter, this new breed of politicians more broadly represents a generational changing of the guard: to put it plainly, we’ve swapped out withering Boomers for energetic Millennials. “I think people are looking for vigorous politicians who can get the job done, not a president who falls asleep in the meeting, or a Senate leader who freezes mid-sentence,” says Steve Grand, a longtime political strategist. “I don’t think it’s as much classical beauty as it is just what their appearance communicates. Generally speaking, people are more attracted to attractive people. But I think it’s more their visual presentation, which can communicate strength, which can communicate competence, which can communicate having their act together.”
“Looks aren’t everything—they’re not the way we’re going to win,” says Lauren Kapp, a digital strategist who helped with Kamala Harris’s 2024 campaign. “People are focused on core issues; they’re looking for policy, and people who are talking about policy.” Still, “it’s a benefit if the person is more attractive,” she concedes. “Or if you see yourself in them.”
If the television ushered in a new, visual era for politics, social media has pushed it into overdrive—our nonstop stream of handheld short-form video makes the Nixon vs. Kennedy debate seem incredibly quaint by comparison. Today, the rise of far-left political commentator Hasan Piker has become something of a far-right obsession. Meanwhile, when a Democratic New York House hopeful’s past as a model for bondage apparel came to light, he met the scandal with a hunky picture in the Times. These figures are leaning into the fixation with their looks—and why not? As Grand put it in reference to Mamdani, Ossoff, and El-Sayed: “They’re pretty much out of Central Casting.”
“I think it’s incredibly important,” says stylist Bailey Moon—whose client roster has included Mamdani, his wife, Rama Duwaji, and the Bidens—when asked about the importance of a politician’s appearance in today’s media environment. “We’re living in a moment where the substance of a message can easily be drowned out by a viral image or 10-second clip. The clothes and grooming should support the person without becoming the story. You don’t want to cause a distraction because they’re poorly fitted or styled, but you also don’t want to create an unnecessary fashion moment that becomes its own news cycle.” Think of Obama’s infamous tan suit that was so divisive it now has its own Wikipedia page.
Grand is quick to note that female politicians' appearances are more closely watched and harshly judged than those of their male counterparts. Where men don’t need much more than a good suit, a cool head, and a full head of hair to project some sense of strength or competence, women, he says, are “under so much more scrutiny.” Think of how some outlets tallied the cost of Hillary Clinton’s campaign wardrobe, while calling her days as First Lady “frumpy.” Still, today’s political male hopefuls are adept at using clothing to convey some sort of message, whether physical fitness and outsider status from El-Sayed’s casual V-necks or seriousness without vanity in the case of Mamdani’s rumpled suits.
Yet while studies have shown that attractive people are not only seen as more trustworthy, but also often paid and treated better—a phenomenon known in popular culture as “pretty privilege”—in the political sphere, being too handsome can have its drawbacks. “With someone like Newsom, you can overdo it,” says Grand, referring to the California governor. “Like when he smiles, and the little glint comes off his tooth, and you hear this little ding noise—you don’t want to be overly slick.”
Indeed, Kapp notes that in 2026, it’s more important to be savvy with social media—to “flood the zone,” as she puts it, and have your message go viral—than merely good-looking. But that still means being out in the world, engaging with constituents, and being some version of camera-ready, whether for a speech or an appearance on SubwayTakes.
Of course, Samantha Jones’s proclamation in Sex and the City that “the country runs better with a good-looking man in the White House”—followed by a predictably dirty comment about the aforementioned Nixon—still rings false; it certainly isn’t a dealbreaker if a politician isn’t classically handsome, fit, or even stylish. “But it is a happy bonus,” Kapp says. “It gives us a lot to work with.”