Unbuttoned suit - NOT POLITICAL

[starro]

Overall, I think it's possible to run the risk of reading too much into this. To the coal miner in Kentucky, the takeaway is that someone is in a business suit, that he's a serious "professional" man. Whether the suit is buttoned, how flattering the cut is etc. goes over the heads of 90% of the population, I think,

Another practical aspect we need to keep in mind is that it's much easier to disguise a poor-fitting suit unbuttoned than buttoned.

 

[12345Michael54321]



To the coal miner in Kentucky, the takeaway is that someone is in a business suit, that he's a serious "professional" man. Whether the suit is buttoned, how flattering the cut is etc. goes over the heads of 90% of the population, I think,

Yeah, I suspect that's true. But even if it goes over the heads of 90% of the population, that leaves 10% who do notice it. Several states last Tuesday were decided by a fraction of 1% of the state's voters - Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Michigan. Others by slight more than 1%, but less than 1.5% - Florida, Minnesota, Pennsylvania. Even admittedly trivial factors (and I fully agree that the fit of Trump's suit is a trivial factor) can rise to significance when things are that close.

It's like the question of Hillary Clinton's hair and make-up. Should these things determine her qualification to be President? Of course not. And yet, more than one woman over the course of the campaign wondered why, if Mrs. Clinton had a personal worth of $75 million dollars, and flew from campaign stop to campaign stop in a private jet, she didn't have a hair and make-up person on staff, to see to it that every time she stepped in front of a camera her hair and make-up were perfect. And why knows - maybe this cost her the support of a few thousand people. Which is virtually nothing in a country of 220,000,000 eligible voters, but it could've been enough to make a difference in a really close state (not just in the form of votes directly lost, but in terms of a few less campaign volunteers, that many fewer "Clinton/Kaine" yard signs, etc.)

Another practical aspect we need to keep in mind is that it's much easier to disguise a poor-fitting suit unbuttoned than buttoned.

Agreed. But then the question arises as to why Donald Trump gets stuck with poor-fitting suits. I'm guessing he has sufficient money to afford a decent suit. He likely has someone on the payroll who can tell a good fit from a poor fit. Did he consciously choose to wear only poorly fitting suits? If so, why? I accept that the "desire to appeal to Joe Everyman" excuse covers a lot of ground, but I'm not certain I see it explaining this.

 

[starro]

Yeah, I suspect that's true. But even if it goes over the heads of 90% of the population, that leaves 10% who do notice it. Several states last Tuesday were decided by a fraction of 1% of the state's voters - Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Michigan. Others by slight more than 1%, but less than 1.5% - Florida, Minnesota, Pennsylvania. Even admittedly trivial factors (and I fully agree that the fit of Trump's suit is a trivial factor) can rise to significance when things are that close.

It's like the question of Hillary Clinton's hair and make-up. Should these things determine her qualification to be President? Of course not. And yet, more than one woman over the course of the campaign wondered why, if Mrs. Clinton had a personal worth of $75 million dollars, and flew from campaign stop to campaign stop in a private jet, she didn't have a hair and make-up person on staff, to see to it that every time she stepped in front of a camera her hair and make-up were perfect. And why knows - maybe this cost her the support of a few thousand people. Which is virtually nothing in a country of 220,000,000 eligible voters, but it could've been enough to make a difference in a really close state (not just in the form of votes directly lost, but in terms of a few less campaign volunteers, that many fewer "Clinton/Kaine" yard signs, etc.)

Fair point. It could be significant, electorally, in building up the image some voters have of Trump. So to the extent that image benefited Trump, the unbuttoned stance--whatever we may decide it means--played a role.

About Hillary's hair and makeup, people pay more attention, consciously, because she's a woman. No ways around it; a woman's appearance is scrutinized much more than a man's, that's just how it is.

But then the question arises as to why Donald Trump gets stuck with poor-fitting suits. I'm guessing he has sufficient money to afford a decent suit. He likely has someone on the payroll who can tell a good fit from a poor fit. Did he consciously choose to wear only poorly fitting suits? If so, why? I accept that the "desire to appeal to Joe Everyman" excuse covers a lot of ground, but I'm not certain I see it explaining this.

You know that's exactly the question I have, besides where he buys his suits (is it at the level of Mens Wearhouse or Hickey Freeman?). I don't think the "Joe Everyman" excuse is a good one. A poor fitting suit, to people who notice, simply makes you look goofy, and takes you away from the ideal of how a man looks best. If we believe a proper suit adds an inch to the height and shoulders, and we believe in the success rate of tall, fit politicians, then we cannot but see Trump's attire as a missed opportunity.

And it's not like Trump is a demure, attention-shy guy, who doesn't want everyone to see his wealthy, so he dresses down, like Warren Buffett or Mark Zuckerberg. No, everything else about him screams gaudy displays of wealth, from the bronzer to Mar-A-Lago.

The last piece of evidence is that he did dress better. So he does know how a suit should look. Maybe he lost his tailored clothing with the casinos and he's been cheap since?

 

[12345Michael54321]



where he buys his suits (is it at the level of Mens Wearhouse or Hickey Freeman?)

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/07/f...ald-trump-brioni-martin-greenfield-suits.html

 

[am55]

Overall, I think it's possible to run the risk of reading too much into this. To the coal miner in Kentucky, the takeaway is that someone is in a business suit, that he's a serious "professional" man. Whether the suit is buttoned, how flattering the cut is etc. goes over the heads of 90% of the population, I think,

I somewhat disagree with this. Yes, the Kentucky man will not say "oh, that buttonhole does not look like it was hand sewn" but there is an aspect of neatness that will be subconsciously picked on by voters just as we dress neatly for business to project we are responsible. An ill fitting suit - that is, a suit whose sizing does not match its purpose - will cause the wrong impression on the voter. If you meet someone with a spot on his collar or tousled hair you'll be slightly taken aback by the messiness, even if it is not a very important reaction.

On another note, most voters will see Trump on TV, so he might have adjusted his wardrobe accordingly. This means simple or no patterns, bright contrasting colours, and things like make up to cope with the lighting. This might explain the bronzer - ridiculous in real life and on close up shots, but avoiding the pallid corpse-like appearance his skin type would normally have on TV without the extra melanin to opacify his skin and hide veins etc. underneath from strong lights. These would make him look older, and therefore weaker, which would contradict his core message of strength and dynamism.

 

[starro]

I somewhat disagree with this. Yes, the Kentucky man will not say "oh, that buttonhole does not look like it was hand sewn" but there is an aspect of neatness that will be subconsciously picked on by voters just as we dress neatly for business to project we are responsible. An ill fitting suit - that is, a suit whose sizing does not match its purpose - will cause the wrong impression on the voter. If you meet someone with a spot on his collar or tousled hair you'll be slightly taken aback by the messiness, even if it is not a very important reaction.

Right, so I don't think his jacket being unbuttoned or being slightly big rises to the level of stain on collar, or gash on the elbow. To the average voter, he would be described as well put together. I think, if we do disagree, we disagree about degree. I would argue that Trump's dress gets him 80% of the way to what we here would consider well-dressed, and for large swaths of blue collar workers that more than meets their expectations. If I have to compare, I would say the bad fit of some of his jackets is much more egregious than unbuttoned.

On another note, most voters will see Trump on TV, so he might have adjusted his wardrobe accordingly. This means simple or no patterns, bright contrasting colours, and things like make up to cope with the lighting. This might explain the bronzer - ridiculous in real life and on close up shots, but avoiding the pallid corpse-like appearance his skin type would normally have on TV without the extra melanin to opacify his skin and hide veins etc. underneath from strong lights. These would make him look older, and therefore weaker, which would contradict his core message of strength and dynamism.

Not being a video technician by any stretch, I question the relevance of this in today's HD 4K technology. I think today's TV cameras capture the bronzer very true-to-color, and that's probably why he gets mocked for it on SNL. If anything, Trump has a tendency to overdo displays of wealth, vid. all that gold.

 

[am55]

Not being a video technician by any stretch, I question the relevance of this in today's HD 4K technology. I think today's TV cameras capture the bronzer very true-to-color, and that's probably why he gets mocked for it on SNL. If anything, Trump has a tendency to overdo displays of wealth, vid. all that gold.

That would be about colour, but in HD you can also see the details, such as veins under transparent skin and other signs of age.

More importantly however is the question of how many people have HD TVs. I can't speak for the US but on a recent countryside stay in NSW (Australia) the TV was analogue and with a resolution that was below the worst offered by YouTube. There, colour matters as people are fuzzy blotches. No cable when your farm is a couple miles' dirt track from the road.

 

[12345Michael54321]



More importantly however is the question of how many people have HD TVs.

In the US, HDTV penetration stood at just over 80%, nearly 2 years ago. It's likely around 85%, now.

The number's from a pretty widely quoted Leichtman Research Group study.

'Course, the number does vary somewhat between places, and between demographic groups. For that matter, some groups may get very little of their news off the tv, and instead rely on, say, their cell phones.

Still, pretty much anyone making a scheduled appearance on the national news can safely assume he's playing to an overwhelmingly HDTV audience. And he'll virtually always have on make-up. Ever since Nixon-Kennedy, the idea of looking tired or washed out on tv has horrified political candidates.