New Jersey Governor Chris Christie might want to read the latest study from researchers at Michigan State University before he decides if he is entering the 2016 presidential election.
Why? Because fat politicians seem to face a greater challenge at the polls purely because of their heft.
The study reveals overweight candidates apparently get less votes then thinner challengers and it has nothing to do with political views, platforms or scandals.
"We found weight had a significant effect on voting behavior," said Mark Roehling, professor of human resources. "Additionally, the greater size disparity between candidates, the greater the vote share of the more slender candidate."
But then again maybe Christie already knows about the study as he underwent a gastrointestinal reduction surgery, or what most call lap band stomach reduction surgery last year.
According to Roheling the study is the first of its kind to analyze whether weight bias plays into voters' decisions at the polls.
He and his wife, a psychology professor at Hope College, reviewed U.S. Senate election data from 2008 and 2012. Both obese women and men candidates had a harder time getting on the ballot and then saw a less share of votes in an election.
"The study," said Roehling, "provides evidence that the bias and discrimination against the overweight and obese that has been documented in the areas of employment, education, health care and social situations also extends to the electoral process in the United States."
The news comes as U.S. officials, lawmakers and health organizations have waged a war against obesity, especially focused on the childhood years.
And for those trivia enthuiasts, it seems weight didn't stop some of the most notable politicians from entering the White House.
President William Howard Taft tipped the scales at 340 during his days in Washington, D.C. and one tale claims he even got stuck in a White House tub due to his heft. President Grover Cleveland's weight fluctuated between 240 and 280 during his presidency.
