That physical attractiveness can be helpful to a candidate is a given.
The reality is that someone whose smile makes you light up just a bit will get the time of day before someone who doesn't give you that feeling..... All other things being equal.
But all things are rarely equal.
Rob Ford's successful mayoral campaign aside, one could look to Chris Christie in the US (former NJ governor) to see that people who may not be in ideal physical shape can trade off
the advantage above in favour of 'relatability'.
In the end, looks good/bad only help or hinder the door opening. They don't tend to 'seal the deal'.
Whether you vote policy (in which case that's the driver); or personality (which is more than looks, its who would I enjoy taking in a Jays game with or having a beer after work with etc.), looks are rarely the final or deciding factor.
There are exceptions; there are also cases of one thing contributing to another ( Trudeau's appearance wasn't merely good, it was youthful and energetic in a way his opponents were not).
He of the selfie generation, which many of us rightly cringe at in some ways, was also more exciting to young people for that very reason. 'He gets us'.
Doug won't win the beauty contest, but he may ( I hope not) win the election.
If he does it won't be because of his appearance.
But conversely, if he doesn't, I don't think its Ms. Horvath's appearance that will have proved decisive either.