8 ms·

> Theory: In US presidential elections, the more charismatic candidate wins. I wonder if Trump is considered to have charisma. Either way, it's worth mentioni

by m52go 10y ago

> Theory: In US presidential elections, the more charismatic candidate wins. I wonder if Trump is considered to have charisma. Either way, it's worth mentioning that Trump's real trump card is his masterful ability to reframe debates. Witness: his stances on women, risky politics, and immigration. Clinton is reacting to each of these topics right now, and in very weak ways (e.g., her woman's card tweet [0], also claiming she's better because she's a woman). Trump will DOMINATE her if this trend continues. I don't agree with everything Scott Adams says regarding Trump's campaign, as much of it is way too far-fetched, but his commentary regarding Trump's reframing is spot-on. [0] https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/726220886454468609 https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/726220886454468609

CamperBob2 10y ago
her woman's card tweet [0] I honestly couldn't tell if that was some kind of Joe Job. I'm still not sure I understand. The pink "Woman Card" was presented in an NYT ad yesterday as a perfectly straight, well-polished and unironic appeal to donors. Most offensive thing I've ever seen in a mainstream news outlet. What in the world is she thinking? This is not how you "get in front of the story." This is how you get in front of a bulldozer.
- praneshp 10y ago
  Could you tell me why you feel so? Your parent was deriding that tweet as well. It's definitely cringe-y, but why/how would the media/others tear it apart?
  - CamperBob2 10y ago
    I guess I'd put it this way, at the risk of undermining my own point: appealing to group identity is demeaning to us all as individuals, and perhaps to women most of all. The air of entitlement associated with a statement like "Vote for me because I'm a female" is very hard to get past. That's why I was hoping that the "Woman Card" was some kind of ironic in-joke. And it sounds like that's the case, intended to play off an offensive statement from the Trump camp. But if so, what's it doing at the top of the NYT home page?
    - MaysonL 10y ago
      What is it doing at the top of the NYT home page? For how long? Looking at the NYT home page now, there's a Prince story, and under "Election 2016" there are these headlines With Trump in Charge, G.O.P. Has a Day of Reckoning Reaching Out, Quietly, to G.O.P. Establishment The Republican Horse Race Is Over, and Journalism Lost
      - CamperBob2 10y ago
        It was an ad, so no, I wouldn't expect you to see it at any given arbitrary moment in time.
    - chongli 10y ago
      Trump does little else but play identity politics. Clinton is betting Don't Pass/Don't Come, that's all.
notliketherest 10y ago
The article begs not the question "Does Trump have charisma", but rather, "Does Trump have more charisma than Clinton"? Personally I think yes - Clinton does seem old and tired and Trump certainly brings a dynamism unmatched by any other candidate. Clinton comes with a 7 point plan - Trump comes with an unabashed baller status and beautiful women around him. In the context of this article, I do think it's Trump with the upper hand.
- vasilipupkin 10y ago
  I think this article is a good example of statistical prognosticating with too few data points, which renders statistical significance of the forecast to be quite low. In addition, it attempts to build what essentially amounts to a one variable model, which is likely to be suboptimal, even if that one variable is important. In short, I find this article to be an example of poorly done statistical analysis and not much more than that.
- johnchristopher 10y ago
  > The article begs not the question "Does Trump have charisma", but rather, "Does Trump have more charisma than Clinton"? I think the question, the framing, is loaded. « Who has the kind of charisma that seduce/attract most people ? » would be a better question in my opinion.
kelukelugames 10y ago
We might not like Trump, but he is charismatic. I don't know if he's on the same level as Bill Clinton[1] or Obama, though "Make America great again" is the same slogan as "hope and change." They are both vague enough to inspire anyone, kind of like horoscopes. Scott Adams is not wrong, but I am surprised that people learn from reading his blog because non of Trump's tactics are new. To give Adams credit, he is a great blogger. Adams lures readers with "Let me share Trump's secrets with you because only us smart people know what is happening." People love to feel smart and be part of an exclusive group so they quote Adams' simple analysis as amazing insight. Also Adams fails to acknowledge that Trump overtly appeals to misogyny, racism, and xenophobia. Trump wouldn't be this popular without scapegoats. On a personal level, I feel depressed that a candidate will get more votes, not fewer, after making blatantly sexist comments. [1] Clinton during his candidacy: https://youtu.be/ckHfgqK_hcU?t=10m30s https://youtu.be/ckHfgqK_hcU?t=10m30s Notice the difference between Bill and Hilary near the end.
- encoderer 10y ago
  Worth mentioning, for any who don't know: "Make America Great Again" was lifted wholesale from the Reagan campaign. I haven't verified it, but I read that he trademarked it soon after Romney lost in 2012.
- the_cat_kittles 10y ago
  not sure why your getting lots of downvotes, i think your take on adams is pretty good. i was reading scott adams for a while as im sure lots of people were when trump was rising. i kept reading for a while and kept on seeing things that were just really stupid to me. he seems to think because he is a "master persuader" that he knows more about _everything_ than everyone else, but in one post he ventured in the realm of statistics and made some _incredibly ignorant_ arguments. then i saw old posts where he had just as confidently predicted herman cain. so part of what he is doing is just playing a long game, calling unlikely things so that when one of them eventually happens, he looks smart. i dont deny he has interesting insights, but he is wayyyyyy to high on himself and his special little lens. when he posted on twitter that he could convince anyone to vote for trump in 1 hour, i had to unfollow. i think manipulators are seen as smart by some people because they can be effective, but i have two points that seem to be forgotten: most of the time you eventually catch on to manipulators, and so they stop being effective, and, _more importantly_ they are just assholes. so, i say that it doesnt take intelligence to manipulate and bully and lie, it just takes gall. or heartlessness. as an analogy, i bet some of the lawyers who came up with the idea for ambulance chasing, or bankers who repackaged shitty subprime loans probably that they were really smart, when maybe it was just that there arent that many people willing to go that low.
davemel37 10y ago
> I wonder if Trump is considered to have charisma. I think PG is onto something, but mislabeled it. Brands win elections and Charisma is a great way to build a stronger presence in peoples minds. Trump is winning because he owns a place in every single voters mind, he is familiar and therefore relevant. All consumers and voters make emotional decisions and than support them with logic afterwards. Politics is no different, people emotionally (subconsciously) decide who they like the most and than find the logical positions to convince themselves. This is human nature, logic follows will. Trump is winning because he has a more memorable brand than any other candidate. Clinton is winning because she also has a very memorable brand. My gut tells me that Clintons brand beats trump in a political context, but I am not sure.
- moridinamael 10y ago
  I mean, that's going to vary person-to-person. When I query my emotional sense of Clinton, I get back stuff like: liar, unhealthy, bloodthirsty, fake, robotic. Admittedly, probably 100% of these words have been "Incepted" into me, but that doesn't stop them from being there. In contrast, my Trump emotional reactions go more like: winner, famous, gold, smiling, dominant. Again, I'm not proud of it, but that's the kind of pre-rational slant I have to essentially fight against when trying to evaluate the candidates logically.
PavlovsCat 10y ago
I think Sanders has more charisma than both. Why is he getting such a blank out in the media and social media? Are people seriously considering Clinton, just because the establishment just pretends like she's the only real democratic candidate? Disclaimer I don't live in the US, that's just the impression I get. But I certainly notice discussions in lots of places simply pretending Sanders doesn't exist, which considering what I see when I actively pay attention to stuff around him, does surprise me, to say the least.
- ccvannorman 10y ago
  He didn't pay the entrance fee. Most media is owned by a few corporations who are closely tied with Hillary. Don't worry though, I'm sure that won't affect her policy decisions..
  - mistermann 10y ago
    This is the correct answer, it was blatantly obvious he was being ignored by the media until he became too big to ignore. I haven't read any mathematical theory on how costly this was to his campaign, if anyone knows of one please link it.
- kelukelugames 10y ago
  Is Sanders benefiting from the halo effect? I'm apolitical and the few times I've seen Sanders on TV, I didn't get that impression.
  - PavlovsCat 10y ago
    > the few times I've seen Sanders on TV Well, that's my point, that's passively. It's not like he's not getting reported on, of course, but kinda like the bare minimum. I found this speech after the Indiana win very interesting for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHjiYU6RQw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHjiYU6RQw I don't mean charismatic as in super suave, but as in, a stand up normal person, not someone first and foremost in it for the power. I guess charisma is subjective. And he isn't trying to be anything he's not. He's not trying to be folksy, he's just himself. That's what I see and what I like. Sure he has to play politics, but he doesn't put on a mask on top of that.
rurban 10y ago
Of course Trump wins on the charisma level. Not over Sanders, but over Clinton for sure, and it looks like Sanders has no chance. This is now the perfect time that this theory can be disproved.

by m52go 10y ago

CamperBob2 10y ago

her woman's card tweet [0] I honestly couldn't tell if that was some kind of Joe Job. I'm still not sure I understand. The pink "Woman Card" was presented in an NYT ad yesterday as a perfectly straight, well-polished and unironic appeal to donors. Most offensive thing I've ever seen in a mainstream news outlet. What in the world is she thinking? This is not how you "get in front of the story." This is how you get in front of a bulldozer.

praneshp 10y ago
Could you tell me why you feel so? Your parent was deriding that tweet as well. It's definitely cringe-y, but why/how would the media/others tear it apart?
- CamperBob2 10y ago
  I guess I'd put it this way, at the risk of undermining my own point: appealing to group identity is demeaning to us all as individuals, and perhaps to women most of all. The air of entitlement associated with a statement like "Vote for me because I'm a female" is very hard to get past. That's why I was hoping that the "Woman Card" was some kind of ironic in-joke. And it sounds like that's the case, intended to play off an offensive statement from the Trump camp. But if so, what's it doing at the top of the NYT home page?
  - MaysonL 10y ago
    What is it doing at the top of the NYT home page? For how long? Looking at the NYT home page now, there's a Prince story, and under "Election 2016" there are these headlines With Trump in Charge, G.O.P. Has a Day of Reckoning Reaching Out, Quietly, to G.O.P. Establishment The Republican Horse Race Is Over, and Journalism Lost
    - CamperBob2 10y ago
      It was an ad, so no, I wouldn't expect you to see it at any given arbitrary moment in time.
  - chongli 10y ago
    Trump does little else but play identity politics. Clinton is betting Don't Pass/Don't Come, that's all.

notliketherest 10y ago

The article begs not the question "Does Trump have charisma", but rather, "Does Trump have more charisma than Clinton"? Personally I think yes - Clinton does seem old and tired and Trump certainly brings a dynamism unmatched by any other candidate. Clinton comes with a 7 point plan - Trump comes with an unabashed baller status and beautiful women around him. In the context of this article, I do think it's Trump with the upper hand.

vasilipupkin 10y ago
I think this article is a good example of statistical prognosticating with too few data points, which renders statistical significance of the forecast to be quite low. In addition, it attempts to build what essentially amounts to a one variable model, which is likely to be suboptimal, even if that one variable is important. In short, I find this article to be an example of poorly done statistical analysis and not much more than that.
johnchristopher 10y ago
> The article begs not the question "Does Trump have charisma", but rather, "Does Trump have more charisma than Clinton"? I think the question, the framing, is loaded. « Who has the kind of charisma that seduce/attract most people ? » would be a better question in my opinion.

kelukelugames 10y ago

We might not like Trump, but he is charismatic. I don't know if he's on the same level as Bill Clinton[1] or Obama, though "Make America great again" is the same slogan as "hope and change." They are both vague enough to inspire anyone, kind of like horoscopes. Scott Adams is not wrong, but I am surprised that people learn from reading his blog because non of Trump's tactics are new. To give Adams credit, he is a great blogger. Adams lures readers with "Let me share Trump's secrets with you because only us smart people know what is happening." People love to feel smart and be part of an exclusive group so they quote Adams' simple analysis as amazing insight. Also Adams fails to acknowledge that Trump overtly appeals to misogyny, racism, and xenophobia. Trump wouldn't be this popular without scapegoats. On a personal level, I feel depressed that a candidate will get more votes, not fewer, after making blatantly sexist comments. [1] Clinton during his candidacy: https://youtu.be/ckHfgqK_hcU?t=10m30s https://youtu.be/ckHfgqK_hcU?t=10m30s Notice the difference between Bill and Hilary near the end.

encoderer 10y ago
Worth mentioning, for any who don't know: "Make America Great Again" was lifted wholesale from the Reagan campaign. I haven't verified it, but I read that he trademarked it soon after Romney lost in 2012.
the_cat_kittles 10y ago
not sure why your getting lots of downvotes, i think your take on adams is pretty good. i was reading scott adams for a while as im sure lots of people were when trump was rising. i kept reading for a while and kept on seeing things that were just really stupid to me. he seems to think because he is a "master persuader" that he knows more about _everything_ than everyone else, but in one post he ventured in the realm of statistics and made some _incredibly ignorant_ arguments. then i saw old posts where he had just as confidently predicted herman cain. so part of what he is doing is just playing a long game, calling unlikely things so that when one of them eventually happens, he looks smart. i dont deny he has interesting insights, but he is wayyyyyy to high on himself and his special little lens. when he posted on twitter that he could convince anyone to vote for trump in 1 hour, i had to unfollow. i think manipulators are seen as smart by some people because they can be effective, but i have two points that seem to be forgotten: most of the time you eventually catch on to manipulators, and so they stop being effective, and, _more importantly_ they are just assholes. so, i say that it doesnt take intelligence to manipulate and bully and lie, it just takes gall. or heartlessness. as an analogy, i bet some of the lawyers who came up with the idea for ambulance chasing, or bankers who repackaged shitty subprime loans probably that they were really smart, when maybe it was just that there arent that many people willing to go that low.

davemel37 10y ago

> I wonder if Trump is considered to have charisma. I think PG is onto something, but mislabeled it. Brands win elections and Charisma is a great way to build a stronger presence in peoples minds. Trump is winning because he owns a place in every single voters mind, he is familiar and therefore relevant. All consumers and voters make emotional decisions and than support them with logic afterwards. Politics is no different, people emotionally (subconsciously) decide who they like the most and than find the logical positions to convince themselves. This is human nature, logic follows will. Trump is winning because he has a more memorable brand than any other candidate. Clinton is winning because she also has a very memorable brand. My gut tells me that Clintons brand beats trump in a political context, but I am not sure.

moridinamael 10y ago
I mean, that's going to vary person-to-person. When I query my emotional sense of Clinton, I get back stuff like: liar, unhealthy, bloodthirsty, fake, robotic. Admittedly, probably 100% of these words have been "Incepted" into me, but that doesn't stop them from being there. In contrast, my Trump emotional reactions go more like: winner, famous, gold, smiling, dominant. Again, I'm not proud of it, but that's the kind of pre-rational slant I have to essentially fight against when trying to evaluate the candidates logically.

PavlovsCat 10y ago

I think Sanders has more charisma than both. Why is he getting such a blank out in the media and social media? Are people seriously considering Clinton, just because the establishment just pretends like she's the only real democratic candidate? Disclaimer I don't live in the US, that's just the impression I get. But I certainly notice discussions in lots of places simply pretending Sanders doesn't exist, which considering what I see when I actively pay attention to stuff around him, does surprise me, to say the least.

ccvannorman 10y ago
He didn't pay the entrance fee. Most media is owned by a few corporations who are closely tied with Hillary. Don't worry though, I'm sure that won't affect her policy decisions..
- mistermann 10y ago
  This is the correct answer, it was blatantly obvious he was being ignored by the media until he became too big to ignore. I haven't read any mathematical theory on how costly this was to his campaign, if anyone knows of one please link it.
kelukelugames 10y ago
Is Sanders benefiting from the halo effect? I'm apolitical and the few times I've seen Sanders on TV, I didn't get that impression.
- PavlovsCat 10y ago
  > the few times I've seen Sanders on TV Well, that's my point, that's passively. It's not like he's not getting reported on, of course, but kinda like the bare minimum. I found this speech after the Indiana win very interesting for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHjiYU6RQw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fHjiYU6RQw I don't mean charismatic as in super suave, but as in, a stand up normal person, not someone first and foremost in it for the power. I guess charisma is subjective. And he isn't trying to be anything he's not. He's not trying to be folksy, he's just himself. That's what I see and what I like. Sure he has to play politics, but he doesn't put on a mask on top of that.

rurban 10y ago

Of course Trump wins on the charisma level. Not over Sanders, but over Clinton for sure, and it looks like Sanders has no chance. This is now the perfect time that this theory can be disproved.