7 ms·

I want to nod along with this, but I can't shake the feeling that it's just too simplistic, with too small of a dataset. So Johnson was supposedly more charisma

I want to nod along with this, but I can't shake the feeling that it's just too simplistic, with too small of a dataset. So Johnson was supposedly more charismatic than Goldwater, and that's why he won, not because Kennedy had been murdered 11 months earlier? Nixon beat Humphrey because he avoided a heads-up showdown, not because Humphrey had just served as Johnson's yes-man for several unpopular years in Vietnam? Carter beat Ford because he was charismatic, not because Ford pardoned Nixon and pissed everybody off? Reagan won because of his charisma, not because the country was mired in a years-long hostage crisis? Bush the First's loss didn't have anything to do with the worst recession in a decade? Al Gore and John Kerry... I'll give you those, and it's not surprising then that he wrote this article in 2004, but I think in other instances it's curve-fitting.

programmer1234 11y ago
I don't think PG is making an empirical argument, it's based on intuition and then tries to just offer a few instances that are at least nominally consistent with the idea. Nate Silver recently said about Trump, "voters are much more tribal than I thought", and if you assume most voters don't know anything about candidates other than "it's a guy on the TV", they wouldn't respond to whether this guy was a yes man for Johnson or whatever, they just respond to who they like the most on an emotional level, and that's going to be whoever is the most charismatic during their campaign.
- moridinamael 11y ago
  Nate Silver is what would happen if a really smart Vulcan came to Earth and tried to understand and predict human behavior.
ktRolster 11y ago
Carter beat Ford because he was charismatic Actually Ford looked clumsy because he fell down a lot...president clumsy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlz0he9rtKw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlz0he9rtKw
brazzledazzle 11y ago
It might explain how the middle swings at least to some degree. Perhaps just acting as a contributing factor or a catalyst.
ArkyBeagle 11y ago
Johnson won because of the Daisy ad. No kidding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_%28advertisement%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_%28advertisement%29 Carter started getting favorable press when he started quoting Bob Dylan at the University of Georgia School of Law on May 4, 1974. The best person who was an outsider was going to win the Democratic nomination, and obviously, the general election ( because post-Nixon). http://www.openculture.com/2012/07/hunter_s_thompson_remembers_jimmy_carters_captivating_bob_dylan_speech_1974.html http://www.openculture.com/2012/07/hunter_s_thompson_remembe...
- encoderer 11y ago
  The Daisy ad was important as ads go (all the more so as legend for only having aired once) but I maintain, nothing was larger in the American psyche than martyred president whose banner Johnson carried.
- ZeroGravitas 11y ago
  The Daisy ad was based on an apparent willingness to use nukes in Vietnam. The other effective ad they mention was based on a quote that said the US would be better if it sawed off the entire Eastern seabord. I'm not a historian of US politics, but it strikes me that Goldwater may have just had a lot of terrible opinions and policies.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
    The Daisy ad was a Rorshach blot. Peopel read into it what they wanted to. The policies were certainly much more mainstream than they are now
- cafard 11y ago
  Yes, kidding. Goldwater was well outside the Republican mainstream in what was still then its base. White blue collar workers still leaned reliably Democratic. Johnson had the good will of a country still mourning Kennedy.
  - ArkyBeagle 11y ago
imgabe 11y ago
You have to look at the reverse as well. Did charismatic presidents win re-election despite things that should have torpedoed them?
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
stray 11y ago
I can't speak to earlier elections because I don't remember them -- but by election time, Nixon's pardon wasn't nearly as present in people's minds as Chevy Chase's SNL skits about Ford stumbling and falling. Ford may have pardoned Nixon, but his handling of the SS Mayaguez incident more than made up for it. Carter did actually seem less embarrassing as a leader because of his southern charm combined with the fact he hadn't "fallen and I can't get up". And yeah, Reagan won because of his charisma. Hands down. Yeah, I remember "America held hostage -- day n" -- but I also remember the Camp David Accords. What did Carter in, IMO, was his malaise/crisis of confidence speech. Though to be fair, he was 100% correct. More importantly, I met President Reagan and though I was against almost everything about the man, he 100% won me over with a 90 second conversation and some candy. Idealistically I still disagree with almost everything Reagan while at the same time can't help but smile whenever I think of him.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >More importantly, I met President Reagan and though I was against almost everything about the man, he 100% won me over with a 90 second conversation and some candy. I've read that a lot about politicians, artists etc, usually with hack journalists describing their magnetic personality, intensive eyes, some hold they have on people, etc. And while for some it undoubtedly true, I can't help but wonder if it doesn't in most cases just reverse cause and effect. That is, we are indeed captivated by the person, but mostly because we already know that they're famous and we should be. (As an added empirical observation, this also happens with famous people we meet that we otherwise could not care less about, and never thought of their looks as charming or their presence as charismatic. It's mostly a sort of "wow, my friends won't believe who I met today" thing). A similar observation can be made for "good looks". There are people on the street, in clubs etc, that are 5 times as good looking as some artist in some "sexiest people of the year" list -- including artists downright ugly or average, which people still obsess over and find good looking.
  - stray 11y ago
    Good observation. I seriously doubt though, that that is much of a factor here. I know, and have always known a number of famous people. This was different. This was just a guy who seemed to have zero privacy and who lowered his voice conspiratorially and tried to have as private a conversation as was possible given the circumstances. And who zeroed in on what I most needed to have addressed. It may have been fake. But if someone can fake sincerity that well, it's no wonder that they rise to a position of such power. But certainly, both the halo effect and the cheerleader effect must always be factored in.
cafard 11y ago
Al Gore could probably have beaten GW Bush, but a bunch of people decided they'd rather be right than elect a president, and gave their votes to Nader. As for 2004, incumbency is powerful.
- stray 11y ago
  We voted our conscience. I for one, have no regrets.
  - cafard 11y ago
    That of course is your right, and the right of every voter. Ralph Nader likewise says that he has no regrets, and disclaims any responsibility for the appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito. [Edit] On conscience: One can argue that it is worth taking a bath in year x for gains in year x + y; the Goldwater enthusiasts of 1964 thought that the debacle contributed to the election of Reagan in 1980, and may have been right. On 2000: I still argue that Nader had more to do with the elections outcome than any imbalance in charisma. [Edit 2: yes, I said Scalia...]

programmer1234 11y ago

I don't think PG is making an empirical argument, it's based on intuition and then tries to just offer a few instances that are at least nominally consistent with the idea. Nate Silver recently said about Trump, "voters are much more tribal than I thought", and if you assume most voters don't know anything about candidates other than "it's a guy on the TV", they wouldn't respond to whether this guy was a yes man for Johnson or whatever, they just respond to who they like the most on an emotional level, and that's going to be whoever is the most charismatic during their campaign.

moridinamael 11y ago
Nate Silver is what would happen if a really smart Vulcan came to Earth and tried to understand and predict human behavior.

ktRolster 11y ago

Carter beat Ford because he was charismatic Actually Ford looked clumsy because he fell down a lot...president clumsy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlz0he9rtKw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlz0he9rtKw

brazzledazzle 11y ago

It might explain how the middle swings at least to some degree. Perhaps just acting as a contributing factor or a catalyst.

ArkyBeagle 11y ago

Johnson won because of the Daisy ad. No kidding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_%28advertisement%29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daisy_%28advertisement%29 Carter started getting favorable press when he started quoting Bob Dylan at the University of Georgia School of Law on May 4, 1974. The best person who was an outsider was going to win the Democratic nomination, and obviously, the general election ( because post-Nixon). http://www.openculture.com/2012/07/hunter_s_thompson_remembers_jimmy_carters_captivating_bob_dylan_speech_1974.html http://www.openculture.com/2012/07/hunter_s_thompson_remembe...

encoderer 11y ago
The Daisy ad was important as ads go (all the more so as legend for only having aired once) but I maintain, nothing was larger in the American psyche than martyred president whose banner Johnson carried.
ZeroGravitas 11y ago
The Daisy ad was based on an apparent willingness to use nukes in Vietnam. The other effective ad they mention was based on a quote that said the US would be better if it sawed off the entire Eastern seabord. I'm not a historian of US politics, but it strikes me that Goldwater may have just had a lot of terrible opinions and policies.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago
  The Daisy ad was a Rorshach blot. Peopel read into it what they wanted to. The policies were certainly much more mainstream than they are now
cafard 11y ago
Yes, kidding. Goldwater was well outside the Republican mainstream in what was still then its base. White blue collar workers still leaned reliably Democratic. Johnson had the good will of a country still mourning Kennedy.
- ArkyBeagle 11y ago

imgabe 11y ago

You have to look at the reverse as well. Did charismatic presidents win re-election despite things that should have torpedoed them?

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

stray 11y ago

I can't speak to earlier elections because I don't remember them -- but by election time, Nixon's pardon wasn't nearly as present in people's minds as Chevy Chase's SNL skits about Ford stumbling and falling. Ford may have pardoned Nixon, but his handling of the SS Mayaguez incident more than made up for it. Carter did actually seem less embarrassing as a leader because of his southern charm combined with the fact he hadn't "fallen and I can't get up". And yeah, Reagan won because of his charisma. Hands down. Yeah, I remember "America held hostage -- day n" -- but I also remember the Camp David Accords. What did Carter in, IMO, was his malaise/crisis of confidence speech. Though to be fair, he was 100% correct. More importantly, I met President Reagan and though I was against almost everything about the man, he 100% won me over with a 90 second conversation and some candy. Idealistically I still disagree with almost everything Reagan while at the same time can't help but smile whenever I think of him.

coldtea 11y ago
>More importantly, I met President Reagan and though I was against almost everything about the man, he 100% won me over with a 90 second conversation and some candy. I've read that a lot about politicians, artists etc, usually with hack journalists describing their magnetic personality, intensive eyes, some hold they have on people, etc. And while for some it undoubtedly true, I can't help but wonder if it doesn't in most cases just reverse cause and effect. That is, we are indeed captivated by the person, but mostly because we already know that they're famous and we should be. (As an added empirical observation, this also happens with famous people we meet that we otherwise could not care less about, and never thought of their looks as charming or their presence as charismatic. It's mostly a sort of "wow, my friends won't believe who I met today" thing). A similar observation can be made for "good looks". There are people on the street, in clubs etc, that are 5 times as good looking as some artist in some "sexiest people of the year" list -- including artists downright ugly or average, which people still obsess over and find good looking.
- stray 11y ago
  Good observation. I seriously doubt though, that that is much of a factor here. I know, and have always known a number of famous people. This was different. This was just a guy who seemed to have zero privacy and who lowered his voice conspiratorially and tried to have as private a conversation as was possible given the circumstances. And who zeroed in on what I most needed to have addressed. It may have been fake. But if someone can fake sincerity that well, it's no wonder that they rise to a position of such power. But certainly, both the halo effect and the cheerleader effect must always be factored in.

cafard 11y ago

Al Gore could probably have beaten GW Bush, but a bunch of people decided they'd rather be right than elect a president, and gave their votes to Nader. As for 2004, incumbency is powerful.

stray 11y ago
We voted our conscience. I for one, have no regrets.
- cafard 11y ago
  That of course is your right, and the right of every voter. Ralph Nader likewise says that he has no regrets, and disclaims any responsibility for the appointments of Justices Roberts and Alito. [Edit] On conscience: One can argue that it is worth taking a bath in year x for gains in year x + y; the Goldwater enthusiasts of 1964 thought that the debacle contributed to the election of Reagan in 1980, and may have been right. On 2000: I still argue that Nader had more to do with the elections outcome than any imbalance in charisma. [Edit 2: yes, I said Scalia...]