6 ms·

It's Charisma, Stupid (2004)

141 points by pashapiro 10y ago

blfr 10y ago
It surely helps and Trump exploited every opportunity, spared no effort to make sure he wins but charisma is generally not the path to the White House https://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2016/11/does-charisma-win-presidential-elections.html https://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2016/11/does-charisma-... Overall, 6 of 29 modern elections were won by strongly charismatic leaders (Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK); another 4 elections were won by well-liked but uncharismatic figures, Eisenhower and Reagan. About 80% of the time, an uncharismatic person wins the presidency.
- Retric 10y ago
  BS. Reagan Like trump was a popular actor and was very charismatic. Importantly Trump (likely) lost the popular vote by a large margin. But he focused on the few areas that actually count. Remember the extra 250 thousand Hillary voters in DC count for 3, the significantly smaller margin in Florida, and PA count for 49.
- cableshaft 10y ago
  Things change over time. Nowadays people are inundated by video of the candidates for over a year straight up to the election. Back then that certainly wasn't the case, especially before the time of television. I'm certain charisma plays more of a factor now than it used to.
retreatguru 10y ago
Trump is entertaining to watch. Even though I find him a buffoon I still find him fun to watch. Hillary has more experience, matches my views on policy but she is a bore to watch, I can't bear it. (I'm Canadian, and our immigration server is now down due to the load).
farright 10y ago
It's a number of things: Going against political correctness by voicing controversial but popular views on immigration and Islam. Populist economics in a recession after two terms of Obama. And of course a yuuuge charisma.
- wavefunction 10y ago
  I don't find him particularly charismatic. I'd probably punch the dude in the mouth if I had to deal with him and his attitude in person. But your points about populist economics are the bigger cause I believe. But then I'm a Bernie supporter who knew he could steal that issue from Trump. C'est la vie.
  - ethbro 10y ago
    I think pg's quality could also be termed "dynamism", which Americans have historically been very drawn to at the polls. If one feels that the current economic outlook is not good for oneself, then I can absolutely see preferring a candidate who seems excited in proportion to the perceived challenge. And I would chalk the advantage there to Trump.
  - Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
    Populist economics is about as useful as populist physics.
  - farright 10y ago
    The fact the so many progressive's response is to want to "punch the dude in the mouth" is exactly the kind of oppresive political correctness Trump voters are rebelling against. These scenes probably garnered even more support for Trump's rallies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMux_UHmpvc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMux_UHmpvc
    - wavefunction 10y ago
      You think punching someone in the mouth is political correctness? I didn't say anything about his politics, which you of course ignored because you wanted to trot out some inanities based on generalities of people you don't even know.
      - farright 10y ago
        When you said "I'd probably punch the dude in the mouth if I had to deal with him and his attitude in person." I assumed you were including his political views. I hadn't accounted for you just being a generally violent angry person.
mtimjones 10y ago
Liberal cucks in full meltdown mode. Dems tried to put an criminal up and got what they deserved.
anondon 10y ago
This is from 2004. The title should be updated to reflect that.
- kayoone 10y ago
  That makes it even better
yesgreen 10y ago
Seriously reposting PG? Fuck off right now.
- sctb 10y ago
  Please don't create accounts to violate the guidelines with. Not only do we ban them, but we ban the main account if it continues.
LargeCompanies 10y ago
Hilary Clinton has and is highly unlikeable and her narrative is similar. The DNC chose her over Sanders... would the results be different?
- eli_gottlieb 10y ago
  >The DNC chose her over Sanders... would the results be different? Yes. All the data at the time said: * Hillary will beat Trump narrowly (she's losing as I write). * Bernie would beat Trump in a landslide (I think Bernie would defeat Trump at all). Socialism or barbarism.
- runevault 10y ago
  Both the super fiscally conservative and the more... unpleasant parts of Trump's voting block would never vote for someone as liberal as Sanders. I have a hard time believing anyone that would have voted for him would vote Trump, now if you think it would've swayed enough people who voted 3rd party to vote Sanders instead you might have something.
  - venomsnake 10y ago
    Sanders could have picked the working class given enough time. Not only on issues.
    - runevault 10y ago
      Part of me balks at the idea due to his personality, yet another part looks at how Trump's polarizing nature pulled enough people to himself to do what not so long ago seemed unthinkable. While in an entirely different way Bernie is certainly a polarizing figure, and perhaps that is what was needed to go up against someone like Trump. At this point I just don't know. Too much to process.
  - retreatguru 10y ago
    The thrust of the essay is that people don't vote by issues but by charisma - and Sanders has more charisma than Hillary. And he is also an anti-establishment candidate.
mc32 10y ago
As someone aptly put it on twitter (Nate Cohn), the "white working class" is voting like a minority block--and why would they not? The elites have ignored the working class (white and black) for ages and when they do think of them, white (and other) elites look down at them with the contempt of 'white privilege' while they, the elite whites, sit comfortably in their protected perches rarely exposing themselves to insecurity. It's possible this is a consequence of overplaying identity politics used to try and counterbalance Trump's followers' politics. In other words the working class had their identity unintentially forged in the scrum of identity politics.
- venomsnake 10y ago
  It is not only the white working class - she captures Latinos and Blacks with a lot lower margins than Obama. You cannot take a person's vote for you for granted. Last week a life long anticommunist in my country voted for the communist candidate - he just said "fuck it, I want to see the face of the ruling party hit the pavement". And a lot of whites obviously got fed up with being used as an intellectual punching pag
  - mc32 10y ago
    Well, She's not going to get the same energy from black voters as Obama --Obama was once in a lifetime unifying and exciting effect on the black electorate. As for the Hispanic vote, not sure what happened there --except there are more than one kind of person of latam descent wealthy, middle-class, Cuban, Mexican, undereducated, Americanized, some who still feel more Latin American than American, etc.
    - venomsnake 10y ago
      Blacks are also not monilith block. I can tell you what happened - parts of the communities showed the Dems that they do not protect their interests enough - sadly in two party system this means burning the house to the ground.
  - douche 10y ago
    That's the thing that has struck me the most about the Clinton campaign. It's been incredibly lazy, as if Clinton were the anointed one who simply had to waltz to the White House. Not wanting to debate. Not putting in the work of campaigning, at least compared to Trump's marathon schedule. The arrogance and condescension at having to even be involved in the race against her opponent.
Gupie 10y ago
The election of an "Entertainer in Chief"
soneca 10y ago
Wow. I think it applies perfectly today. "Theory: In US presidential elections, the more charismatic candidate wins. People who write about politics, whether on the left or the right, have a consistent bias: they take politics seriously. When one candidate beats another they look for political explanations. The country is shifting to the left, or the right. And that sort of shift can certainly be the result of a presidential election, which makes it easy to believe it was the cause. But when I think about why I voted for Clinton over the first George Bush, it wasn't because I was shifting to the left. Clinton just seemed more dynamic. He seemed to want the job more. Bush seemed old and tired. I suspect it was the same for a lot of voters."

141 points by pashapiro 10y ago

blfr 10y ago

It surely helps and Trump exploited every opportunity, spared no effort to make sure he wins but charisma is generally not the path to the White House https://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2016/11/does-charisma-win-presidential-elections.html https://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2016/11/does-charisma-... Overall, 6 of 29 modern elections were won by strongly charismatic leaders (Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK); another 4 elections were won by well-liked but uncharismatic figures, Eisenhower and Reagan. About 80% of the time, an uncharismatic person wins the presidency.

Retric 10y ago
BS. Reagan Like trump was a popular actor and was very charismatic. Importantly Trump (likely) lost the popular vote by a large margin. But he focused on the few areas that actually count. Remember the extra 250 thousand Hillary voters in DC count for 3, the significantly smaller margin in Florida, and PA count for 49.
cableshaft 10y ago
Things change over time. Nowadays people are inundated by video of the candidates for over a year straight up to the election. Back then that certainly wasn't the case, especially before the time of television. I'm certain charisma plays more of a factor now than it used to.

retreatguru 10y ago

Trump is entertaining to watch. Even though I find him a buffoon I still find him fun to watch. Hillary has more experience, matches my views on policy but she is a bore to watch, I can't bear it. (I'm Canadian, and our immigration server is now down due to the load).

farright 10y ago

It's a number of things: Going against political correctness by voicing controversial but popular views on immigration and Islam. Populist economics in a recession after two terms of Obama. And of course a yuuuge charisma.

wavefunction 10y ago
I don't find him particularly charismatic. I'd probably punch the dude in the mouth if I had to deal with him and his attitude in person. But your points about populist economics are the bigger cause I believe. But then I'm a Bernie supporter who knew he could steal that issue from Trump. C'est la vie.
- ethbro 10y ago
  I think pg's quality could also be termed "dynamism", which Americans have historically been very drawn to at the polls. If one feels that the current economic outlook is not good for oneself, then I can absolutely see preferring a candidate who seems excited in proportion to the perceived challenge. And I would chalk the advantage there to Trump.
- Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
  Populist economics is about as useful as populist physics.
- farright 10y ago
  The fact the so many progressive's response is to want to "punch the dude in the mouth" is exactly the kind of oppresive political correctness Trump voters are rebelling against. These scenes probably garnered even more support for Trump's rallies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMux_UHmpvc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMux_UHmpvc
  - wavefunction 10y ago
    You think punching someone in the mouth is political correctness? I didn't say anything about his politics, which you of course ignored because you wanted to trot out some inanities based on generalities of people you don't even know.
    - farright 10y ago
      When you said "I'd probably punch the dude in the mouth if I had to deal with him and his attitude in person." I assumed you were including his political views. I hadn't accounted for you just being a generally violent angry person.

mtimjones 10y ago

Liberal cucks in full meltdown mode. Dems tried to put an criminal up and got what they deserved.

anondon 10y ago

This is from 2004. The title should be updated to reflect that.

kayoone 10y ago
That makes it even better

yesgreen 10y ago

Seriously reposting PG? Fuck off right now.

sctb 10y ago
Please don't create accounts to violate the guidelines with. Not only do we ban them, but we ban the main account if it continues.

LargeCompanies 10y ago

Hilary Clinton has and is highly unlikeable and her narrative is similar. The DNC chose her over Sanders... would the results be different?

eli_gottlieb 10y ago
>The DNC chose her over Sanders... would the results be different? Yes. All the data at the time said: * Hillary will beat Trump narrowly (she's losing as I write). * Bernie would beat Trump in a landslide (I think Bernie would defeat Trump at all). Socialism or barbarism.
runevault 10y ago
Both the super fiscally conservative and the more... unpleasant parts of Trump's voting block would never vote for someone as liberal as Sanders. I have a hard time believing anyone that would have voted for him would vote Trump, now if you think it would've swayed enough people who voted 3rd party to vote Sanders instead you might have something.
- venomsnake 10y ago
  Sanders could have picked the working class given enough time. Not only on issues.
  - runevault 10y ago
    Part of me balks at the idea due to his personality, yet another part looks at how Trump's polarizing nature pulled enough people to himself to do what not so long ago seemed unthinkable. While in an entirely different way Bernie is certainly a polarizing figure, and perhaps that is what was needed to go up against someone like Trump. At this point I just don't know. Too much to process.
- retreatguru 10y ago
  The thrust of the essay is that people don't vote by issues but by charisma - and Sanders has more charisma than Hillary. And he is also an anti-establishment candidate.

mc32 10y ago

As someone aptly put it on twitter (Nate Cohn), the "white working class" is voting like a minority block--and why would they not? The elites have ignored the working class (white and black) for ages and when they do think of them, white (and other) elites look down at them with the contempt of 'white privilege' while they, the elite whites, sit comfortably in their protected perches rarely exposing themselves to insecurity. It's possible this is a consequence of overplaying identity politics used to try and counterbalance Trump's followers' politics. In other words the working class had their identity unintentially forged in the scrum of identity politics.

venomsnake 10y ago
It is not only the white working class - she captures Latinos and Blacks with a lot lower margins than Obama. You cannot take a person's vote for you for granted. Last week a life long anticommunist in my country voted for the communist candidate - he just said "fuck it, I want to see the face of the ruling party hit the pavement". And a lot of whites obviously got fed up with being used as an intellectual punching pag
- mc32 10y ago
  Well, She's not going to get the same energy from black voters as Obama --Obama was once in a lifetime unifying and exciting effect on the black electorate. As for the Hispanic vote, not sure what happened there --except there are more than one kind of person of latam descent wealthy, middle-class, Cuban, Mexican, undereducated, Americanized, some who still feel more Latin American than American, etc.
  - venomsnake 10y ago
    Blacks are also not monilith block. I can tell you what happened - parts of the communities showed the Dems that they do not protect their interests enough - sadly in two party system this means burning the house to the ground.
- douche 10y ago
  That's the thing that has struck me the most about the Clinton campaign. It's been incredibly lazy, as if Clinton were the anointed one who simply had to waltz to the White House. Not wanting to debate. Not putting in the work of campaigning, at least compared to Trump's marathon schedule. The arrogance and condescension at having to even be involved in the race against her opponent.

Gupie 10y ago

The election of an "Entertainer in Chief"

soneca 10y ago

Wow. I think it applies perfectly today. "Theory: In US presidential elections, the more charismatic candidate wins. People who write about politics, whether on the left or the right, have a consistent bias: they take politics seriously. When one candidate beats another they look for political explanations. The country is shifting to the left, or the right. And that sort of shift can certainly be the result of a presidential election, which makes it easy to believe it was the cause. But when I think about why I voted for Clinton over the first George Bush, it wasn't because I was shifting to the left. Clinton just seemed more dynamic. He seemed to want the job more. Bush seemed old and tired. I suspect it was the same for a lot of voters."