It's Charisma, Stupid

[Qenan]

http://www.paulgraham.com/charisma.html

As I went back through elections, I couldn't find one where the more charismatic candidate lost. Pundits said Carter beat Ford because the country distrusted the Republicans after Watergate. And yet it also happened that Carter was famous for his big grin and folksy ways, and Ford for being a boring klutz. Same result in the next election. Reagan, a former actor, was even more charismatic than Carter (whose grin was somewhat less cheery after four stressful years in office). And the charisma gap between Reagan and Mondale was like that between Clinton and Dole, with similar results. The first George Bush managed to win in 1988, though he would later be vanquished by one of the most charismatic presidents ever, because the first time around he was up against the notoriously uncharismatic Michael Dukakis.


I think he's correct.

[Zarathustra]

Yup, I'm sure it has a lot to do with it. Also, with a nod to Nader, most people realize there isn't a huge difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates. So they go with the guy who makes them comfortable.

[Equis]

A friend wrote this during the democratic primaries

enjoy


This site endorses John Edwards for the Democratic and hopefully, the Presidential nomination. You should too, and there’s only one reason why. It has nothing to do with his brand of southern populism, or his position on fiscal responsibility, or his poor-boy-made-good story. All of that’s impressive, but the reason’s much more simple.

John Edwards is one good-looking man. And good-looking people make the best presidents. The evidence is as follows:

George W. Bush. Looks like a scrawny wuss. Bungled war in Iraq, irresponsibly turned surplus into record budget deficit which American taxpayer will spend the next decade paying for. Will be remembered as worst president since Nixon.

Bill Clinton. Smart, sexy. Presided over an unprecedented period of peace and prosperity, as well as the greatest stock market bull run ever. Granted, had terrible choice in women, but kept us entertained.

George Bush, Sr. Boring curmudgeonly type. Led country into first Gulf War and minor recession.

Ronald Reagan. Hollywood-type good looks. Maybe his Star Wars defense initiative was half-baked, but he survived an assassination attempt. ‘Reaganomics’ led to massive bond and stock market bull run. One of more beloved presidents in recent times.

Jimmy Carter. Ugly Southerner. Presided over non-eventful 4 years. What do you remember from 1976-1980 besides Abba and John Travolta? Nothing. Presided over time of massive inflation. Was a much better ex-president than president, as he became a successful peace broker after stepping down.

Gerald Ford. Had reputation for honesty, but bad dress sense and a terrible hairstyle. Economic mismanagement led to the bizarre co-existence of inflation AND unemployment.

Richard Nixon. Resembled rear end of a Labrador. Presided over Middle East oil crisis, will be remembered for Watergate scandal. First President to resign.

Lyndon B. Johnson. Ugly bastard, looked like an evil scheming CEO. Left America stuck in quagmire in Vietnam. Disastrous war everyone would rather forget. Spent most of his time backing down student protests against war.

John F. Kennedy. The celebrity president. Had a hot wife, and had sex with Marilyn Monroe. Launched nation on economic expansion, defused Cuban Missile Crisis, immensely popular in Europe, signed nuclear test ban treaty.

Dwight D. Eisenhower. Kind-looking old man. Supreme commander of Allied forces on D-Day and subsequently, NATO. Dedicated his two terms to brokering world peace and promoting civil rights.

Now, you look at the two candidates left in the Democrat campaign, and John Edwards looks like a nice, charming young man with a pleasant Southern accent (“The South is not George Bush’s backyuhd. It is mah backyuhd, and ah will beat George Bush in mah backyuhd!”). John Kerry, on the other hand, has a face like the grape that rolled under your fridge two weeks ago and has only now been retrieved, in the form of a desiccated raisin.

OK, I don’t know where that analogy came from. My point is, if the Democratic nomination really is about electability as it’s purported to be, the primaries are choosing the wrong candidate. Edwards has a much better chance than Kerry of taking back the White House.

In any case, it’s certainly disheartening to see the Democrat Party fall over itself in a race to the left, and just 4 years after Bill Clinton left office. What happened to the New Democrats? What happened to fiscal responsibility and Clintonomics? Howard Dean was a moderate centrist governor who painted himself as a populist. Edwards, representing the rust-belt states, has a decidedly protectionist streak, and now Kerry is unconvincingly trying to paint himself with the same populist brush.

Oh, for the Clinton years again. I think everyone’s looking back on years like 1996 with nostalgia, hankering for a time when presidential peccadilloes meant more than weapons of mass destruction. You know that everything’s good with the world when the president’s on TV saying, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”, instead of standing before a Senate Committee trying to justify a war gone awry.

[shift6]

This is actually one of the primary arguments against "true" democracy and maintaining something of a republic. The people are just swayed by who has the better hair piece, whereas a duly appointed electorate will (presumably) actually consider issues.

Of course the two party hegemony has made a mockery of that, but that isnt the point here.

[Anders Hallin]

A friend wrote this during the democratic primaries

enjoy


This site endorses John Edwards for the Democratic and hopefully, the Presidential nomination. You should too, and there’s only one reason why. It has nothing to do with his brand of southern populism, or his position on fiscal responsibility, or his poor-boy-made-good story. All of that’s impressive, but the reason’s much more simple.

John Edwards is one good-looking man. And good-looking people make the best presidents. The evidence is as follows:

Lyndon B. Johnson. Ugly bastard, looked like an evil scheming CEO. Left America stuck in quagmire in Vietnam. Disastrous war everyone would rather forget. Spent most of his time backing down student protests against war.
Most of his time? Hardly. Lyndon B. Johnson was one of the most active presidents ever in regards to social reform.
For the sake of fairness :)

[Dirt]

Yup, I'm sure it has a lot to do with it. Also, with a nod to Nader, most people realize there isn't a huge difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates. So they go with the guy who makes them comfortable.
I don't see a Democratic President taking us into war with Iraq the way Bush did. It does matter who's party is President.

[russellmz00]

I don't see a Democratic President taking us into war with Iraq the way Bush did. It does matter who's party is President.

and yet there are accusations that gore wouldn't have invaded afghanistan.