BuffettNews.com

NOTE: This is an old post of mine from a few years ago and another board that seems (unfortunately, since I'm a conservative) very relevant in this election, too.

----------------------------------------------

Forget the issues, forget the economy, forget who has the best campaign team. Looking back over all the Presidential elections of the TV age (1960 on), every one of them has been won by the candidate who possessed more of that indefinable but oh, so real quality called charisma (and no, it has nothing to do with likability; the best way I can define it is the ability to dominate a room by your presence). This is my own pet theory, and I definitely think there's something to it. Charisma is in the eyes of the beholder, of course, but only to an extent; really you either have it or you don't. I've listed below the major party nominees for President since 1960 along with their charisma quotients (as determined by me and based on a 1-10 scale).

1960: Kennedy 8, Nixon 4.
1964: Johnson 7, Goldwater 4.
1968: Nixon 4, Humphrey 2.
1972: Nixon 4, McGovern 2.
1976: Carter 4, Ford 3.
1980: Reagan 10, Carter 4.
1984: Reagan 10, Mondale 2.
1988: Bush Sr. 4, Dukakis 3.
1992: Clinton 8, Bush 4.
1996: Clinton 8, Dole 2.
2000: Bush II 4, Gore 2.
2004: Bush II 4, Kerry 1.

By my figuring (and I've tried to be impartial in assiging scores), the more charismatic candidate has won every time. The lesson: if you want your party to win, nominate a candidate with bucketloads of charisma.

bestseller92 wrote:The lesson: if you want your party to win, nominate a candidate with bucketloads of charisma.

Interesting theory former neighbor, but it might not take a bucketload.

A score of 5 on the charisma-meter would have won 7 of these elections.

Just to note, I rate the charisma scores in this election as Obama 8, McCain 3.

Sigh.

While the theory sounds agreeable enough,
I would not go so far as to state that Obama/Biden have lots more charisma than McCain/Palin.
I would say that the voters are reflecting (by poll numbers) the amount of substance they're identifying from each pair.

VP noms are not included, so they have no bearing on it.

I don't want to get into a partisan political discussion; this theory of mine is non partisan, just an observation I made a few years ago.

bestseller92 wrote:VP noms are not included, so they have no bearing on it.

I don't want to get into a partisan political discussion; this theory of mine is non partisan, just an observation I made a few years ago.

fair enough... it's your system... your opinion

I am curious how some scores could add up to 12, while another as few as 5
Are these just based on adjectives that you "check off" if they apply to the candidate?

Lightning Bolt wrote:

bestseller92 wrote:VP noms are not included, so they have no bearing on it.

I don't want to get into a partisan political discussion; this theory of mine is non partisan, just an observation I made a few years ago.

fair enough... it's your system... your opinion

I am curious how some scores could add up to 12, while another as few as 5
Are these just based on adjectives that you "check off" if they apply to the candidate?

The scores don't "add up" at all (just as the scores of opposing football teams don't "add up").

What I did was (admittedly subjectively) rate each man as far as I perceived his personal charisma, on a scale of 1 - 10. Sorry for the confusion.

bestseller92 wrote:The scores don't "add up" at all (just as the scores of opposing football teams don't "add up").

What I did was (admittedly subjectively) rate each man as far as I perceived his personal charisma, on a scale of 1 - 10. Sorry for the confusion.

Seemed clear enough to me.

Wait a minute. You assigned the charisma scores to the candidates yourself. Naturally all of the 'data' you display back up your theory. Therefore, your 'theory' is proven. I think not.

bestseller92 wrote:

Lightning Bolt wrote:

bestseller92 wrote:VP noms are not included, so they have no bearing on it.

I don't want to get into a partisan political discussion; this theory of mine is non partisan, just an observation I made a few years ago.

fair enough... it's your system... your opinion

I am curious how some scores could add up to 12, while another as few as 5
Are these just based on adjectives that you "check off" if they apply to the candidate?

The scores don't "add up" at all (just as the scores of opposing football teams don't "add up").

What I did was (admittedly subjectively) rate each man as far as I perceived his personal charisma, on a scale of 1 - 10. Sorry for the confusion.

you're right...
I overlooked your statement that this was a "1 to 10" scale.

but, and not to beat a dead horse, how do arrive at your scores then... just a gut feeling?

Yes -- just my own subjective thoughts on the charisma each man possessed/possesses. Your mileage may vary.

I'm sorry, but as of their respective elections, I don't agree that John Kerry had less charisma than Al Gore. Much as I respect him as an individual, he could have put a caffeine junkie to sleep in those days. If you could have bottled him, you'd put Sominex out of business.

But I accept and agree that it's *your* subjective scale, and I agree that neither Gore nor Kerry was particularly inspiring in their presentation.

I agree with a lot of this. The people really don't care about the issues when you get down to it. I have been saying since November of last year the McCain was the "Bob Dole" candidate for the Republican party. If Obama wins, which I expect at this point, he better have it before the absentee ballots are counted otherwise we are looking at another illegitimate president claim. Only this time by the other party.

Skibo wrote:I agree with a lot of this. The people really don't care about the issues when you get down to it. I have been saying since November of last year the McCain was the "Bob Dole" candidate for the Republican party. If Obama wins, which I expect at this point, he better have it before the absentee ballots are counted otherwise we are looking at another illegitimate president claim. Only this time by the other party.

Yup, me too. I think there's a lot to this theory - and there's probably a way to quantify it, instead of using a subjective "gut" feeling.

Maybe have test subjects view clips of the two candidates engaged in several activities... greeting people, giving a speech, arguing a point, etc. Then, ask a lot of questions about "likability," and "good feelings."

Of course, this phenomenon was noted first back in 1960, when JFK and Nixon squared off on TV. Viewers who watched TV and saw the candidates, thought JFK won the debate. Folks who heard it on the radio thought that Nixon won the debate handily.

The fact that Nixon later became Prez actually bears out this theory.... Nixon barely beat Hubert Humphrey, but walloped George McGovern.

Interesting...

krusin1 wrote:

Skibo wrote:I agree with a lot of this. The people really don't care about the issues when you get down to it. I have been saying since November of last year the McCain was the "Bob Dole" candidate for the Republican party. If Obama wins, which I expect at this point, he better have it before the absentee ballots are counted otherwise we are looking at another illegitimate president claim. Only this time by the other party.

Yup, me too. I think there's a lot to this theory - and there's probably a way to quantify it, instead of using a subjective "gut" feeling.

Maybe have test subjects view clips of the two candidates engaged in several activities... greeting people, giving a speech, arguing a point, etc. Then, ask a lot of questions about "likability," and "good feelings."

Of course, this phenomenon was noted first back in 1960, when JFK and Nixon squared off on TV. Viewers who watched TV and saw the candidates, thought JFK won the debate. Folks who heard it on the radio thought that Nixon won the debate handily.

The fact that Nixon later became Prez actually bears out this theory.... Nixon barely beat Hubert Humphrey, but walloped George McGovern.

Interesting...

The Kennedy-Nixon debate difference was not so much charisma but more makeup and sweat issues.

ejr wrote:

krusin1 wrote:

Skibo wrote:I agree with a lot of this. The people really don't care about the issues when you get down to it. I have been saying since November of last year the McCain was the "Bob Dole" candidate for the Republican party. If Obama wins, which I expect at this point, he better have it before the absentee ballots are counted otherwise we are looking at another illegitimate president claim. Only this time by the other party.

Yup, me too. I think there's a lot to this theory - and there's probably a way to quantify it, instead of using a subjective "gut" feeling.

Maybe have test subjects view clips of the two candidates engaged in several activities... greeting people, giving a speech, arguing a point, etc. Then, ask a lot of questions about "likability," and "good feelings."

Of course, this phenomenon was noted first back in 1960, when JFK and Nixon squared off on TV. Viewers who watched TV and saw the candidates, thought JFK won the debate. Folks who heard it on the radio thought that Nixon won the debate handily.

The fact that Nixon later became Prez actually bears out this theory.... Nixon barely beat Hubert Humphrey, but walloped George McGovern.

Interesting...

The Kennedy-Nixon debate difference was not so much charisma but more makeup and sweat issues.

Ok, so makeup and sweat played into it... still, what the people SAW was one candidate who looked good and one who didn't = a difference in charisma.

krusin1 wrote:

Skibo wrote:I agree with a lot of this. The people really don't care about the issues when you get down to it. I have been saying since November of last year the McCain was the "Bob Dole" candidate for the Republican party. If Obama wins, which I expect at this point, he better have it before the absentee ballots are counted otherwise we are looking at another illegitimate president claim. Only this time by the other party.

Yup, me too. I think there's a lot to this theory - and there's probably a way to quantify it, instead of using a subjective "gut" feeling.

Maybe have test subjects view clips of the two candidates engaged in several activities... greeting people, giving a speech, arguing a point, etc. Then, ask a lot of questions about "likability," and "good feelings."

Of course, this phenomenon was noted first back in 1960, when JFK and Nixon squared off on TV. Viewers who watched TV and saw the candidates, thought JFK won the debate. Folks who heard it on the radio thought that Nixon won the debate handily.

The fact that Nixon later became Prez actually bears out this theory.... Nixon barely beat Hubert Humphrey, but walloped George McGovern.

Interesting...

I agree with the premise behind this too. I've heard many Democrats over the past 8 years lament about how President Bush won two elections because he rolled up his sleeves, kissed babies' foreheads, and was the candidate voters would rather have a beer with. I'm sure if Obama wins, Republicans will have similar laments about Obama that he won because he was the better, more eloquent speaker.

As a conservative, I dearly with the GOP would realize that, to win, and for the President to be effective once elected, we need a candidate who can SPEAK EFFECTIVELY!

I think it's a sound theory that could be studied emperically.
A quick search turned up this study which seems to confrim your hypothesis, but I can't read the whole article, so I can't really determine their methodology.

I've read studies that indicate attractive people get jobs, promotions & higher incomes in the workplace, so I (personally) wouldn't be surprised to see a similar result in a Presidential study. But there are always confounds with research...attractive people may have more charisma because of their attractiveness, while fewer "non-attractive" people have high charisma.
So there's more than one factor involved, that are difficult to tease apart.
(Aside from the substance of their platforms )

ejr wrote:

krusin1 wrote:

Skibo wrote:I agree with a lot of this. The people really don't care about the issues when you get down to it. I have been saying since November of last year the McCain was the "Bob Dole" candidate for the Republican party. If Obama wins, which I expect at this point, he better have it before the absentee ballots are counted otherwise we are looking at another illegitimate president claim. Only this time by the other party.

Yup, me too. I think there's a lot to this theory - and there's probably a way to quantify it, instead of using a subjective "gut" feeling.

Maybe have test subjects view clips of the two candidates engaged in several activities... greeting people, giving a speech, arguing a point, etc. Then, ask a lot of questions about "likability," and "good feelings."

Of course, this phenomenon was noted first back in 1960, when JFK and Nixon squared off on TV. Viewers who watched TV and saw the candidates, thought JFK won the debate. Folks who heard it on the radio thought that Nixon won the debate handily.

The fact that Nixon later became Prez actually bears out this theory.... Nixon barely beat Hubert Humphrey, but walloped George McGovern.

Interesting...

The Kennedy-Nixon debate difference was not so much charisma but more makeup and sweat issues.

And let's not forget the infamous 5:00 shadow...