How much will personality determine the Presidential Outcome?

[Gangster Octopus]

The residential race between Obama and Romney has not truly gotten into full swing, yet. But when it does the personalities of the two candidates will begin to come out more. Obama has proven himself, and his team, are fantastic campaigners, he is very charismatic. Romney on the other hand, seems to have trouble connecting with people, seems disconnected and while he won the Republican nomination it wasn't exactly a smooth ride.

History seems to have shown that charisma plays a large part in winning election, even if one wishes it were otherwise. Do you think that will be the actual ultimate deciding factor in this election?

[Bricker]

No, I think it will be the economy.

[Bryan Ekers]

Personality helps convince people that you're the right guy to fix the economy, though. It's not like either candidate will campaign on a detailed economic analysis of the situation and a 15-point multi-year plan to improve it. Rather, it's all "raise taxes on the wealthy" vs. "don't raise taxes on the job-providers" and such, and the candidate with the most overall pleasing message will win over a particular voter.

[Chronos]

The economy will determine who folks prefer, but personalities will have a big impact on whether they come out to vote.

[dalej42]

I think 'The guy you'd rather have a beer with" is far more a creation of the media to go along with soccer moms and Nascar dads.

Bush won in 2000 because Gore ran a lousy campaign and picked Lieberman rather than Bob Graham.

Bush won in 2004 because he whored out 9/11, and had same sex marriage initiatives on the ballot right after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling. Kerry picking John Edwards, when he had no chance to win North Carolina wasn't a genius move either.

Obama won in 2008 because Bush's popularity was at all time low, the stock market was going crazy, and Sarah Palin was a joke.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Personality helps convince people that you're the right guy to fix the economy, though. It's not like either candidate will campaign on a detailed economic analysis of the situation and a 15-point multi-year plan to improve it.

If only!

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by dalej42

I think 'The guy you'd rather have a beer with" is far more a creation of the media to go along with soccer moms and Nascar dads.

Bush won in 2000 because Gore ran a lousy campaign and picked Lieberman rather than Bob Graham.

Bush won in 2004 because he whored out 9/11, and had same sex marriage initiatives on the ballot right after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling. Kerry picking John Edwards, when he had no chance to win North Carolina wasn't a genius move either.

And Bush was (supposedly) a guy who won't have a beer with you, anyway.

[tapu]

I think inherited and regional party affiliation largely determines elections.


As for Romney, I don't know if he has a personality--but his hair sure does!

[Gangster Octopus]

Originally Posted by dalej42

I think 'The guy you'd rather have a beer with" is far more a creation of the media to go along with soccer moms and Nascar dads.

Bush won in 2000 because Gore ran a lousy campaign and picked Lieberman rather than Bob Graham.

Bush won in 2004 because he whored out 9/11, and had same sex marriage initiatives on the ballot right after the Massachusetts Supreme Court ruling. Kerry picking John Edwards, when he had no chance to win North Carolina wasn't a genius move either.

Obama won in 2008 because Bush's popularity was at all time low, the stock market was going crazy, and Sarah Palin was a joke.

I am not sure I agree. Let's see here:

Reagan vs. Carter: Reagan was the more energetic candidate, Carter was perceived as weak and beaten

Reagan vs. Mondale: Mondale bland as can be, Reagan - "the Great Communicator"

Bush vs. Dukakis: Dukakis perceived as humorless, Bush not the most charisamtic but seemed far more personable than Dukakis

Bush vs. Clinton: Clinton, practically a nobody before the election, was charming, witty, erudite, while Bush was ok, but older and crankier

Clinton vs. Dole: Dole was a cranky old coot and Clinton could charm the panties off an intern.

Bush vs. Gore: Gore-bot vs. Bush, who is folksy and likable, except for the part
where he is evil

Bush vs. Kerry: Kerry was aloof and came off much like Romney, rich and not really connected

Obama vs. McCain: No contest, McCain yells at clouds and Obama was smart and good looking and could speechify like no other.

Now of course, this is not going to be the deciding factor, there are always lots of factors, but the fact is if you LIKE someone personally you are more likely to trust them. IF (and it is a big if) all things equal (i.e the economy not taking a sharp turn one way or the other), with the two candidates seemingly very close, I expect Obama's erudition and easy going style to slowly build up support for himself over Romney's privileged, out-of-touch, lack of empathy style.

[Chronos]

I think inherited and regional party affiliation largely determines elections.

That can't be, because those factors are static, and yet the White House does change party from time to time. In order to see why the control of the Presidency changes, you have to look at causative factors that also change.

[tapu]

Originally Posted by Chronos

That can't be, because those factors are static, and yet the White House does change party from time to time. In order to see why the control of the Presidency changes, you have to look at causative factors that also change.

Tell me: how close were the latest presidential elections?

[Chronos]

Tell me: how close were the latest presidential elections?

Very. But in every case, one side or the other ended up winning. If I ask you "Who's going to win?", and you answer "It's going to be close", you haven't really answered the question.

[tapu]

Consider that the consistent split down the middle between parties is formed and maintained by these familial and regional influences. Then it's reasonable to assume that the "swing" portions, small as they are, swing due to geographical changes, deaths/births, new citizens. The change is determined by so slight a margin that it's not unreasonable to consider the base as set.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

And Bush was (supposedly) a guy who won't have a beer with you, anyway.

And so is Romney, come to think of it.

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by BrainGlutton

If only!

Yeah, it could be interesting. Didn't Ross Perot try stuff like that in 1992 with charts and graphs and junk? I understand most of his economic predictions were way off, but at least he spelled out his ideas and concerns at a level of detail beyond the mere sound-bite.

[Kozmik]

Originally Posted by dalej42

Obama won in 2008 because Bush's popularity was at all time low, the stock market was going crazy, and Sarah Palin was a joke.

So was John McCain.

[BrainGlutton]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

Now of course, this is not going to be the deciding factor, there are always lots of factors, but the fact is if you LIKE someone personally you are more likely to trust them. IF (and it is a big if) all things equal (i.e the economy not taking a sharp turn one way or the other), with the two candidates seemingly very close, I expect Obama's erudition and easy going style to slowly build up support for himself over Romney's privileged, out-of-touch, lack of empathy style.

Not to mention his creepiness. HS and college hijinks are hijinks, but there's something deeply disturbing, if not disturbed, about a kid who poses as a cop and pulls people over for yux. And he does not appear to have mellowed any with age.

[elbows]

I think the Republicans have no dignity left, unlike Obama. I think that's something people react to on almost a visceral level, and maybe it could influence things.

[New Deal Democrat]

Originally Posted by Chronos

The economy will determine who folks prefer, but personalities will have a big impact on whether they come out to vote.

Because neither candidate has a good record on the economy I think charisma will matter.

---------

June 26, 2012

Americans find both President Obama and Republican opponent Mitt Romney likable -- Obama more so, reports the Gallup Poll.

Presented with a list of eight personal characteristics that could describe the candidates, 81% of respondents said Obama "is likable;" 64% said the same of Romney.

Likability topped the list of attributes for both candidates.

"Overall," the Gallup Poll added, "half of Americans believe both candidates are likable, with 28% ascribing this trait only to Obama and 12% only to Romney. Just 4% consider neither candidate likable."

The eighth and lowest-rated attribute for both candidates: "Has a clear plan for solving the country's problems."
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T-3Lp9mAAcU

[drewtwo99]

Originally Posted by Gangster Octopus

Obama vs. McCain: No contest, McCain yells at clouds and Obama was smart and good looking and could speechify like no other.

I'm putting you on my list of awesome posters, Gangster Octopus. Thank you for making me laugh this morning.

[Fear Itself]

The best John Boehner can come up with for Mitt are back-handed compliments:

"The American people probably aren’t going to fall in love with Mitt Romney."

“Mitt Romney has some friends, relatives and fellow Mormons ... some people that are going to vote for him."

"Solid guy, he’s going to do a great job, even if you don’t fall in love with him.”

With friends like that, who needs Democrats?

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers

Yeah, it could be interesting. Didn't Ross Perot try stuff like that in 1992 with charts and graphs and junk? I understand most of his economic predictions were way off, but at least he spelled out his ideas and concerns at a level of detail beyond the mere sound-bite.

Yes. And it was working pretty well, too, until Perot became incapable of hiding his control-freakiness and general insanity. Remember, he quit in mid-campaign, then came back in September claiming that he quit because the FBI had threatened to disrupt his daughter's wedding, among other things.

[BigT]

Originally Posted by jayjay

Yes. And it was working pretty well, too, until Perot became incapable of hiding his control-freakiness and general insanity. Remember, he quit in mid-campaign, then came back in September claiming that he quit because the FBI had threatened to disrupt his daughter's wedding, among other things.

I thought it had more to just the dropping out, and not his craziness. He lost all his momentum and good will.

At least, all of us in second grade were planning on voting for him in the Nickelodeon elections. (Or maybe just class elections). Yeah, we followed politics then. Don't ask me why.

[jayjay]

Originally Posted by BigT

I thought it had more to just the dropping out, and not his craziness. He lost all his momentum and good will.

He quit in the first place because things weren't happening exactly the way he wanted them to. He didn't like not being in absolute charge of the press he got, he didn't like not being in absolute charge of the state organizations that were trying to get him on the ballots, he didn't like not being in absolute charge of absolutely everything all the time.

[greenslime1951]

Surely you underestimate the American people. Fully 1% of the electorate will focus on the candidates' relative fitness to lead and the strength and efficacy of their visions for America. Only a mere 99% will make their decisions based on the relative charisma of the candidates and the very last ten-second sound bite that they see before they go to the polls.