This may be a little confirmation bias (after the fact, the winners are thought of as more charismatic because they won)- but looking back, does this hypothesis fail? Obama was more charismatic than McCain, Bush II was more so than Kerry and Gore, Clinton was more so than Dole and Bush I, Bush I was more so than Dukakis, Reagan was more so than Mondale and Carter, Carter was more so than Ford, Nixon was more so than McGovern… what do you think?
Was Nixon more charismatic than Hubert Humphrey? I wasn’t alive in 1968, but from what I’ve seen, I’d say no.
Based on checking out some youtube videos, I’d say that Nixon had a bit more… presence. I’m not sure charisma is the right word though.
I think it is confirmation bias. Had Dole won, for example, it could be said that his elderly statesman like manner was more “charismatic” that the dope-smoking, reckless, adulterer Clinton.
To prove your hypothesis wrong, we would need an example of an election where historians would consider the superior winning candidate to be dull and bland and the losing inferior who was a snazzy bullshitter to have been charming nonetheless. I think in today’s world of partisan politics, there would never be such a consensus. If anything Bush II v. Kerry was a contest where neither was charismatic. In 2000, Bush was a guy you wanted to have a beer with. In 2004, Bush sounded like too many brain cells had been killed from years of too many beers.
It may well be confirmation bias, but I think Bush II definitely had the ability to connect better than Kerry. Maybe charisma is not the exact right word… maybe a better phrase would be “communication skills”.
But if we are talking about an ability to “connect” with voters, then we have a statistic that is meaningless, but true for obvious reasons. Every winning candidate will have certainly connected with the voters better, and communicated his message better.
The only alternative would be for historians to say that, for example, Mondale’s policies were better, but he didn’t communicate them as well as Reagan. That would be a partisan debate that wouldn’t apply to a historical statement like the OP.
Yes, this is true- which is why “communications skills” may be better. By that I mean a collection of skills that can be judged at least somewhat objectively- including public speaking (both prepared and off-the-cuff), debating, answering questions in interviews and press conferences, etc.
But again, won’t this always give you the winner? Isn’t the winning Democrat the one that can convince you he won’t raise middle class taxes and outlaw guns? Isn’t the winning Republican the one that can convince you that he won’t outlaw pornography or mandate school prayer?
Isn’t the loser the one (of either party) who can’t speak, debate, or answer questions as well as the other guy and leaves doubt in the voters’ minds?
To find an example to counter yours, you would have to have an election in which the losing candidate fielded questions with ease, debated spectacularly, and always had a great line in press conferences. And if everyone agreed that he did those things so well, then it wouldn’t really have been possible for him to lose.
Also, there is subjectivity in these things as well. For example, Dukakis was excoriated over his response to the “Would you support the death penalty if your wife were raped and murdered?” question. I watched that debate live, didn’t think anything of it, and still don’t. I am a supporter of capital punishment, but Dukakis is/was not. I thought he answered the question the way he should have: “No. I don’t support the death penalty for anyone.”
However, those in the media thought he should have begun weeping over the prospect of his wife’s hypothetical rape and death and felt his answer was poor. So, really, in all of those categories, there is subjectivity as well..
I disagree with the OP. In order to compare 2 Presidential candidates, you have to control for the state of the economy during the election year and incumbency. By that metric: Kerry did better than expected (though he may have beat the point spread as it were due to the Iraq War). Dukkakis admittedly did a lot worse. Al Gore and George Bush were about even, as were Carter and Ford. Residuals derived from the Ray Fair’s model.
An alternative hypothesis – the candidate who spends the most money wins.
As far as I know, that’s accurate back to at least Nixon vs. Kennedy.
Even though the figures are a bit murky farther back, before campaign finance disclosure laws. And getting murkier again, since Citizens United.
Did Carter spend more than Ford?
Did Clinton spend more than Bush?
As for the OP I think there is some truth to it. I wouldn’t define it as charisma exactly, more a matter of being likeable and comfortable in your skin. I don’t think George W Bush was particularly charismatic, but he was more relaxed than Gore and Kerry.
And I think George HW Bush was a partial exception but both he and his opponent were rather awkward so it perhaps cancelled out. Nixon was fairly awkward too. But certainly in the last 35 years, Reagan, Clinton, George W Bush and Obama have all had that quality of being at ease compared to their opponents.
It’s not a hard rule. There are no hard rules when it comes to US presidential elections. There are simply too many variables and structural breaks relative to the number of data points. Other variables that are obviously important include the state of the economy, incumbency and money.
But certainly it’s better to pick a candidate who is likeable and relaxed. Among GOP contenders I think Huckabee and Daniels have that quality. Mitt Romney certainly doesn’t.
Hypotheses that assign electoral advantages to “charisma” or “personality” or “likeability” need to explain why gain a candidate electoral votes and not popular votes (think 2000).
Hmm… The one the people like the best is the one who wins… Fancy that. That is a keen observation.
The hypothesis is also flawed when one considers the 2000 election, which Bush won through a fluke. If in Palm Beach county, the butterfly ballots for Buchanan had gone to Gore as they were probably intended, then you would have to claim that Gore was more charismatic than Bush.
Just wait a few months. If Romney wins, we will know beyond a shadow of a doubt that the hypothesis is wrong.
And the other factor is that Gore won the general vote. So while Bush (may) have won the electoral vote, more people chose Gore over Bush.
That said, you can make a strong argument that the 2000 and 2004 elections didn’t disprove the OP’s premise. Neither candidate had a clear advantage in charisma and they were both extremely close elections.
And both impressions were substantially correct, too.
YES! At least in the television era it works as a rule-of-thumb. For those who dismiss this as “the one people like wins” it is more than that, it is that style is favored by the electorate over substance. Not that there is anything wrong with that…
I don’t think anybody ever called James Buchanan or John Quincy Adams or Martin van Buren “charismatic.” What the OP says might apply only to the age of radio and television.
Perhaps, but then you also have to disentangle cause and effect. How much money a candidate raises correlates well with how well the candidate does, but much of that correlation comes from how much a candidate raises from small donations: If you already have that, then the amount of money raised from large donations gives you relatively little additional predictive power. This suggests that the donations are actually an effect, not a cause, of the candidate doing well: A candidate who more people want to vote for is probably also a candidate that more people will want to donate to.