Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

2020 Candidate Charisma

Recommended Posts

@admin_270 is going to introduce a system to extend the rating from 1-5 to 1-10. Where should the 2020 candidates go? I'll include recent historical analogies with where I think the candidates should go. 

10: FDR, JFK

9: RFK, Reagan, B. Clinton, Obama

8: "The Rock" Johnson, Kander

7: Eisenhower, J. Jackson, T. Kennedy, Biden, Newsom, O'Rourke

6: Bush II, Rubio, Cotton, Christie, Booker, Gabbard, Franken, J. Kennedy III

5: Dewey, Truman, Nixon, LBJ, McGovern, Carter, Bush I, Perot, McCain, Romney, Rubio, Huntsman, S. Martinez, Sasse, Flake, Fiorina, Hogan, McAuliffe, K. Harris, Gillibrand, Castro, Edwards, Bullock, Garcetti, Heinrich, Buttigieg, Cuomo, Moulton, Patrick, Colbert, T. Ryan, Swallwell

4: Stevenson, Humphrey, Mondale, Ford, Dukakis, Dole, Kerry, J. Bush, H. Clinton, Trump, Kasich, R. Paul, Graham, S. Collins, Pence, Murkowski, Corker, Warren, Sanders, Delaney, Bloomberg, Steyer, Schultz, Sh. Brown, O'Malley, Hickenlooper, Klobuchar, Zuckerberg, Merkley, Guttierez, Inslee

3: Goldwater, Cruz, Cuban, Kristol, Holder, Chafee, Grayson

2: Gravel, Avenatti

1: Duke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump should be at least a 6. Also as much as I love Slick Willie he ain't a 9. Ford should be a 3. Biden should be an 8, Reagan could be a 10, as he had a better sense of humor in my opinion than JFK, and im not sure why FDR is that high up there. I don't think anyone would complain if Sanders was a five. Due to his forcing and aggressive personality Bush I could arguably be lowered to a 4. Not sure about Eisenhower being that high either.

Besides having Rubio twice at 6 and 5 can't really complain about anything else, nice list bro. Love how its going to 1-10 now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The automatic mapping (for campaigns that use 1-5) the latest game engine (not released yet) currently uses is

1 -> 2

2 -> 4

3 -> 6

4 -> 8

5 -> 10

The natural way to think of this, I think, is

1 -> 1-2

2 -> 3-4

3 -> 5-6

4 -> 7-8

5 -> 9-10

Trump is a 4 for Charisma in 2016, and so will probably be a 7 or 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Note 5 is the precise middle point in the new system and is meant to indicate average, as 0 is a valid value.

Personally, I believe increasing the range of Charisma from 1-5 to 1-10, from a scenario designer point-of-view, and my own point-of-view, will make things more onerous, not an improvement or feature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, admin_270 said:

The automatic mapping (for campaigns that use 1-5) the latest game engine (not released yet) currently uses is

1 -> 2

2 -> 4

3 -> 6

4 -> 8

5 -> 10

The natural way to think of this, I think, is

1 -> 1-2

2 -> 3-4

3 -> 5-6

4 -> 7-8

5 -> 9-10

Trump is a 4 for Charisma in 2016, and so will probably be a 7 or 8.

How do you justify so high a charisma for Trump? He isn’t appealing to even some Republicans. Both candidates from 2016 lacked the charisma that makes the candidate seem attractive to members of the opposing party, even if they don’t vote for them. Trump seemed to repel as much as Clinton repelled. If he had higher charisma, he would have earned a 50% pop vote or even a 50% approval rating when he has a strong economy. I think it’s more than just low integrity. If the charisma is 4, then the integrity should probably be 0 or 1. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patine said:

Personally, I believe increasing the range of Charisma from 1-5 to 1-10, from a scenario designer point-of-view, and my own point-of-view, will make things more onerous, not an improvement or feature.

I think it’s an improvement. I would have preferred a decimal system or even a 1-100, like they do for sports games. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I think it’s an improvement. I would have preferred a decimal system or even a 1-100, like they do for sports games. 

I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree there, but I don't think Anthony will be moved by my dubiousness and reservations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

How do you justify so high a charisma for Trump? He isn’t appealing to even some Republicans. Both candidates from 2016 lacked the charisma that makes the candidate seem attractive to members of the opposing party, even if they don’t vote for them. Trump seemed to repel as much as Clinton repelled. If he had higher charisma, he would have earned a 50% pop vote or even a 50% approval rating when he has a strong economy. I think it’s more than just low integrity. If the charisma is 4, then the integrity should probably be 0 or 1. 

I think we are defining Charisma differently, Charisma has generally been said to mean the ability to attract fiery supporters through oration and a marked ability to stir those supporters up. Trump undoubtedly has this. This isn't about breadth of support as much as it is depth of support.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

I think we are defining Charisma differently, Charisma has generally been said to mean the ability to attract fiery supporters through oration and a marked ability to stir those supporters up. Trump undoubtedly has this. This isn't about breadth of support as much as it is depth of support.

Shouldn’t Bernie Sanders have a high charisma then? His supporters were fired up as much as Trump’s supporters. Many argue that he could have beat Trump. Trump won his nomination partially because he had more opponents splitting votes. Sanders didn’t have the luxury. @admin_270 gives Sanders low charisma, but by your definition, it should be very high. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Shouldn’t Bernie Sanders have a high charisma then? His supporters were fired up as much as Trump’s supporters. Many argue that he could have beat Trump. Trump won his nomination partially because he had more opponents splitting votes. Sanders didn’t have the luxury. @admin_270 gives Sanders low charisma, but by your definition, it should be very high. 

I don't agree with that definition of Charisma on my own subjective level, but I was thinking that even though many really dislike Trump, he really does have a weird charismatic aura around him. Katy Tur wrote a bit about it in her memoir of covering his campaign, how he was still really nice to her and oddly pleasant to be around even as he was calling her out by name at his rallies. He seems to have an ability to schmooze and "turn it on" a bit, which is something that I'd argue Sanders doesn't really have.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar

Trump was a celebrity before becoming a politician. As Lizphairphreak notes, he has a strong personal charm. I have read various anecdotes that support this. However, he's a polarizing figure. Some people dislike him because he says things they really dislike, not because he's low charisma, IMHO.

I start with the question, is he above average charisma? It seems yes. If so, in the old game system he would be a 4 or 5. Is he a 5? No, I don't think so. So, that means a 4. In the new game system, that means two options, 7 or 8.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, lizphairphreak said:

I don't agree with that definition of Charisma on my own subjective level, but I was thinking that even though many really dislike Trump, he really does have a weird charismatic aura around him. Katy Tur wrote a bit about it in her memoir of covering his campaign, how he was still really nice to her and oddly pleasant to be around even as he was calling her out by name at his rallies. He seems to have an ability to schmooze and "turn it on" a bit, which is something that I'd argue Sanders doesn't really have.

But we are taking about campaign charisma and charisma at rallies, fundraising and large audiences. That is where charisma will mostly play a role. Sanders excels equally with Trump here. I think @admin_270 needs to clearly define charisma as he sees it, and hopefully elaborate on why Trump has high charisma and Sanders (and perhaps Clinton also) don’t. 

To me, Trump having high charisma must be something other than why Obama, FDR, JFK, BClinton or Reagan have high charisma. It was personal magnetism, charm, and mass appeal that brought a little envy from even the opposition. That is to say, the opponents wished they had a version of that politician at the time. You don’t see Democrats wanting a Democratic Trump really. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you watched his rallies? The crowds are huge (YUGE) for *mid-terms* and seem highly enthusiastic. For Barnstorming, personal charm is important, which again, he seems to have. He has a good sense of humor and a quick wit (see his Republican debates in particular).

The concept of Charisma is defined in terms of how it operates in the game. Bonuses for Barnstorming, Rallies, Speeches, Interviews, Debates. Any game attribute is going to be an approximation to the real world.

You're right that Sanders was drawing large crowds in 2016, but Sanders doesn't have high charm, what he has is perceived integrity and his message.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Have you watched his rallies? The crowds are huge (YUGE) for *mid-terms* and seem highly enthusiastic. For Barnstorming, personal charm is important, which again, he seems to have. He has a good sense of humor and a quick wit (see his Republican debates in particular).

The concept of Charisma is defined in terms of how it operates in the game. Bonuses for Barnstorming, Rallies, Speeches, Interviews, Debates. Any game attribute is going to be an approximation to the real world.

You're right that Sanders was drawing large crowds in 2016, but Sanders doesn't have high charm, what he has is perceived integrity and his message.

So I guess my next question is: What factor will you use to take into account what repels people about Trump, including members of his own party. It’s more than just policy. What level of integrity should he have? 3? 2? What would land someone a 1 or 0?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In The Art of the Deal, Trump talks about how people have always reacted strongly to him (both pro and con). In part, I think it's just the type of rhetoric he has chosen to use, in part the issue positions, but I also think Trump has a personality that is polarizing.

In the 2016 campaign, old system, his Integrity is a 2. That maps onto a 3 or 4 using the mappings above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To capture the rhetoric aspect would require a new game feature, something like an 'inflammatory rhetoric' meter for speeches and so on. The higher it is, the more people who aren't close on the issue position react negatively, perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An alternate mapping system is

1 -> 1

2 -> 3

3 -> 5 (both are true midpoints for respective systems)

4 -> 7

5 -> 9

In this case, I think the natural way to think of this would be

1 -> 0-1

2 -> 2-3

3 -> 4-6 (extra slot, mapping requires one has 3 slots)

4 -> 7-8

5 -> 9-10

I'm favoring this system now.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Patine said:

Personally, I believe increasing the range of Charisma from 1-5 to 1-10, from a scenario designer point-of-view, and my own point-of-view, will make things more onerous, not an improvement or feature.

Why do you think this would make things more onerous? The 0-10 scale seems more intuitive to me, and both require choosing one value, so no difference there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, admin_270 said:

If that's the case, Trump's Integrity in the new system would be 2 or 3, Charisma would remain 7 or 8.

Ok, I guess I can accept that when one considers the “Cult of Personality” around Trump. I like your idea for inflammatory rhetoric. I think something like aggressiveness or composure might be a good name for such a trait. A word akin to “presidential” is what I’m thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Aggressiveness' in relation to rhetoric might be the right sort of word. It could be a trait, with a rating on the opposite end being 'tactful', say. I'll think about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar

GoP:

Trump- 7. I say his appeal within the GoP has made him nearly immune to the various scandals; plus his catchphrases have been adopted by various parts of the GoP(Think "Fake News", "Lying Ted", "Crooked Hillary").

Kasich- 4/5. He seems rather folksy, yet bland. 

Flake- 3/5. WHile he is a rather generic Republican, I feel he is rather unnoteworthy; and I doubt prior to the Kavanaugh confirmation people outside of Arizona knew of him.

Sasse- 5/6. This might be a bit too high, and I'll accept that criticism. However my 6 feels rightfully deserved, because of the brief interviews I've heard him in(on NPR, and on Colbert) he has always came across as a reasonable mature conservative. 

((I'll add the Democratic Party when I can in a minute))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2018 at 5:07 PM, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Flake- 3/5. WHile he is a rather generic Republican, I feel he is rather unnoteworthy; and I doubt prior to the Kavanaugh confirmation people outside of Arizona knew of him.

I disagree with the last point there, Flake has been a relatively national figure since Trump came into office and they started their dance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×