Jump to content
270soft Forum
vcczar

How to win elections: Charisma, energy, authenticity, message. 

Recommended Posts

Charisma, energy, authenticity, message. These might be the four things needed to win a general election, whomever has the most of these qualities will likely win. Trump had more energy, had a message (I thought it was awful, but he had one), and his bluntness could be passed off as "authentic." Clinton had none of these qualities. Bernie Sanders, a 70 year old Jewish Socialist arguably had a shot at defeating Clinton for the nomination because he had authenticity and a message, and arguably the other qualities as well. 

Who among the Democratic candidates has all or most of these qualities? 

Biden? Sanders? Warren? O'Rourke? Booker? Harris? Someone else?

Share this post


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

Charisma, energy, authenticity, message. These might be the four things needed to win a general election, whomever has the most of these qualities will likely win. Trump had more energy, had a message (I thought it was awful, but he had one), and his bluntness could be passed off as "authentic." Clinton had none of these qualities. Bernie Sanders, a 70 year old Jewish Socialist arguably had a shot at defeating Clinton for the nomination because he had authenticity and a message, and arguably the other qualities as well. 

Who among the Democratic candidates has all or most of these qualities? 

Biden? Sanders? Warren? O'Rourke? Booker? Harris? Someone else?

Don't forget one thing, ideology

Sanders got crushed trough the whole South and Sun Belt in primaries because Democratic parties right there including your state are far more righter than his platform and this played in Hillary's victory

Trump got a punch in the blue wall because he was lefter than his party's economic positions on trade, it played a lot in industrial states like Michigan and Pennsilvania

+ 8 years of democrats

That's why I do believe that Biden is the best choice for Democrats in 2020

O Rourke comes second

Why?

Because Warren, Sanders, Booker and Harris are too much left

Why Democrats failed in the gubernational election in Florida? Because Gillum, too much left.

Same for Republicans, if they stay or choose too much right they will not win.

Example : Arizona. They choosed a Trump supporter and Democrats won.

Share this post


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

Why Democrats failed in the gubernational election in Florida? Because Gillum, too much left.

Also voter disenfranchisement, it was mainly the voter disenfranchisement.

Share this post


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

Charisma, energy, authenticity, message. These might be the four things needed to win a general election, whomever has the most of these qualities will likely win. Trump had more energy, had a message (I thought it was awful, but he had one), and his bluntness could be passed off as "authentic." Clinton had none of these qualities. Bernie Sanders, a 70 year old Jewish Socialist arguably had a shot at defeating Clinton for the nomination because he had authenticity and a message, and arguably the other qualities as well. 

Who among the Democratic candidates has all or most of these qualities? 

Biden? Sanders? Warren? O'Rourke? Booker? Harris? Someone else?

I don't know if this is the right thread for this, but I don't believe there's an obvious better. Although, in almost all cases, I'm personally loathe to suggest such a thing I believe in terms of 2020, assuming Trump is re-nominated, the best course of actions for most Democratic candidates who could be nominated would be a negative campaign (as in the classical usage of the term - that is, attacking one's opponent as a focus over - but not in exclusion - to promoting one's own platform and virtues - not referring to a campaign of negative subject matter, issue stances, tenor, and grim outlook and prognosis, of course). This may, in fact, in the current political and social zeitgeist, be the most pragmatic and strategic campaign style in 2020, especially if more criminal charges against Trump and his cronies come up, and the repercussions of Trump's arbitrary trade wars come back to hit American consumers hard on the prices of their favourite goods and commodities, both of which have very reasonable chances of occurring. As former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney (who actually made one of the eulogies at George H.W. Bush's funeral) famously said, "In politics, you need two things, friends, yes, certainly, but most of all, you need an enemy."

Share this post


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

Don't forget one thing, ideology

Sanders got crushed trough the whole South and Sun Belt in primaries because Democratic parties right there including your state are far more righter than his platform and this played in Hillary's victory

Trump got a punch in the blue wall because he was lefter than his party's economic positions on trade, it played a lot in industrial states like Michigan and Pennsilvania

+ 8 years of democrats

That's why I do believe that Biden is the best choice for Democrats in 2020

O Rourke comes second

Why?

Because Warren, Sanders, Booker and Harris are too much left

Why Democrats failed in the gubernational election in Florida? Because Gillum, too much left.

Same for Republicans, if they stay or choose too much right they will not win.

Example : Arizona. They choosed a Trump supporter and Democrats won.

I want to highlight that the southern primaries' main voting bloc is the black community that have had a long history of viewing the Clinton family in a positive light. In my state, during the 2016 primary, Sanders failed to win a single county because of the strong loyalty from the black community. And the counties that Sanders did well in, in that he got over 30% of the vote( Pickens, Oconee, Lexington, York, Greenville,Charleston, Anderson, and Horry) all have one common thread: young white college students. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What exactly do you mean by energy (personal energy?)?

Putting it in these terms, I would say Sanders had energy, authenticity, and message, but not charisma (a major deficit, but Clinton didn't have charisma either, so not a relative deficit in the primaries). Sanders was in this sense similar to Ron Paul, who also had energy, authenticity, and message, but not charisma.

Share this post


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

What exactly do you mean by energy (personal energy?)?

Putting it in these terms, I would say Sanders had energy, authenticity, and message, but not charisma (a major deficit, but Clinton didn't have charisma either, so not a relative deficit in the primaries). Sanders was in this sense similar to Ron Paul, who also had energy, authenticity, and message, but not charisma.

I mean personal energy. Stamina. Can go from rally to rally with no signs of exhaustion. In fact, they're energized by it. When they speak, they're energized and energizing, even if they aren't charismatic in other ways. I feel like Sanders, despite his age, had energy. Maybe Sanders got more press than Ron Paul ever did, but I don't feel like Ron Paul was as active. Although I disagree with Ron Paul on most domestic issues, I did go to one of his rallies with some of my Libertarian friends in 2013, when I returned to Texas after 5 years in NYC. I didn't get a sense of energy from him. He was scheduled to speak for 30 minutes, but I stayed for only about 20 minutes.

This is off topic, but it irked me that he kept calling Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi "progressives" when they aren't. They're mainly liberals. They want to just throw money at mainstream liberal institutions and keep a liberal status quo. A progressive is someone that wants to make active change along liberal lines and improve on things, rather than keep a status quo. A true progressive is anyone that wants to move forward, and not keep status quo and not revert back to the passed (the opposite would be regressive). One could be economically conservative and still progressive by this measure. I think it would be nearly impossible to be socially conservative and progressive, unless you are a selective progressive---progressive change for some but not for all. 

One problem Sanders and Ron Paul have is that they constantly repeat themselves. I wager they've been giving roughly the same speeches since the 1970s. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you mean personal energy, then I would agree that Ron Paul didn't evince the kind of energy Sanders did - the dogged campaigning-until-his-voice-is-hoarse sort of campaign trail energy. This was probably another weakness of Ron Paul's as a campaigner.

One of the more impressive feats of the Trump 2016 campaign was his authenticity to a large part of the electorate - he was a billionaire Manhattanite who was running a populist, working-class campaign. But I agree he had all 4 of those in his campaign.

 

Share this post


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

If you mean personal energy, then I would agree that Ron Paul didn't evince the kind of energy Sanders did - the dogged campaigning-until-his-voice-is-hoarse sort of campaign trail energy. This was probably another weakness of Ron Paul's as a campaigner.

One of the more impressive feats of the Trump 2016 campaign was his authenticity to a large part of the electorate - he was a billionaire Manhattanite who was running a populist, working-class campaign. But I agree he had all 4 of those in his campaign.

 

I'm still not convinced Trump was genuine or sincere. I still firmly think (as does John Boehner and a number of others) that him entering the 2015 Republican Primary race (despite having been a member of the Reform Party only two years previously) was a publicity stunt meant to distract from his ousting from "the Apprentice" and the "Miss America" and "Miss Universe" beauty pageants and on-the-horizon lawsuits coming over the hill over the fraudulent Trump University, and that he didn't ever expect to win, but to turn the run into a PR vehicle for the future (according to Boehner, he actually promised Melania specifically that'd she never have to live in the White House). His campaign is obviously the same showmanship and flamboyance he's been well-known for since the '80's, and his lack of real knowledge of issues and real solutions, but instead nebulously worded catch phrases, highly-generalized, unrealistic campaign promises, and veiled threats at political opponents, foreign nations, and whole demographics, was the substance of his campaign if you actually pay attention. However, it would seem (and again, Boehner and a number of others believe this too - I'm not alone) he gained much more traction than he expected, even surprising himself, but his ego, narcissism, and arrogance wouldn't allow him any avenue to bow out of a job he didn't really seem to want, and a piss poor candidate for. Now, we see his phoned-in, flip-flopping Presidency and his inexplicable, odd-bedfellows, revolving door Cabinet as evidence of this.

Share this post


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

@Patine

Did you follow the 2015-16 Trump campaign in detail?

Yes. And it struck me as vapid, hollow, vitriolic, uniformed, wish-fulfillment empty populism even then. And that was before I heard Boehner and others speak on this issue. I'm not generally impressed by empty populism targeting feelings, gut urges, fears, and hopes as opposed to rational, reasoned, sensible, and practical presentations of realistic platforms, regardless of whose doing them (and the world today has a resurgence of those styles of campaigns across many nations not previously seen - in terms of campaign style and presentation) since the '20' to '50's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

At what point do you think Trump switched gears, and went from a PR vehicle to a genuine bid?

When he surprised himself and started winning, despite that not being his original goal, or even (seemingly) desire. But that shift seems to have been caused by ego more than a newfound true desire or passion. Or so Boehner says, as he says Trump laid out his plans to him at a golf game. And Boehner seems to lack a true motivation (or imagination) to concoct such a story up out of pure, spiteful sabotage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

When did he surprise himself and start winning?

Trump's point of view of exactly when he considered the "scales to tip" would have been his own personal judgement, and might not be where I would set it. But it seems there was such a point. Plus, Trump's greatest talent in life, better than as a businessman, better than as a "wheeler-dealer," and certainly better than as a politician, is being a showman - you can clearly see that as far back as the '80's. Thus, like a good actor is, he is almost certainly very difficult to read and predict just from a judgement at the time, attempting standard Machiavellian reading of character accurately. Jeb Bush, Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Bernie Sanders, by comparison, practically wear their motivations on their sleeves (note, that is a relative and comparative statement). However, NOT being a politician or knowledgeable or competent or experienced in politics, his ACTUAL campaign would logically be much harder for him to disguise that way - unless one were of the sort who was susceptible to populism and cults of personality, or whose desire for "outside change" caused them not to carefully scrutinize his campaign.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm asking because Trump announced in mid-June 2015. The first poll completed after that of the Republican primaries had him in first place. A few weeks later, he was consistently polling in first place. There was no point after that where he didn't consistently poll in first place.

Can you give a link to Boehner's claims here? I'm trying to get exactly what Boehner claimed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

I'm asking because Trump announced in mid-June 2015. The first poll completed after that of the Republican primaries had him in first place. A few weeks later, he was consistently polling in first place. There was no point after that where he didn't consistently poll in first place.

Can you give a link to Boehner's claims here? I'm trying to get exactly what Boehner claimed.

It was an interview - only the second he gave since retiring as Speaker (the first mostly dealing with how relieved he was not to be Speaker anymore, his complete lack of desire to return to politics, and how his wife and he had never had a more enjoyable marriage and lives since they were first married after college). The second one (the one I'm referring) I believe was early this year, but I didn't bookmark it at the time, so it might take several days to find again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing I can find after an admittedly brief search was iterations on this:

"“I think Donald Trump promised Melania that he would not win, she didn’t have to worry about ever living in the White House,” Boehner said at the Mackinac Policy Conference in Michigan. “It’s probably why she doesn’t look real happy every day—well, maybe one reason,” he said, chuckling."

https://www.newsweek.com/melania-trump-doesnt-look-real-happy-because-donald-promised-he-wouldnt-win-954654

This quote is pretty weak, and isn't exactly what you're attributing to Boehner, so I assume there's another quote out there relating to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine

After more searching, although I can find a report claiming Trump and Boehner golfed together at some point, I can find nowhere a claim by Boehner that Trump told him his presidential bid was a PR stunt, or anything similar. The only quote I can find from Boehner addressing something like this is the above one, where he says "I think Donald Trump promised Melania." There's no indication of why he thinks that, and he doesn't seem to claim he has direct insider knowledge from what I can tell.

I'd be happy to be corrected! Barring that, you're going to have to find a better example of someone holding this theory.

This theory doesn't make sense on multiple levels to me, but again, I'm happy to consider countervailing evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My best guess at this point is Boehner's source is Michael Wolffe's book Fire and Fury.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/melania-trump-was-in-tears-as-president-won-election-book

A summary of the relevant part from the book in the article is

"First lady Melania Trump, who was assured by President Trump that he would never win the election, was in tears on election night as the numbers tilted toward her husband, a new book on the president’s first year in office says."

I wouldn't put faith in any particular claim from Wolffe's book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/9/2018 at 11:12 PM, vcczar said:

Charisma, energy, authenticity, message. These might be the four things needed to win a general election, whomever has the most of these qualities will likely win. Trump had more energy, had a message (I thought it was awful, but he had one), and his bluntness could be passed off as "authentic." Clinton had none of these qualities. Bernie Sanders, a 70 year old Jewish Socialist arguably had a shot at defeating Clinton for the nomination because he had authenticity and a message, and arguably the other qualities as well. 

Who among the Democratic candidates has all or most of these qualities? 

Biden? Sanders? Warren? O'Rourke? Booker? Harris? Someone else?

I think only really Sanders has all of these.

O'Rourke is in many ways, a white Obama, so he has the energy, and charisma, but like Obama he doesn't really have a real message. what was Obama's message? It was vacoas at the best of times, "hope" "change" not much there. Authenticity wise, not good, they both act out a role of a progressive, and yet they never seem to really do anything that would help people.

Warren I think does have a message, she wants capitalism to work for everyone, she wants to regulate us to equality. Authenticity wise I do believe she's a true believer in what she says. I don't think that she's very charismatic, or energetic.  

Booker doesn't really have a message, nor does he have authenticity. He seems bland and uninteresting, terrible thing to be if you're a politician. I can't make a call on his energy.

Biden however does have a message, he's a "working man's man" he can truly relate to the working class even though he was born into a wealthy family, so obviously he doesn't have the authenticity, I am, however, willing to say confidently that he is charismatic to most people. I'm not willing to comment about his energy.

Harris, She's a cop, not good folks. Harris's message is (and it could be argued this is true of all the other neo-lib politicians) simple; Fuck the poor, she said herself people only deserved to have a home and afford food if they work a full time job, but she fronts a progressive image. She's not very charismatic, or exceeding in the quality of energy. 

Do note that this is coming from an avowed socialist, so it might be a bit biased.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...