Most Charismatic President in US History

[vcczar 1,224]

The following presidents have often been considered charismatic, even by people that disagree with them. Who do you think was the most charismatic of them all? Try to divorce yourself from your own political biases in determining their personal magnetism, if possible. 

[Harris/Ernst 2020 0]

FDR When he talked we listened 

[vcczar 1,224]

I think AJ and TR are handicapped by being pre-radio and TV

[Herbert Hoover 199]

For me, this choice was about Reagan vs JFK. Both were undeniably the most charismatic presidents that we have ever had. followed by Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, and Clinton. 

I ultimately chose Reagan due to the overwhelming power of his charisma not only allowing all scandals during his own time to not stick, but for giving him the "Conservative Icon" president he has today. I feel that JFK's image may not have lasted in the same way that Reagan's has. 

[vcczar 1,224]

My ranking would be:

1) T. Roosevelt

It was by pure charisma that he could emerge second--as a 3rd party nominee--in the 1912 election. 

2) JFK

His charisma was such, that the entire country, more or less, mourned his death. His charisma outshined his Catholicism in a time, when there was some fear among voters that he would be taking order from the Pope. 

3) Reagan

His optimism and TV persona pulled even Democrats into a more optimistic view of America. None of the Republican's today, who claim to be following Reagan, emulate this optimism, or even Reagan's eagerness to compromise with the other party to get things done. He was able to be above his scandals, as well, through this personality. 

4) Andrew Jackson 

He is harder to estimate, since he lived in a time before radio, TV, internet, etc. Yet, Jackson's populism and charisma carried him to victory despite the piles and piles of criticism, controversy and insults. In a way, he was the first Donald Trump, except with some experience. Despite his personal wealth, he was able to be a surrogate for the common man, and the common struggles against the elites. As an embodies will of the people, he was virtually unstoppable. Any Democrat wishing to get ahead, had to be Jacksonian. Had Jackson lived 100 years later, he might even be higher on this list. I admit his charisma, but I personally think he was a terrible president. 

5) Bill Clinton

He was able to defeat a rather popular president, after emerging from sex scandals and having blown his key note speech in 1988. Despite mounting criticism and controversy, Clinton's personality, and perhaps competency, has somehow made him forgivable. 

6) Barack Obama (especially 2008-2009 Obama)

One would have to have charisma to defeat Hillary Clinton in the primaries, and John McCain in the general election as an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama during the War on Terror. I'd argue his charisma went from a "5" for 2008 to a "4" for 2012, mostly through disappointment, since expectations were so high. He is placed 6th, because he couldn't maintain the high charisma, I think. I think it could return in his post-presidency as a surrogate, however. 

7) FDR (especially 1932, 1936, and 1940)

FDR was helped a lot by the Great Depression and WWII. He was able to project the optimism of being America in a much more trying time than Reagan; although, arguably not any more dangerous, being that Reagan operated in a nuclear age. The fire-side chats were turned on in about every household that had a radio. I have him ranking 7th, primarily because it's hard to estimate his true charisma. He faced no real threat in any of his primaries, or in the general election. Hoover had not a chance, and the challengers to FDR were regional figures. The GOP was too disorganized to field a legitimate candidate until 1944. FDR's amazing competency and political skill carried him more than his personal magnetism as great as it was. I can see the argument of placing him at #5. He could be the most charismatic, but his competition for his office was too weak to accurately judge the personal magnetism--Herbert Hoover, Alf Landon, Wendell Wilkie, Thomas Dewey, while competent, smart men, had the charisma of a Romney or HClinton at best. 

8) Donald Trump

I admit, it was personal charisma that would have allowed Trump to win, despite his well-known notorious behavior during the campaign--both primary and general. There is not a single politician that could have pulled this off in 2016. Whereas Clinton could use the word "deplorable," and have it weigh her down throughout the general. Trump could say anything, and it would rub off in a week or less. He does not rank as high as the others, since a large minority probably believes he is the total opposite of charisma, since his language, looks, etc., repel rather than attract. In my book, as much as I dislike him, he's a 4 in charisma. But to me, he could have been a 2, if the election had not gone his way. One could argue that a lack of charisma is the reason why Clinton (mostly universally uncharismatic) is likely to defeat Trump by 3 million votes. For this reason, Trump is 8th. Could Trump have beaten Cory Booker or another young, charismatic, energetic Democrat? 

[Patine 471]

16 minutes ago, vcczar said:

2) JFK

His charisma was such, that the entire country, more or less, mourned his death. His charisma outshined his Catholicism in a time, when there was some fear among voters that he would be taking order from the Pope.

I'm not sure I fully understand this paranoid religious thing in much of the US about other actual CHRISTIAN denominations outside Calvinist/Anglican/Weslayan/Lutherna-based Christianity (I noticed it with Romney too, actually). Here in Canada, we had the last party leader of the federal Progressive Conservatives, who led them into a merger with the Canadian Alliance to form the modern Conservative Party of Canada in 2003 named Peter McKay, who was also a serious and only closely defeated contender for the new party's leadership (losing in the end to Stephen Harper), a party which won federal government in 2006 and held it until 2015, and, until he announced his retirement shortly before last year's election, McKay was often considered a strong potential for the next party and he held several significant cabinet posts, such as Minister of Foreign Affairs (almost the same duties as the US Secretary of States) and Minister of National Defense. I point this out because he was a fully practicing Jehovah's Witness - in fact, at the height of the Harper Government's power, he was actually rated as the most politically powerful Witness in the world at that time.  But his religion, considered by modern many Christians and others to be strange, derivative, deviant, a scriptural heterodox and even a weird cult, never became a significant issue ONCE in his political career.

[jvikings1 40]

2 hours ago, Patine said:

I'm not sure I fully understand this paranoid religious thing in much of the US about other actual CHRISTIAN denominations outside Calvinist/Anglican/Weslayan/Lutherna-based Christianity (I noticed it with Romney too, actually). Here in Canada, we had the last party leader of the federal Progressive Conservatives, who led them into a merger with the Canadian Alliance to form the modern Conservative Party of Canada in 2003 named Peter McKay, who was also a serious and only closely defeated contender for the new party's leadership (losing in the end to Stephen Harper), a party which won federal government in 2006 and held it until 2015, and, until he announced his retirement shortly before last year's election, McKay was often considered a strong potential for the next party and he held several significant cabinet posts, such as Minister of Foreign Affairs (almost the same duties as the US Secretary of States) and Minister of National Defense. I point this out because he was a fully practicing Jehovah's Witness - in fact, at the height of the Harper Government's power, he was actually rated as the most politically powerful Witness in the world at that time.  But his religion, considered by modern many Christians and others to be strange, derivative, deviant, a scriptural heterodox and even a weird cult, never became a significant issue ONCE in his political career.

I know what you mean.  Unfortunately, this will probably always stay the same.  Although, Mormons really are not Christians, that is no reason to not vote for someone.  I think that not voting or voting for someone based on their religion is kind of like not voting or voting for someone because of their race, gender, etc.

[vcczar 1,224]

55 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I know what you mean.  Unfortunately, this will probably always stay the same.  Although, Mormons really are not Christians, that is no reason to not vote for someone.  I think that not voting or voting for someone based on their religion is kind of like not voting or voting for someone because of their race, gender, etc.

I don't think we should vote on people based on religion, gender, race or any demographic. It should be based solely on their platform (at least, specifically on what they can accomplish from it), on their relevant experience, their depth of knowledge on the issues and on their temperament for the job. The first is probably the most important. The others are harder to rank. 

JViking, would you vote for a African-American, transgendered, Muslim if they ran on a Libertarian Republican platform? 

[jvikings1 40]

On ‎12‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 8:05 PM, vcczar said:

I don't think we should vote on people based on religion, gender, race or any demographic. It should be based solely on their platform (at least, specifically on what they can accomplish from it), on their relevant experience, their depth of knowledge on the issues and on their temperament for the job. The first is probably the most important. The others are harder to rank. 

JViking, would you vote for a African-American, transgendered, Muslim if they ran on a Libertarian Republican platform? 

I don't care if they are black, white, Latino, etc.  This can be seen in my high regard of Rubio and Cruz among the GOP.  I would look at what the person believes.  If they are a Muslim, but believe in the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Constitution, then I would consider them.  If I conclude that they are the closest to what I believe and thought they would be best for the country, then I would vote for them.