Is America electing the coolest guy as President?

[Edouard 8]

If I dare to put the question it's because I checked all presidential tickets for the Democrats and the Republicans.

It seems that the winner of the presidential final race, independently of the party is also always the coolest, Republican or Democrat.

And the last less charismatic among the 2 final candidates who wins the presidency seems to be Truman in 1948.

[Joshen 0]

America usually elects the more charismatic candidate because that candidate can connect with voters more

[Patine 247]

1 hour ago, Joshen said:

America usually elects the more charismatic candidate because that candidate can connect with voters more

Or at least initially, on the surface, give the illusion of it, though usually ends being a disappointment in that area.

[ThePotatoWalrus 93]

Yes, Trump, with his celebrity connections was definitely seen as the "cooler" candidate as opposed to his opponent. Same thing goes for Clinton, JFK, Reagan, and definitely Obama.

The only people who would say no are choosing it just because they don't like Trump. There is literally no other reason why they would actually choose that Americans don't pick the more charismatic candidate.

The only person who would choose abstain would probably be @Patine

[Patine 247]

2 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Yes, Trump, with his celebrity connections was definitely seen as the "cooler" candidate as opposed to his opponent. Same thing goes for Clinton, JFK, Reagan, and definitely Obama.

The only people who would say no are choosing it just because they don't like Trump. There is literally no other reason why they would actually choose that Americans don't pick the more charismatic candidate.

The only person who would choose abstain would probably be @Patine

Rocky De La Fuante 2016. That's who I would have voted for if I could have. The least of a whole big batch of evils (and that includes all the Third Party and Independent candidates that year, too). What a HORRID General Election! I know I keep saying it, but I mean it...

[Patine 247]

2 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Yes, Trump, with his celebrity connections was definitely seen as the "cooler" candidate as opposed to his opponent. Same thing goes for Clinton, JFK, Reagan, and definitely Obama.

The only people who would say no are choosing it just because they don't like Trump. There is literally no other reason why they would actually choose that Americans don't pick the more charismatic candidate.

The only person who would choose abstain would probably be @Patine

Also, if you get in the habit of voting in the candidate with the most charisma, and tend to often overlook many other important factors, or at least become inclined to do so because of candidate personality and fervor, trouble could EASILY lay ahead. *cough* Germany 1933 *cough*

[ThePotatoWalrus 93]

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

Also, if you get in the habit of voting in the candidate with the most charisma, and tend to often overlook many other important factors, or at least become inclined to do so because of candidate personality and fervor, trouble could EASILY lay ahead. *cough* Germany 1933 *cough*

I think that's a little bit of an exaggeration but I see your point.

[Rarename91 0]

9 hours ago, Patine said:

Rocky De La Fuante 2016. That's who I would have voted for if I could have. The least of a whole big batch of evils (and that includes all the Third Party and Independent candidates that year, too). What a HORRID General Election! I know I keep saying it, but I mean it...

he was 16 years too late for the reform party they would have gotten a million votes in 2000 with him. pat just didnt belong in reform party. 

[Sunnymentoaddict 31]

The last presidential winner that had terrible charisma was either HW bush, or Nixon. But then again both ran against relatively weak candidates, so their lack of charisma was negated by even duller candidates. 

[Sunnymentoaddict 31]

13 hours ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Yes, Trump, with his celebrity connections was definitely seen as the "cooler" candidate as opposed to his opponent. Same thing goes for Clinton, JFK, Reagan, and definitely Obama.

The only people who would say no are choosing it just because they don't like Trump. There is literally no other reason why they would actually choose that Americans don't pick the more charismatic candidate.

The only person who would choose abstain would probably be @Patine

It is obvious that I am far from a supporter of him, but the man had charisma. Not just celebrity connections, but just from managing to dominate headlines through his absurd antics. And Clinton- having been involved with some form of government since the 70's- played it safe. Maybe too safe since she's trying to run both as a third term Obama, and her own presidency-while being attacked from the left(Sanders) and the right(well the GoP). And well, being safe in an election when millions feel the future is uncertain might be wrong(granted she did win the popular vote, but only a plurality though). 

To quote Kent Brockman from the Simpsons, "Democracy simply doesn't work."

[Edouard 8]

37 minutes ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

The last presidential winner that had terrible charisma was either HW bush, or Nixon. But then again both ran against relatively weak candidates, so their lack of charisma was negated by even duller candidates. 

Of course!

Here is my own check

Clinton Trump => Trump the coolest and wins

Obama Romney => Obama the coolest and wins

Obama McCain => Obama the coolest and wins

Kerry Bush  => Bush the coolest (or charismatic) and wins

Gore Bush  => Bush the closest of the people (cool/charismatic) and wins

Bill Clinton Dole => Bill Clinton the most charismatic

Clinton G.W.H.Bush => Clinton the most charismatic

Dukakis G.H.W. Bush => G.H. Bush the most charismatic

Mondale Reagan => Reagan the coolest and most charismatic

Carter Reagan => Reagan the most charismatic

Carter Ford => Carter by few (look at the images of Carter during his campain)

McGovern Nixon => Nixon the most charismatic

Humphrey Nixon => Nixon of course

L.B.Johnson Goldwater => L.B.Johnson the most charismatic

Kennedy Nixon => Kennedy the most charismatic

Stevenson Eisenhover => Eisenhover the most charismatic

Truman Dewey => Dewey the most charismatic (he should even have won)

Roosevelt Dewey 1944 => Close but Roosevelt was an hero

Roosevelt 1940 Roosevelt

Same 1936

And same 1932.

[Sunnymentoaddict 31]

40 minutes ago, Sami said:

 

Truman Dewey => Dewey the most charismatic (he should even have won)

 

Truman benefited from ironically being attacked from the left and the right. Republican attacks of Truman being too soft on the USSR were diminished by the fact Henry Wallace was saying Truman is not doing enough to have open relations with the nation(to end the burgeoning cold war); plus he-Wallace- refused to openly disavow his endorsement from the Communist Party of the United States. So Truman can't be too soft on the USSR if literal communist are endorsing his opponent! Plus from the right, Strom Thurmond was saying Truman is not conservative enough on social issues. So if you were a potential Wallace voter, you couldn't say Truman was a conservative if there's a man attacking him from that angle. And the GoP.

Dewey, if I recall, wanted to expand social security and public housing funding, but the Robert Taft wing the party didn't want a president that would essentially copy+paste the New Deal; so Truman openly attacked the division there. One is left wondering where the GoP would be today if a liberal Republican won in 1948 when the GoP controlled Congress at the time. Would Dewey be forced to go the center/center-right, or would he be forced out of the party? 

Also, Nate Silver and the Upshot didn't exist back then, so political polling wasn't as well established as it is nowadays. 

[Patine 247]

4 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

Truman benefited from ironically being attacked from the left and the right. Republican attacks of Truman being too soft on the USSR were diminished by the fact Henry Wallace was saying Truman is not doing enough to have open relations with the nation(to end the burgeoning cold war); plus he-Wallace- refused to openly disavow his endorsement from the Communist Party of the United States. So Truman can't be too soft on the USSR if literal communist are endorsing his opponent! Plus from the right, Strom Thurmond was saying Truman is not conservative enough on social issues. So if you were a potential Wallace voter, you couldn't say Truman was a conservative if there's a man attacking him from that angle. And the GoP.

Dewey, if I recall, wanted to expand social security and public housing funding, but the Robert Taft wing the party didn't want a president that would essentially copy+paste the New Deal; so Truman openly attacked the division there. One is left wondering where the GoP would be today if a liberal Republican won in 1948 when the GoP controlled Congress at the time. Would Dewey be forced to go the center/center-right, or would he be forced out of the party? 

Also, Nate Silver and the Upshot didn't exist back then, so political polling wasn't as well established as it is nowadays. 

Well, David Duke endorsing Trump and Henry Kissinger endorsing Clinton in 2016 didn't seem to cost either of them any votes, even though neither endorsement was formally refuted.

[Sunnymentoaddict 31]

Just now, Patine said:

Well, David Duke endorsing Trump and Henry Kissinger endorsing Clinton in 2016 didn't seem to cost either of them any votes, even though neither endorsement was formally refuted.

I actually think it did. I mean Trump won, but the areas he should of won, he won by less or not at all. Texas-32nd district went from voting for Romney and McCain to voting for Clinton in 2016. This is the typical middle-upper middle class suburban community that is becoming just diverse racially and economically(employment wise), and were probably turned off by his comments regarding race(not just David Duke alone).  But polarization is a hell of a drug in the US. I think this was the first senate election in over a 100 years where the winning senator belonged to the party that won the state's electoral college vote. Essentially meaning there was little to no cross ticket voting. And for many traditional Republicans that had problems with Trump, they probably held their and voted for him. And same went for Clinton voters. 

[Joshen 0]

7 hours ago, Sunnymentoaddict said:

The last presidential winner that had terrible charisma was either HW bush, or Nixon. But then again both ran against relatively weak candidates, so their lack of charisma was negated by even duller candidates. 

They also had favorable political environments, with HW being the VP for a popular Reagan administration and LBJ leaving office with a 50% approval rating.

[Patine 247]

18 minutes ago, Joshen said:

They also had favorable political environments, with HW being the VP for a popular Reagan administration and LBJ leaving office with a 50% approval rating.

It's just unfortunate that the firm entrenchment, unchallengability, and severe limiting of the political discourse and conversation by the power of the Party Duopoly in the U.S. and the institutional marginalization of all other political parties and candidates (even the dismissive lump term "Third Parties and Independents" as a "wastebasket collective" for all political parties and candidates outside the Duopoly being in common parlance) meant that, for the U.S. Presidents above who did win, except arguably Truman and Clinton, they ONLY had to worry about one candidate by the General Election who had any realistic chance of winning or was a real political threat. A more dynamic and pluralistic election system where often ignored or suppressed can be more reliably brought to the fore, where a candidate has to face-off against more than just realistic opponent, and the "bottle-neck" of the Primary system where so-called "big-tent" parties force a nomination of a candidate who doesn't even truly represent the majority of their own party by the nomination, and CERTAINLY can't represent anything but a small fraction of the national population, but only has one viable opponent, so the system breaks down further...

[Sunnymentoaddict 31]

9 hours ago, Joshen said:

They also had favorable political environments, with HW being the VP for a popular Reagan administration and LBJ leaving office with a 50% approval rating.

True. if you are a capable challenger to the sitting party(say Gov Nelson Rockefeller in 64, or Mario Cuomo in 88) would you put yourself through the mental stress of running a campaign that you know will go in not of your favor? So that is another excellent point on why they both won in landslides. 

[RFK/JFKfan 11]

No way was Dewey more charismatic than Truman, even if he was better-looking. The main reason for Truman closing the gap is because he ran a more energetic campaign, whereas Dewey's was bland and uninspiring.  One great anecdote I've read about the 1948 campaign is the stark contrast in their styles of speeches - Truman would speak along the lines of "hey guys, what don't ya give a huge round of applause to my wife?". In contrast, Dewey would say "It is now my honour to introduce to you my wife." In other words, Dewey's way of speaking was much more uptight and snooty. Dewey was essentially a middle-of-the-road New York politician along the lines of Nelson Rockefeller, Andrew Cuomo and Michael Bloomberg. Yes, capable of winning many votes, and yes, a competent administrator, but not the kind of politician to bring out huge crowds. The most charismatic of the 1930s and 1940s' Republican nominees was, by some distance, Wendell Willkie, although he still had little compared to FDR. 

Of course the most obvious example of 'the more charismatic candidate losing' would surely be 1896.