|
American elections - it's charisma, stupid
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Arbiter |
Well, I agree that "charisma" accounts for the outcome more so than do the purported positions of the candidates on various issues. If defined broadly enough, it may well be the most influential factor, though I don't think it can single-handedly determine the outcome of a presidential election.
I do not agree that it is an issue likely to resolve itself as both parties realize the need to nominate the most charismatic candidate possible. First of all, there is an inherent subjectivity to charisma, such that a person might be regarded as charismatic by some, but not by others. Quite a few people, apparently, found charisma in George W. Bush, but many others do not.
What is relevant in a presidential election is the perception of a certain subset of persons who are both prone to making decisions based on such things and who are also non-partisan enough to consider both candidates. Unfortunately, I suspect that this subset of individuals is also typically one which does not form an opinion about candidates until very late in the presidential election process, which does not participate in primaries (or even follow them closely,) and tends not to respond to polls or responds to them in a manner which will not be refleted in their later behavior. Consequently, it will be difficult to predict what candidates will most appeal to that subset with a great deal of accuracy.
Even if somewhat accurate predictions can be made (for instance, it's a safe bet someone like Gore won't appeal,) there is a problem of relative perception. That is, two candidates are unlikely to be identical with respect to their charisma, and as they are increasingly compared with one another as the election progresses, the less charismatic will be increasingly regarded as uncharismatic, and the more charismatic will be increasingly regarded as especially charismatic. This cognitive bias will eliminate the possibility of charisma 'canceling out' as the author of that piece proposes.
Finally, even if charisma were somehow eliminated as a factor, I doubt that the elections would then be decided on the issues. It's more likely they would be decided on some other vagaries which, like charisma, are difficult or impossible to control for. |
|
|
| iammesol |
| I'm not voting for a reason. |
|
|
| Project-K |
| quote: | Originally posted by Arbiter
I do not agree that it is an issue likely to resolve itself as both parties realize the need to nominate the most charismatic candidate possible. First of all, there is an inherent subjectivity to charisma, such that a person might be regarded as charismatic by some, but not by others. Quite a few people, apparently, found charisma in George W. Bush, but many others do not. |
Obviousely there's the matter of individual perception - but I think it's also universally agreed that bush related more to the 'common man' than kerry, and that it had an impact on the results of the election. You'll find people had a great number of good things to say about kerry, but even amongst his most devout supporters, he wasn't considered particularly charismatic.
| quote: |
What is relevant in a presidential election is the perception of a certain subset of persons who are both prone to making decisions based on such things and who are also non-partisan enough to consider both candidates. Unfortunately, I suspect that this subset of individuals is also typically one which does not form an opinion about candidates until very late in the presidential election process, which does not participate in primaries (or even follow them closely,) and tends not to respond to polls or responds to them in a manner which will not be refleted in their later behavior. Consequently, it will be difficult to predict what candidates will most appeal to that subset with a great deal of accuracy. |
Maybe these 'indecisive' voters are more likely to be affected by shallow concepts like charisma, seeing as most who care deeply about the issues are usually more involved in the process and make their decision relatively early. So that, while innacurate, could be one way of predicting the trend. The author was basicly saying that while charisma is far from the most important factor, the democrats will always vote democrat and the republicans will always vote republican, so the X factor will be who's left, and the things that influence their decision - such as charisma. But yes, I do agree this can be very hard to measure. Still, it's a good thing to think about.
| quote: |
Finally, even if charisma were somehow eliminated as a factor, I doubt that the elections would then be decided on the issues. It's more likely they would be decided on some other vagaries which, like charisma, are difficult or impossible to control for. |
Probably. Or, maybe these people would just stop voting because they couldn't make up their minds anymore (not that this would be a bad thing). |
|
|
|
|
