Stephen Day here. Paid subscriber and regular reader of WUTP, practically since you started.
I’m also originally from St. Louis! (Now living in bellwether Door County, WI.)
I do a ton of political reading, Opinions, you, polls, obsessively, and there is one thing no one seems to cover in presidential politics, and that is a candidate’s perceived charisma.
Presidential politics are largely television events. Excitement over charisma is very hard to measure, but I believe it is critical.
In 2016, Trump had far more charisma as a candidate than Hillary could muster.
In 2020, I would argue Biden had more, in the sense that he represented something of a return to sanity.
Obama had far more charisma than McCain (had some but not enough) and Romney.
GWB, more than Gore (too staid and wonky) and Kerry (too unwilling to toot his own horn).
Clinton was far more charismatic than GHWB and Bob Dole, even with accusations of womanizing.
That said, GHWB, was more charismatic than Dukakis (the Kitty remark?).
Reagan, a former actor, completely annihilates Carter and Mondale (I will not exploit my opponent’s youth and inexperience…).
Carter? Well, he represented a dramatic calming break from the Watergate years…
Ford wasn’t elected…
Nixon represented a return to adults back in the room against Humphrey and McGovern in the tumult of Vietnam.
Johnson was a powerful campaigner who succeeded in scaring the bejesus of people regarding Goldwater.
And clearly Kennedy was far more charismatic than Nixon on television, although I know you know how dicey that one was. Still, Kennedy represented the future of a new decade in a way that Nixon did not.
People vote their emotions first. This dynamic, in my view, is the most important since the television age.
Have read about what doesn’t seem to make much difference. Has anybody studied what does make a difference? Stephen Day does seem to have a point about charisma. But that should mean that Harris is way ahead of the orange guy. He’s never had charisma. Rather he speaks to the people who: 1)think there are simple “common sense” answers to very complex problems 2)want someone to force the country to the place they want 3)want someone to blame for all the ills and 4)want to unleash all the venom they’d been sort of keeping out of the public view. What does it take to move the electorate to vote for someone who: 1) understands that compromise is how democracy works 2) pays attention to (but doesn’t blindly follow)technocrats who understand how things actually work 3) wants to bring folks together (e pluribus unum) and 4) knows that a country can not exist if the population does not hold even the most basic facts in common?
It’s well known that Donald Trump doesn’t like sleeping away from “home” and he has cranked up thousands of miles on his old 757 to fly back to New York. It’s also where Melania hangs out, and for better or worse Trump has to keep an eye on this less than thrilled author, particularly at this point of the campaign. Nothing Trump has done this far makes particular sense, so an appearance at MSG is hardly out of line.
As someone who voted for years in a state in which my vote counted for nothing, I hope more candidates will hold rallies where they probably will not win. I went to a Haley rally in NC the day before she dropped out. She was great. I will remember that more than her tepid (and politically necessary) support of Trump.
Gabe, Does this research apply only to national presidential elections? Does it apply to Senatorial, Congressional, or state wide races?
Hi Gabe,
Stephen Day here. Paid subscriber and regular reader of WUTP, practically since you started.
I’m also originally from St. Louis! (Now living in bellwether Door County, WI.)
I do a ton of political reading, Opinions, you, polls, obsessively, and there is one thing no one seems to cover in presidential politics, and that is a candidate’s perceived charisma.
Presidential politics are largely television events. Excitement over charisma is very hard to measure, but I believe it is critical.
In 2016, Trump had far more charisma as a candidate than Hillary could muster.
In 2020, I would argue Biden had more, in the sense that he represented something of a return to sanity.
Obama had far more charisma than McCain (had some but not enough) and Romney.
GWB, more than Gore (too staid and wonky) and Kerry (too unwilling to toot his own horn).
Clinton was far more charismatic than GHWB and Bob Dole, even with accusations of womanizing.
That said, GHWB, was more charismatic than Dukakis (the Kitty remark?).
Reagan, a former actor, completely annihilates Carter and Mondale (I will not exploit my opponent’s youth and inexperience…).
Carter? Well, he represented a dramatic calming break from the Watergate years…
Ford wasn’t elected…
Nixon represented a return to adults back in the room against Humphrey and McGovern in the tumult of Vietnam.
Johnson was a powerful campaigner who succeeded in scaring the bejesus of people regarding Goldwater.
And clearly Kennedy was far more charismatic than Nixon on television, although I know you know how dicey that one was. Still, Kennedy represented the future of a new decade in a way that Nixon did not.
People vote their emotions first. This dynamic, in my view, is the most important since the television age.
Thanks for all you do!
Drumpf is not interested in winning anything. America needs to be aware of what the current republicans are trying to do to our wonderful country.
I believe he's doing an event at Madison Square Gardens to feed his sick ego.
Have read about what doesn’t seem to make much difference. Has anybody studied what does make a difference? Stephen Day does seem to have a point about charisma. But that should mean that Harris is way ahead of the orange guy. He’s never had charisma. Rather he speaks to the people who: 1)think there are simple “common sense” answers to very complex problems 2)want someone to force the country to the place they want 3)want someone to blame for all the ills and 4)want to unleash all the venom they’d been sort of keeping out of the public view. What does it take to move the electorate to vote for someone who: 1) understands that compromise is how democracy works 2) pays attention to (but doesn’t blindly follow)technocrats who understand how things actually work 3) wants to bring folks together (e pluribus unum) and 4) knows that a country can not exist if the population does not hold even the most basic facts in common?
If that is what Trump is doing, well, there is nothing quite like rolling the dice and seeing what turns up.
It’s well known that Donald Trump doesn’t like sleeping away from “home” and he has cranked up thousands of miles on his old 757 to fly back to New York. It’s also where Melania hangs out, and for better or worse Trump has to keep an eye on this less than thrilled author, particularly at this point of the campaign. Nothing Trump has done this far makes particular sense, so an appearance at MSG is hardly out of line.
As someone who voted for years in a state in which my vote counted for nothing, I hope more candidates will hold rallies where they probably will not win. I went to a Haley rally in NC the day before she dropped out. She was great. I will remember that more than her tepid (and politically necessary) support of Trump.
E.G. Lucas Kunce hitting every county seems to be helping.