Presidential Elections are 99% Personality and 1% Everything Else..

[88keys]

1992: Bush I vs Clinton
1996: Clinton vs Dole
2000: Gore vs Bush II
2004: Bush II vs Kerry
2008: McCain vs Obama
2012: Obama v Rmoney?

So it should come as no surprise when Obama wins again in November.

 

[dullard]

I'd say charisma wins far more than just personality. Although the two are linked, they aren't the same. Charisma adds in good looks, which I bet most of us would say without a doubt the better looking man won in all cases since TV debates.

 

[88keys]

Well I can retitle the thread to personality, charisma, looks etc. but we all get the idea.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

See my sig.

 

[Doppel]

This goes with my new theory I came up with this morning that says all things equal voters will NOT go with the elitist asshole who is completely unrelateable to them.

Using this fact, you can see why Gore lost, Kerry lost--now mccain was not that terrible, though--and why Romney will lose.

 

[HomerJS]

If that's the case why didn't Gingrich win the primary?

 

[88keys]

^^LMAO!

 

[Rainsford]

The general idea seems to be that electing based on "personality" is a bad thing...but is it really? After all, the "everything else" seems to consist mostly of specific views on very specific issues. But if history has taught us anything, it's that the big things a President faces are the things nobody saw coming. Electing someone because you like their tax plan isn't going to do you much good if they have to deal with a war, or a terrorist attack, or a diplomatic crisis, or an economic collapse. You're much better off, IMO, voting for someone who seems like they'll do a good job no matter what the challenge is. And that ultimately comes down to personality or one of the fuzzier ways of judging a candidate.

 

[Rainsford]

If that's the case why didn't Gingrich primary?

Because he had a ton of personality, and none of it was presidential. Out of all the Republican primary candidates, Romney is the only one I can even picture sitting in the Oval Office getting down to business. The rest of them, including Gingrich, had plenty of personality and ideas (or gimmicks if you're feeling less charitable), but not a single one of them came across like the kind of person you'd want making a decision about invading a foreign country to kill a terrorist mastermind. The "3 AM phone call" question, if you will 😉

 

[K1052]

Invention, my dear friends, is 93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% evaporation, and 2% butterscotch ripple.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

The general idea seems to be that electing based on "personality" is a bad thing...but is it really? After all, the "everything else" seems to consist mostly of specific views on very specific issues. But if history has taught us anything, it's that the big things a President faces are the things nobody saw coming. Electing someone because you like their tax plan isn't going to do you much good if they have to deal with a war, or a terrorist attack, or a diplomatic crisis, or an economic collapse. You're much better off, IMO, voting for someone who seems like they'll do a good job no matter what the challenge is. And that ultimately comes down to personality or one of the fuzzier ways of judging a candidate.

I'd say "that depends". If someone seems stable and rational under pressure then sure, I'd say that everything else being equal, such a person is certainly preferable to someone who has shown to fall apart in a crisis. But then we have the mask that politicians adopt, the public side of smiles and promises of bread and circuses, the one who smiles and promises so much by his attitude, but will he actually deliver what you thought you were getting?

Caveat Emptor.

 

[88keys]

Because he had a ton of personality, and none of it was presidential. Out of all the Republican primary candidates, Romney is the only one I can even picture sitting in the Oval Office getting down to business. The rest of them, including Gingrich, had plenty of personality and ideas (or gimmicks if you're feeling less charitable), but not a single one of them came across like the kind of person you'd want making a decision about invading a foreign country to kill a terrorist mastermind. The "3 AM phone call" question, if you will 😉

Even for sake of argument, if Gingrich did have the better personality. The man just reeks of scumbag. Sure he has alot of personality, its just a bad one. The GOP would practically be handing Obama the election on a silver platter by nominating. You think Romney's tax returns are bad? Considering what we do know about Gingrich, God only knows what kind of skeletons are still in Gingrich's closet. A Gingrich vs Obama election would have been very interesting indeed.

 

[bradley]

George H. W. Bush is more charismatic than Bill Clinton???

Barack Obama isn't even as charismatic/charming, or half the orator as Bill Clinton. Heck, he does not even possess a tenth of the intellect. Great theory though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNhh0IjcroA 🙂

The person most appealing to the plutocracy will win, fair and square.

 

[dullard]

George H. W. Bush is more charismatic than Bill Clinton???

Um, Clinton won.

 

[waggy]

I'd say charisma wins far more than just personality. Although the two are linked, they aren't the same. Charisma adds in good looks, which I bet most of us would say without a doubt the better looking man won in all cases since TV debates.

I agree.

George H. W. Bush is more charismatic than Bill Clinton???

Barack Obama isn't even as charismatic/charming, or half the orator as Bill Clinton. Heck, he does not even possess a tenth of the intellect. Great theory though.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNhh0IjcroA 🙂

The person most appealing to the plutocracy will win, fair and square.

bwhahahahahha

oh man.

 

[Jeff7]

It's a high school popularity contest, except with higher stakes, less substance, and only marginally more maturity.