It's Personality, Not Issues, That Wins Presidential Elections

[ruggerson]

I see a lot of posts blathering about the supposed devil spawn DLC candidates and who is "pure" on Iraq and who is a "liberal" as opposed to a "centrist."

And I think a lot of you are missing the point.

Issues matter far less than the persona of the individual we nominate. If the person comes across on television as engaging, friendly, warm, likeable, self effacing, strong, confident, secure and inspiring, they will be tough to beat. Presidential contests are about the personalities of those involved, not the issues.

You can count on the fact that a President Hillary Clinton and a President Kucinich or a President Clark would ALL get us out of Iraq quicker than the Republicans, would ALL appoint progressive Supreme Court justices, would ALL fight for worker's rights, would ALL fight for national healthcare, etc.

There are far more similarities than differences amongst them.

What you can't count on is who has the charm and the personality to get elected.

And that's the number one thing we should be evaluating in any candidate.

[DemInDistress]

1. Its Deibold today that wins elections.....nt

[ruggerson]

3. Oh yeah, we really got creamed on Tuesday, didn't we

that damned Diebold

[DemInDistress]

12. Presidential elections nt

[applegrove]

2. Like obama said on TDS, pretty much all politicians are "likeable"

in their own way (beliefs aside). Now that we have that out of the way..

We need leadership.We have nothing to learn from this puppet in power. Why do we insist of apeing them?

Culture of personality is for fascists who want control. If no "culture of personality person" was running in an election.. the election would still take place ... right? You would just elect someone with "leadership qualities" instead of someone with a culture of personality.

[Aimah]

4. Bush doesn't have charm and personality...

and he didn't win any elections. So I guess it all makes sense.

[applegrove]

6. Bush is the surrogate. The real WH is the Cheney/Rove WH. That

is the culture of personality the GOP is following. The dumb ape is for the little people to follow... you know.. like..

"Bubbles! - I love bubbles!"

[formernaderite]

22. It's naieve to think that....

regardless of what you think of the presidential elections...he also won in 2002 and again in 2004, in the congress and senate. Hopefully that tide has turned....it is unusual for a president to grow his own party. In 2006, I hope we return to the normal flow, where the opposition party sweeps seats.

[waiting for hope]

5. So true....

I get all misty eyed and weak in the knees listening to Bill Clinton talk - and it's not sexual at all, he's just so charismatic. :blush:

[applegrove]

7. Yuk! You saying you were not overwhelmed by his policies? I was!

[waiting for hope]

9. Don't get me wrong....

I voted for him twice based on his political savvy - but doesn't it make you nostalgic to see him on TV these days and still wish he was in office?

[applegrove]

16. You voted on his "political savy"? What about the policies? It matters

who we vote for. And not because of "savy" or "cult of personality". You had not thoughts on the political platform of Clinton? Or the policies he put in place and the things he did? Ignoring Rwanda.

[sendero]

8. I couldn't..

.... agree more and I've been beating that drum here for a long time.

Americans really don't take time to get intimately familiar with the issues or a candidate's exact position on each issue. There are probably several reasons for that, among them being the fact that most Americans do not choose to spend a lot of time on politics, and the fact that many Americans have learned that a politician's position pre-election may have no bearing on his position once in office.

They look at the big picture, and they vote for a person, not a position.

[Orangepeel]

10. I don't think it is about right and left. It is about weak and strong

Anyone who has been canvassing knows that many voters don't have a clue about specific issues (many do, of course, but many don't). These people will vote for -- and proudly tell you they vote for -- the person they like the best.

But that doesn't mean that what we do as a party doesn't matter. If Democrats in general are perceived as weaker, or more wishy washy, or not having a strong vision, then our candidate, no matter how charming and personable, starts with a handicap.

[Awsi Dooger]

19. Canvassing will make you ill

Seriously. They should prescribe an hour of that to anyone who is terminally cheerful or optimistic. I've done it twice and it's beyond frightening, the priorities and opinions you'll hear when that door opens. Not to mention the lists are so pathetic and outdated. Anyone who thinks the GOTV process is high tech or advanced needs to grab a canvassing list and try to bat higher than .500.

I think I use the word likable as much as anyone here, in regard to politicians and electability. Part of that is undoubtedly due to experiences like orangepeel68 mentioned, people nonchalantly telling you while canvassing that they're voting for candidate A due to personality and liking him better. Also I host debate watching parties and likability is always a big theme, especially afterward when we feast and talk about the debate.

I think people are reluctant to admit how much of an emphasis they place on likability instead of issues, when given a choice of criteria for their political selection. Picking likability tends toward weakness or a simplistic view, and no one wants to come across that way. I think personal issues finish far lower than application in polls like that.

Also, IMO likability is more vital in ousting an incumbent that in an open race. You need a bonus reason to throw out the familiar presence and liking the challenger better qualifies. In an open race someone like Al Gore had/has a much better chance. Same thing with a Mark Warner who at least currently is not considered charismatic. In open races the voters have far more variables to consider, not just a known quantity versus someone eager to replace him. Even a Hillary Clinton fits much better in an open race like 2008. I think DUers who dismiss her chances in the general election are a bit overboard. She has essentiallly already been Swift Boated for 12+ years. Old stuff would bounce off with a laugh. She's hardly my first choice as the nominee (Warner) but if she did prevail I'm confident her personal favorables would actually increase as the campaign wore on. In her case I just think it's still a backward country in some respects and probably too early for a female to be elected.

[Orangepeel]

21. "I'm voting for jeb bush because he's pro-choice"

"Well, no, actually. McBride is the pro-choice candidate. Bush supports additional restrictions on reproductive choice"

"Oh. Well I'm voting for him anyway."

That's an actual "conversation" I had at a doorway in Orlando in 2002.

[skipos]

11. When I talk to your average voter, not dedicated Dems or Reps,

they definitely validate your argument. I'd would go so far as to say most people vote for very simplistic reasons. Sometimes they just "like" one candidate more than the other.

[welshTerrier2]

13. "personality to get elected" is NOT enough !!

those of us who push issues over candidates understand that it is posts like this that are "missing the point" ...

what you said might very well be true ... i'll repeat it:

"What you can't count on is who has the charm and the personality to get elected. And that's the number one thing we should be evaluating in any candidate."

again, that might be true ... but it is NOT something we should continue to accept ... it is NOT something we should just go along with ... and it is NOT what will lead to good and effective government ...

but most who preach about firm handshakes, nice smiles and really tall candidates are far too focused on "winning" and far too unfocused on governing ... some respond to this: "well, you have to win before you can govern" ...

of course, they're WRONG ... the right answer is that you have to not only win an election but you ALSO have to win a mandate for the policies you hope to implement once you do ... yes, being liked is an important asset to candidates, but having clear vision to lead the country in the right direction and make the lives of Americans better takes more than "charm" ... this is NOT an either or proposition ...

[ruggerson]

15. You can't change the media culture

which is what has spawned this phenomenon. Idealistically, I agree with what you write, but it has no bearing on modern American politics.

The good news is, as I noted above, of the names most mentioned as likely to win the nomination - Clinton, Warner, Edwards, Bayh, Clark - every single one of them would be far closer to you and me on the issues than any Republican we could mention. They WILL move the country in the direction we wish to see it go.

Thus, our task should be to find which of them has the appeal, the charm and the strength to go all the way.

The media culture is here to say, no matter what you or I have to say about it.

[welshTerrier2]

18. "far closer to you and me on the issues"

first, you should know that i agree that Democrats are far closer to us on the issues ... i have no disagreement with that statement ...

but sometimes real change takes more than "closer" ... i hesitate to make this analogy and i'm not even sure the science is correct but i'm told that cold water can be brought to a boil more quickly than warm water ...

whether true or not, the point is that diluted liberalism can take the steam out of "movement energy" ... when the country needs significant and serious reforms, "better than those other assholes" reforms can strip off the center from what could become a tidal wave of change ...

tokenism and centrism allow some to become complacent with a little, but not enough, progress ... you might ask me: "would i rather have some progress than none at all?" ... my answer: "i would choose 'some progress' if those are my only alternatives" ...

the reality though, is that we deeply need to make significant changes in our country and "some progress" is NOT the best option ... maybe we should set our sights higher than that ... "closer to you and me on the issues" is not what i believe should be our rallying cry ... let's fight for more ...

[Cosmocat]

20. Yep ...

The media, with the direction of the republican party, has lowered the standard for politics to professional wrestling ... It isn't about the policy, it is about the personalities ...

You need look no further than two weeks ago when Reed stood up and forced the senate into a closed session ...

What happened ???

1) Bill Frist threw a temper tantrum ... It all was just a personal affront, and he would never be able to trust Reed again ... He cried, he moaned, he emphasized it over and over ... AND, his fellow Rs backed him up on the theme ...

2) What did the media talk to Reed about ??? The issue at hand ??? Nope, they spent 15 minutes talking about his relationship with Frist ...

There are a lot of reasons why things broke the way the did in November of 1999 ... But, a signficant issue is how the right painted Al Gore as some kind of socially challenged dolt, while Bushco was "the kind of guy you would want to sit down and have a beer with ..."

NO MOMENT in my life have I seen politics lowered to such a superficial level ... And, I can tell you for a fact where I live, the fact that Gore and even Kerry were not socially adept vs Bushco's swarmy charm, got as many votes with NO knowledge of how big a scumbag he was, as those who knew how big a scumbag he was and how intelligent and decent Gore/Kerry were and voted for the better man ...

I also agree with the general point ... I like Clark, I like Hillary ... I am not a big Bayh or Evans fan ... But, the would be be a MUCH better place with ANY D in the oval office ...

[kentuck]

14. Mostly true...

I think.

[I_am_Spartacus]

17. It's the whole package. Issues and personality have to resonate.