
It's Charisma, Stupid - mqt
http://www.paulgraham.com/charisma.html
======
Eliezer
My first impression was that you were doing a lot of work to explain every
single exception or near-exception to your theory.

The case of Gore winning the popular vote is probably the most damaging. I'd
consider downgrading the claim to "As video becomes more prevalent, charisma
is an increasingly powerful factor."

If you really believe your theory, you should buy Obama for president on
Intrade. In fact, you should have bought Obama back when he was trading at
30%, which would make the advance predictive powers of the theory more
impressive. How much does hindsight play a role in deciding which candidate
was more "charismatic"?

~~~
pg
I said charisma wins elections, not primaries. Primaries are a different
matter. Dealmaking seems to count for a lot. That's why they sometimes produce
candidates that are so shockingly unelectable, like Mondale.

~~~
robg
To be fair to your theory, Reagan was a beast of charisma, wasn't he? I don't
think JFK could have beaten him. Mondale was the party faithful rewarding
their own in spite of the coming carnage (see also, Dole).

Indeed, that explains to me the one case I'd argue against in your version of
recent history. Bush '88 seems in retrospect to have been less charismatic
than Dukakis. Or they were very, very close in their wonkiness. But Bush
senior was given the benefit of the doubt by the electorate. He became more
charismatic in being associated with the Reagan force of nature even as he was
actually a big ole stiff. That eventually came out by 1992.

I'd argue the same osmosis almost carried Gore to the presidency. A few moans
here and a blue dress there made it much closer than it ever should have been.
Problem is, Gore never figured out how to embrace the Clinton legacy (and in
so doing would have become more charismatic) while distancing himself from the
more distasteful behavior. Still, Gore looked to me, at the time, like a one-
term president because of his lack of charisma.

------
gruseom
I once ran across a book with a similar theory. It was one of those hybrid
self-help-business-motivational type books, called something like "You Have To
Be Believed To Be Heard". I picked it up idly and happened on a really
interesting analysis of presidential elections. The author's point was that
the candidate who is better able to establish a positive emotional connection
with voters almost always wins, and that ideology and policy had nothing to do
with it. (I can't remember if he used the word "charisma".) His main thesis
was that the primary emotional brain decides first whether or not it likes
something, and only secondarily do rational considerations kick in; therefore,
before communicating rationally one must, so to speak, establish positive
credentials with the limbic system. The rest of the book was ostensibly about
how to go about doing this. Unfortunately it didn't really deliver. But I
remember watching the Bush/Kerry debates with this in mind and thinking, there
is no rational basis on which Bush should be re-elected, yet if that book was
right, Kerry's finished.

~~~
pchristensen
Bullseye. And most people would rather like a folksy, funny guy that talks
like they do instead of a rich, over-educated, boring guy.

------
pchristensen
Interesting that this thread has about as many political comments as the rest
of YCNews combined, but no one has complained. It's a good example of civil,
intelligent political discussion.

------
edw519
The comments about 1968 showed how much has changed. On March 31, President
Johnson announced that he would not seek reelection. So Hubert Humphrey
launched his campaign in April. Think about it. That would be like Al Gore
entering this race 6 weeks from now. What chance would he have?

Also, the nomination defaulted to Humphrey when RFK, possibly the most
charismatic candidate ever, was murdered in June.

Nixon had been campaigning behind the scenes for 4 years. Add Vietnam, civil
unrest, and culture clash, and Humphrey (the pseudo-incumbent) didn't stand a
chance.

I agree with pg's theory. We need charismatic leaders. We crave them. I often
wonder how much different the world would be today if JFK, RFK, and MLK hadn't
been murdered.

~~~
yummyfajitas
People want charismatic leaders, but I don't think we need them. In fact, I
think they are extremely dangerous. Think for a moment about JFK's catch
phrase:

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your
country."

Compare it to catch phrases of other charismatic leaders:

"All within the State, Nothing outside the State, Nothing against the State"

"The common good comes before the private good."

(Sorry for invoking Godwin, but it's important to point out how his charisma
obscured what JFK actually said.)

I think it's far better to have a leader that everyone hates. Just think of
the outcry if Bush suggested the people should serve the state.

~~~
pchristensen
"I think it's far better to have a leader that everyone hates."

Unless that leader has given even the uninformed a reason to hate him ...

~~~
yummyfajitas
A charismatic leader can give the uninformed a reason to hate him, but it
won't change their feelings.

An example: a gay friend of mine dislikes Bush because he proposed a law
against gay marriage (at least that is his stated reason). He has very strong
positive feelings for (Bill) Clinton, in spite of the fact that Clinton
actually passed a law against gay marriage (Defense of Marriage Act). His
feelings persisted even after I pointed this out to him.

Maybe I just have stupid friends (I don't think this is the case), but my
general impression is that most people don't base their opinion of a
politician on policy. Rather, they take their opinion on the policy from the
party or politician they like.

------
mqt
Also, "What Charisma Is"

<http://www.paulgraham.com/recharisma.html>

~~~
huherto
I can relate to this. Vicente Fox, last president of Mexico was like that. He
was fiercely attacked and he made some very stupid comments. Still his
popularity remained high. But you could see that he was really happy when he
interacted with poor children or old people.

------
emmett
The one problem with the theory I see is that it's easy to choose which
candidate is more charismatic after they've won.

So, PG - put your money where your mouth is. Who's the most charismatic
candidate this time?

~~~
staunch
Seems obvious to me. Obama by 100 miles. Bill Clinton is even more
charismatic, but Hilary alone is not even in the same league. McCain isn't
either.

~~~
mhartl
Why does everyone seem to forget that Bill Clinton won only in the context of
a strong third-party candidate? If not for Ross Perot's run in 1992, Clinton
would almost certainly have lost to Bush senior---and taken down the "charisma
wins" theory with him.

~~~
Elfan
Do you have a source for this? Every analysis of exit polls I have seen (for
example: <http://www.fairvote.org/plurality/perot.htm>) shows that Perot split
the votes fairly evenly.

~~~
mhartl
Strangely, I can't find much either way. I thought there was a clear case for
Bush over Clinton absent Perot, but I may well be wrong.

I also worded the original comment too strongly. Clearly, charisma is a big
factor in modern elections, and one data point isn't enough to disprove
anything in any case. Concluding that "it's charisma, stupid" does seem to
rely on very small-number statistics, though.

------
brianr
_As for the theory being obvious, as far as I know, no one has proposed it
before._

Some interesting things come up for a Google Scholar search for "election
charisma" (sans quotes). See "Charisma in the 1952 Election", The American
Political Science Review, 1954. From a quick skim of this and some other
search results, it looks like the theory has been explored a bit and not found
much supporting evidence.

~~~
ken
How many elections since the invention of TV had there been in 1954?

------
david927
I think it would be better put as, "The person who exudes leadership qualities
is more likely to succeed." It's well known that the taller of the two
presidential candidates usually wins, for example. And here's a great article
from The Economist on "Physiognomy and Success":
[http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=1...](http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10559771&CFID=8349270&CFTOKEN=4e0097666a3a1956-CEDEB1E4-B27C-BB00-0129C15E4242DFB2)

~~~
mqt
At this level in politics, all candidates have "leadership qualities." Unless
there is a large difference in height (5+ inches, which doesn't happen very
often), no one is going to notice.

Bush is shorter than both Gore and Kerry. Guess what? He has much more
charisma.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heights_of_United_State...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_heights_of_United_States_presidential_candidates)

~~~
david927
At this level in politics, all candidates have "charisma" too. He only has
more charisma if you define it a posteriori as having won the election.

> Bush is shorter than both Gore and Kerry. Guess what? He has much more
> charisma.

But he lost the popular vote to Gore. So charisma understands the electoral
college?

~~~
mdemare
No, I disagree. There are plenty of completely uncharismatic politicians
around. (John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Ron Paul, Bob Dole, Bush the Elder).

~~~
david927
Is that your list or the official list? The point that started this wasn't
that Person X is charismatic while Person Y isn't. It's relative. Second, who
judges who is more charismatic, even relatively? Again, the person above says
that Bush Jr. was more charismatic than Gore, but the popular vote said the
opposite.

~~~
mqt
Gore did not win the popular vote by a large margin. According to Wikipedia,
he was ahead a mere 543,816 (0.5%) votes. [1] It was only the third time in
history that a candidate lost while winning popular vote. I don't think you
should dwell on that particular point. Can you find examples in other
elections where the theory falls apart?

Also, the second footnote in the essay offers the reason that Bush did not
focus his campaigning on the popular vote. [2]

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_200...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000)

[2] <http://www.paulgraham.com/charisma.html#f2n>

------
ericb
PG: Could attractiveness could be substituted for charisma effectively in your
theory? Perhaps attractiveness is just an element of charisma, but if
considered that way, there's a large body of psychological research that backs
you up. For example, this abstract lists a only a really tiny sliver of the
repeatable results:

<http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0034-6543>(199224)62%3A4%3C413%3AEIAJOP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L

~~~
brlewis
Here's a version of the link that news.yc will take:

[http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0034-6543%28199224%2962%3A4...](http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0034-6543%28199224%2962%3A4%3C413%3AEIAJOP%3E2.0.CO%3B2-L)

Paul Buchheit related this phenomenon to product design in
[http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2007/08/first-thing-that-
yo...](http://paulbuchheit.blogspot.com/2007/08/first-thing-that-you-need-to-
understand.html)

------
gibsonf1
Obama clearly wins the charisma contest. My wife has fallen for him, reading
all his books, etc. This article "Women 'falling for Obama'" really reinforces
PG's point
[http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2269063...](http://www.news24.com/News24/World/News/0,,2-10-1462_2269063,00.html)

~~~
jmtulloss
I agree that Obama is more charismatic, but Hillary keeps getting the womens'
vote (At least the white and hispanic ones).

This primary is particularly interesting because you're not choosing between
two rich white men. Suddenly there's a question of not just "Who has the most
charisma?" but also "Who can I best identify with?" According to the states
that have had primaries so far, blacks and white women overwhelmingly support
the candidate that looks like them. Perhaps that's even more important that
charisma?

At the same time, I agree with PG that charisma doesn't play as big a part in
primaries. Bill and Hillary are the leaders of the democratic party, so it
makes sense that democrats would vote for Hillary rather than the more
charismatic Obama.

------
Herring
Well how would you prove it? Just list who was running & pick the most
charismatic? There must be many factors to control for, eg incumbency &
apportionment. We can do a real study or we can sit around talking till the
data comes in.

~~~
mqt
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=113864>

You only have two choices. He's saying that the candidate with the most
genuine smile is likely to win; past elections are evidence.

------
tokipin
what's interesting is that the most charismatic personality type in Jungian
theories (ENFJ in MBTI/Kiersey) has never been found in a president, nor has
any other 'idealist' <http://www.keirsey.com/idealist_presidents.aspx>

but it's clearly not a matter of incapability. these people are very human-
oriented and like working close to others, things like functional management
simply aren't appealing to them

~~~
jkush
That's probably because those personality types start cults. I've no evidence
to back that claim up, though.

------
mynameishere
9/10ths of the real charisma in this election belongs to Huckabee. His
policies are ass-backwards, but he seems like a great guy. Clinton is like a
robotic mom addressing a kindergarten class. Obama's charisma, as near as I
can tell, is like that of Ron Paul, who actually has almost none. Rather, his
supporters all support him because they have decided to see in him what they
want to see. I find him hard to listen to--he forces him voice unnaturally
low, and seems to stress the wrong words for emphasis.

McCain has no charisma, but he's the only candidate that could really induce
fear rather than love.

~~~
comatose_kid
Obama has almost no charisma? Um, okay....

~~~
mynameishere
_Um, okay...._

Sigh. Here's where I explicate my own words. "who actually has almost none"
references Ron Paul. Obama's charisma is similar to RP's in that much of it
comes from the fact that his supporters are looking at him sideways. One
instance from xkcd:

 _I want, for once, someone I can vote for not because I dislike the other
candidate, but because I’m proud of mine. Obama is the real thing.

Obama has shown a real commitment to open government._

Now, the above expresses an actual _liking_ , not just an agreement policy-
wise. I really like Ron Paul's platform, by contrast, but frankly find him
annoying. It's important to spot the difference there. Now, Munroe, who is by
all accounts a smart person, is supporting Obama because of something called
"open government", which Obama has "real commitment" to. I don't see this
commitment in the platform, which doesn't contain any references to it:

[http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/bios...](http://www.bostonherald.com/news/national/politics/2008/bios/view.bg?articleid=1063110)

What I see in the platform is standard leftism. But even that is not where
Obama's "real commitment" is--his real commitment is "civil rights", if that
is understood properly.

Fine. It doesn't matter. The point is this: To really _like_ a guy for
something that is a completely negligble part of his platform is quite
dangerous. I'm sure a lot of his supporters are actually supporting him for an
even worse reason: Because it is the "moral" thing to do, in and of itself.

~~~
dreish
Obama comes across as awkward and geeky, but have you not seen the 2004
Democratic Convention keynote address? It was one of the best political
speeches in the last 20 years.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNCLomrqIN8>

~~~
wallflower
As a student of Toastmasters, when I saw that speech live on TV, I knew he'd
be a presidential candidate. But in 2008? Never would have guessed so soon.
Great speakers connect with the audience. Good speakers merely tell.

~~~
brlewis
What club do you go to?

I go to #9351, Oratory Authority, a lunchtime club in Boston:
<http://ourdoings.com/oratory-authority/>

~~~
wallflower
After the final surge to get my CTM and moving office locations, I dropped
out. I still do get a public speaking fix through some storytelling gigs. I'd
rather not say which specific club (I like to think I am a wallflower) but
that Toastmaster club is/was a fantastic supportive environment to practice
public speaking. For the only way to learn public speaking is to actually do
it. The value of the feedback (handwritten comments that you get after a
speech) was tremendous - where else can you get honest supportive feedback -
people want you to succeed. The fact that it was a corporate club that was not
my company was a plus - felt safe to talk about whatever - no coworkers
(except the one guy I carpooled with).

------
foonamefoo
I know Paul is of the opinion that tables are simpler than divs, but even
tables don't have to be set to a fixed width in pixels!

------
rms
Followup: <http://www.paulgraham.com/recharisma.html>

------
rontr
I think that it's impossible to state firmly (especially in a forum called
_hacker_ news :) ) that George Bush Jr beat either Gore or Kerry. This is
because electronic voting machines were used to count many of the votes.

Electronic voting machines leave no paper trail which means the results are
unverifiable.

~~~
rontr
Ugh. The Diebold bot is voting me down.

