Replies

Actually, IMHO, it’s a useful thing to study.

What makes a winning politician?

We know that it has something to do with policies — but, there are hundreds (or thousands) of policy wonks, for every electable one. On just the basis of policy wonkiness, there are probably a few thousand FReepers that qualify for high office. Also, wonks can be hired (or fired) as needed. Clearly, wonkiness isn’t the most important factor in winning in politics.

We know that the winning formula has something to do with “charisma” — but, what is charisma? If you believe the MSM, it’s something Obama has, but Romney lacks. Clearly, most FReepers don’t think Obama is charismatic — whatever he has, we just hope it isn’t communicable.

We know that the winning formula has something to do with “attractiveness” — but, what is attractiveness, and how important is it? In this age of visual images, attractiveness probably counts for more than it ever did. Today’s received wisdom says that Nixon’s 5 o’clock shadow cost him the election against Kennedy. Kennedy was the first “Television President”. Attractiveness mattered a lot then, it no doubt matters even more today. This study might shed some light on the subject. It might be something that political operatives can use to help select a “winning candidate”.

You don’t have to like any of it (I don’t either) — but, that doesn’t make the study brainless.

I agree it’s definately something worth studying. I always found it an interesting topic. Even though, personally, I often find myself a little out-of-sync with some of the things that sway much of the populace. I find I’m usually attracted to leaders not so much for physical characteristics, but those who seem to be ‘least’ like politicians, in their manner. One of the reasons I was probably initially so open to both Reagan and Palin, who both at times almost seemed like the opposite of typical politicians. Even though I did not support or vote for him, I was even drawn a bit to Perot because of this.