Hacker News Reader

Comment by Eliezer | Hacker News Reader

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"?

View on HN

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.

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.

I'm glad you clarified that Paul. Maybe it's just a function of age but I seem to be getting more cynical.

There seems to be some sort of machine that runs the world. The American political system, despite being created as a government by and for the people is part of it.

I think you're exactly right: all things being equal, when it comes to choosing between a few popular options - regardless of whether those options are candidates or products, charisma takes the cake.

What seems to be not equal is the process by which the popular options become the popular options.

Voters in primary elections may also be more interested in politics and less influenced by charisma.

That still doesn't account for Gore winning the popular vote in 2000 in the general election.

Oops, didn't notice original post was from 2004.

Still, claims to be able to predict elections are a lot more impressive when the person makes a bet on Intrade and then cashes in on it. Money, meet mouth; mouth, meet money.

Right, observer's bias seems important here. Being a president builds a strong brand for that person. Beyond that, being in power actually makes people more charismatic. With that, judging their charisma as candidates in retrospect hard.

Kind of like judging company names -- Apple Computers now actually seems like a good name.

Re: gore see footnote [2]. Very smooth reply.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com