A truly terrible day, IMO.

If he's such a bad president, why was he re-elected? Logical fallacies can go both ways. :)

Well, maybe people don't know. It's a fact that many non-politically inclined people (the vast majority of the American public) are likely to vote for the candidate they see as more charismatic, youthful, likable, and empathetic toward the middle class (1960 televised debates, anyone?). Politics aside, Barack Obama is all or most of these. Mitt Romney doesn't have a silver tongue, isn't youthful, and struggled with personal likability for much of the campaign. Obama's both more charismatic and more likable. But here's my general rule of thumb: I vote for the guy who's most qualified to run the country and is politically like-minded, not the guy who I'd rather watch the game with. And it might so happen that the guy I vote for has both of these, but the second one is most certainly not make or break (as it seems to be for so many voters).

It's a fact? Sounds more like a claim, to me. I certainly wouldn't let it into an article I was reviewing without attribution. :-)

A historical trend, then. In 1960, it was the televised debates that made the difference in the razor-thin contest. The well-groomed and calm Kennedy became a preferable alternative in many voter's minds to the jowly-looking and sweaty Nixon. There's no denying that we humans like our leaders to be charismatic and energetic, at least on a subconscious level--to the point where it affects the voting tendencies of the undecided voters that so often determine the outcome of close contests like the 2012 election. It's a psychological reality, but it's not something I'd put in an article anyway. :-)

No. It's not a "psychological reality". It's a judgement you (in this case) are making, based on a freehand analysis fraught with potential confirmation bias. It might be a correct judgement; on the other hand, it presumably accrues extra plausibility because it fulfills our impulse to believe in others' superficiality, and that in itself should make us skeptical of it. But regardless of how relatively correct or incorrect it is (one suspects this isn't an area for absolutes), one thing it isn't is some sort of manifest truth.

You're right. It's my personal biases and those of society (the United States, particularly) that led me to make that judgement. It is, in my own judgement, a "psychological reality." But it is not in your opinion. And that, indeed, may be fact. It's just a judgement I've come to after years of following U.S. politics in more than a glancing fashion. That's not to say that my opinion has any more credibility than yours or anyone else's, just that the my judgement is made based not only upon bias, but upon personal experience as well. That said, I wasn't very successful in articulating my initial opinion as just that: an opinion.

It's good we're clear we're talking about opinions. I too, btw, have been watching US politics for some years. (My first discernible political memory is of a guy with lots of teeth saying "hah. ahm Jimmi kahtah an ah wahnah be yaw nex presiden." Or something close to that.)

To be clear, I do not claim the likeability theory is "wrong". My position is one of skepticism; I suspect it may be less significant than it is traditionally made out to be — and I also suspect it has a more-complicated-than-suspected relationship with what seems the real question: not, how important are superficial factors, but how important are substantive factors. The catch is that these superficial and substantive factors are not necessarily mutually independent. Both generally and in the case of the current election. Truth to tell, my sense about the current election is that it was heavily influenced by actual ideologies. It seems to me there can —generally— often be a highly complex, but nonetheless quite potent, correlation between the acceptability of an ideology to a society, and the effective "charisma" of a person advocating that ideology. I say "highly complex" because I can easily spot two routes by which the ideology affects the charisma, and I sense there are other routes and that, in fact, the various routes aren't even discrete, but flow into each other in a more analog sort of way. One: people have a favorable impression of someone who is saying things they agree with. Two: ideologies attract —select— the people who will tend to advocate them, and incompatible ideologies tend to attract people who won't get along with each other. In this particular election, there's also another factor: I suspect (without being certain) that Romney doesn't have deeply held beliefs about the issues of the day; and that is unattractive to people who believe in something, no matter what they believe in.

That's a fantastic phonetic representation of a Georgian accent. Carter was no doubt a rocky start to your following politics.

I'm inclined to agree that substantive issues and ideology played a key role in this election relative to any other in recent memory (the U.S. political climate these days is the most polarized it's been in recent history and seems to be getting worse, a process catalyzed by movements like the Tea Party and Occupy). But I can't help but think Obama's charisma had to have played a role in his rapid ascension to the Presidency (remember, he was an obscure state senator a mere four years prior to being elected President). There really couldn't have been a better time than 2008 for a candidate like Obama to run. That said, people seemed to have perceived some degree of substance in Obama's platform (relative to the poll-tested talking points of the McCain campaign). We tend to like our leaders charismatic and opinionated, rather than dull and moderate (or pragmatic). Obama, so it seems, is both of the former and neither of the latter. Mitt Romney (and John McCain, for that matter), is neither of the former and both of the latter. Take, for instance, Bill Clinton. Pragmatic and moderate as he was, he was outstandingly charismatic to the point that when he told voters that he "felt their pain," people believed him. One would suspect that voters would be less inclined to believe this coming from Mitt Romney. Part of that is cultural bias, and part of it is the correlation between charisma and popularity/the likelihood of garnering votes from those who don't make their decisions until in the voting booth. Conventional wisdom in this election was most certainly on Romney's side--a weak economy, several unfulfilled promises, etc. I'm inclined to believe that a more charismatic candidate would better articulate the shortcomings of the Obama administration (they're there, I don't care what party you identify with, but no President's perfect), layout an alternative vision (which Romney did only in the final weeks of the campaign), and sway people to vote accordingly. Romney's failure in the first two led inherently to his failure in the third. That, to me, proves that charisma and delivery makes all the difference in a razor-thin contest like we've seen in 2012.

A hazard I tried to capture above is that perhaps charisma and ideology should not be treated as altogether independent variables. The memetic twist of perspective is that one thinks not of people acquiring beliefs, but of beliefs acquiring people. There's a saying, that an idea is not responsible for the people who believe in it — but in memetic thinking, an idea is responsible (statistically, of course) for the people who believe in it. It seems like in this US election cycle a whole bunch of extreme-right politicians said really stupid things (in a generous mood one might say, politically stupid); in the memetic view, one considers that as a property of the ideology.

(I apologize for the extended delay in my response -- I've been bogged down with RL these past few weeks, but hopefully the momentum of an interesting discussion isn't completely dissipated).

I'm inclined to agree that the delivery of ideology is based mostly, if not wholly, upon a candidate's level of charisma. This, while it does not result in ideology and charisma becoming independent variables (I agree with you in that regard) is proof (in my mind, at least) that charismatic candidates consistently do better electorally and politically among swing voters (who, needless to say, decide the outcome in close elections) than their less charismatic counterparts. Take the U.S. Senate race in Missouri. As you wrote above, the GOP nominated several less than nominal candidates (and that's the optimistic way of putting it) in races that should have been easy wins. Todd Akin would have won the Missouri (a red state) race had he not made his politically fatal gaffe about abortion. The result was a Democratic hold in a red state that really should have been (according to all conventional political logic) an easy pick-up. The exact same thing took place in Indiana, where Richard Mourdock's far-right wing views alienated the right-leaning (they're most certainly not hard-right, to be sure) independents in the state, resulting in a Democratic pickup in another red state (one would suspect, however that Donnelly will be one of the more vulnerable incumbents in 2018, unless of course the GOP puts up another gaffe-generator).

Thus, while charisma and ideology aren't independent variables, it's charisma (or the lack thereof) that made the difference in these races--not just ideology. Mourdock's and Akin's apparent lack of charisma (in a broad sense, meaning the ability to avoid putting one's foot in his mouth) is what pushed (for lack of a better term) these very slight right-leaning independents (especially those with moderate social views) to assume these off-color moments are part of the ideology and subsequently vote the other way. What it all comes down to among the politically non-inclined, in my mind, is charisma or the lack thereof.

If ideology causes charisma, or lack thereof, then saying that charisma decided a race becomes a distraction from the role that ideology played in the race. And this sort of distraction is something to be wary of because, honestly, the US political right is seriously into denial of the role of ideology in the election. The most insightful thing about the election, imho, comes in two parts: first, that folks on the right (many of them; I'm simplifying, obviously) were shocked Obama won; and second, that folks on the left (...) were bemused that the right were shocked. During the campaign, I think, there had been a general impression on the left that the right were deliberately making shit up that bore no relation to the truth (neither positive nor negative correlation; see w:On Bullshit). The reaction to the election revealed the flaw in that: the word deliberately. I remember a liberal commentator saying about Romney's performance in the first debate, at the time, that he "lied his ass off". That's a perception of intent. But the situation appears to be far more harrowing: a memetic system has formed that allows people trapped inside it to prolifically make up bullshit without being able to recognize they're doing it. Harrowing indeed, because we may be looking at the shape of things to come: first there was oral society, characterized by a certain kind of information propagation, and associated mindset, in which religions flourished; then literate society, characterized by another kind of propagation and mindset, in which sciences flourished (see w:Preface to Plato); and perhaps Internet society will have still other characteristics, with similarities and differences from both orality and literacy.

I seem to have wandered from the relation between charisma and ideology. I could say more on that, but I've written more than enough for now, and won't dilute what I did say with more just now on the other theme.

(Again, my apologies for my delay -- it's a busy time of year).

I remember reading in a book, w:The Selling of the President 1968, in which the argument was made (and I'm more than inclined to agree) that the physical qualities and charismatic abilities of a candidate are almost a sole determinant of his/her success, and that ideology is a sole determining factor in only a very small portion of the population. And that was in 1968. The correlation, I think, is more pronounced now than ever. Now, that's not to say that this applies to every candidate. Negative press and its effect on poll numbers, and a systematic inability to effectively communicate views can be the downfall of any candidate. That said, I couldn't agree more with your argument that the political system of campaigns and elections has evolved to a point where those participating can, time and again, make things up without even realizing they're doing it. It sounds almost Orwell-esque, which highlights the, as you put it, "harrowing" state of affairs. This leads me to believe (and I suspect you might agree) that the media obsession with soundbites is due in large part to the obtuse (in my opinion) response of the public. Call me cynical, but I couldn't help but notice the striking similarities between the 2012 U.S. presidential campaign and one of those reality television talent shows that populate the prime-time airwaves. I follow one closely and have no interest in the other, but yet both feed into this sense of superficiality (it sounds very cynical, I know) that seems to be promoted by popular culture and the media. I guess what I'm saying is that the focus on the delivery of an ideology (and, hence, charisma), rather than the ideology itself is due in large part to the media and, thus, the public (because of the public response it seems to get when a seemingly minor gaffe is relentlessly publicized). To be more specific, I don't think most Republicans make a distinction of "legitimate" and "illegitimate" rape or believe that the female reproductive system "shuts down" in the case of rape. But, because of Todd Akin, a good portion of the public believe otherwise.

The lesson from this discussion seems to be that the world of politics has been absorbed by popular culture and, as a result, candidates are often focusing on showboating and generating memorable soundbites instead of effectively communicating a vision. What I mean is this: a heated televised debate full of soundbites (and, subsequently, lies) between candidates is inherently more interesting to the public than the details of a budget proposal. Because of that fact alone, a substantial portion of the media focuses on the former. And, as long as that progression continues (I think it well), the pattern will only become more and more ingrained in our culture. As dystopian or cynical as it sounds, we're becoming more superficial as a society and we don't even realize it.

I too am very busy. I'm enjoying this leisurely, thoughtful discussion. There's a good chance it'll be a while before I have time to give your latest remark, above, the careful reading it deserves. I'm also aware that this discussion is motivating me to articulate a thought I've been developing for many years but don't yet know how to express well, and I need to give that further thought too. I mean to give a proper reply here; I just don't know whether it'll be today, later this week, or (eying the calendar) next year.

I would suggest the non-politically inclined and politically apathetic were actually less inclined to vote for Obama and instead just note period. I base this on personal experience and voter turnout. I'd be inclined to agree Obama was a bad president, so long as it was recognised that I think think Bush was worse and Romney would have been worse. (I love the choice between bad and worse. It makes me want to run out and vote for... well.. neither.)

It's popular for a lot of young people in the U.S. to support Obama (even ones that possess very limited political knowledge) because of his embrace of the idyllic values of "hope" and "change", although this was less pronounced in 2012 than in 2008. Romney was absolutely pummeled among youth. And this is also due, to be fair, to the increased social tolerance of the millennial generation, many of whom grew up with George W. Bush in the White House and have thus developed a very negative paradigm of the Republican Party that they are likely to carry for much of their lives (or until another Republican is elected President and turns out better than Bush).