Is Likeability/Charisma/"I'd want to have a beer with him" the deciding factor?

[Jacobtm]

Pre-crisis, you'd never expect a President to be re-elected with somewhere around 8% unemployment (really it's higher if we're being honest).

And yet Obama looks really likely to win, despite continuing concerns that he's an Atheist Fascist Muslim Homosexual Kenyan or whatever.

Which has led me to wonder if the most important factor in voting for the Presidency is what people always said about Bush, that "I'd like to have a beer with him."

Is likeability/charisma/coolness however you want to say it, is that the most important factor? If you stand two people next to each other, does the lamer one always lose the Presidential election?

Bush was certainly more charismatic than Kerry or Gore, even if he was infuriatingly dumb. Obama certainly out-charismas McCain and Romney...

[Vosem]

No. Bush was smart and enough to win, and so, unfortunately, is Obama.

[Jacobtm]

No. Bush was smart and enough to win, and so, unfortunately, is Obama.

Bush was pitifully dumb. I had heard that he did decently on his SAT's, but decades of alcoholism and drug abuse didn't do him any favors.

[anvi]

I'm not sure how to vote above because the choice seems too clear-cut.  I think it can be the deciding factor sometimes, especially in a close race or in case a voter really hasn't made up their mind about the issues.  In these circumstances, voters do carry their right brains into the booth with them. and it's this side of the brain that not infrequently makes the final choice.  Now mind you, it doesn't always matter.  American voters tend to care about their pocketbooks first, and if they think, this year, Romney will be better for those pocketbooks than Obama, then likability won't matter as much.  But I think, given the closeness of this race, likeability will matter for at some undecided voters.

I want to go on the record again to say that I don't think Bush 43 was dumb at all.  I really do believe his frequent misspeaks were a symptom of mild dyslexia, and I wouldn't make any more fun of Bush for having that than I would make of Patton for having it too.  There were certainly some policy issues about which he was grossly under-informed, I don't like the way he combined tax cuts with spending based on borrowing, and I think his decision to go to war in Iraq was dead wrong.  But, on a personal level, as a campaigner, and even in making political calculations, Bush was incredibly clever and sharp.  He also did some very good things; I was always enormously impressed with his Africa AIDS initiative, and whether people like it or not, the bank bailouts were utterly necessary at the time, lest the whole economy were to implode.  I never wanted him to be president, and on balance I think his presidency was horrible for the country.  Still, it's very easy for us, all of us, to underestimate men with whom we sharply disagree...but most of the time, underestimating people only costs the one doing the underestimating--a very popular former Texas governor, a very competent Vice-President coming off two successful terms and a war-veteran all lost races against him.  If Pubbies underestimate Obama this time around, their nominee will meet the same fate too.  Rule of campaigning: attack someone's weaknesses and be prepared to handle and counter their strengths.  

[Vosem]

No. Bush was smart and enough to win, and so, unfortunately, is Obama.

Bush was pitifully dumb. I had heard that he did decently on his SAT's, but decades of alcoholism and drug abuse didn't do him any favors.

Judging by his Presidency and his posts, he's significantly smarter than you.

[Green State]

It isn't the deciding factor bu it certain helps! If that candidate is likeable that is.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     It probably is. When was the last time the more charismatic candidate actually lost? Based on my impressions of candidates (which are far from perfect, of course), you'd probably have to go back to when Nixon was elected.

[opebo]

Oh yes, definitely, unless there is some overwhelming and unusual factor countervailing it, such as a sudden capitalist-economic-collapse or war.

[RogueBeaver]

It isn't the deciding factor bu it certain helps! If that candidate is likeable that is.

[Green State]

Oh yes, definitely, unless there is some overwhelming and unusual factor countervailing it, such as a sudden capitalist-economic-collapse or war.

[All Along The Watchtower]

No, swing voters are the deciding factor, and swing voters will vote on the economy this time, like they normally do.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'd say that charisma is, by far, the strongest indicator of whether someone will become president.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

I'd love to have a beer with just about anybody.

[Ogre Mage]

Politics is war without bullets (a statement which shows how cynical I am).  It is also a game of perception.  The appearance of charisma can be constructed through a skilled media campaign.  So no, I do not think it is the "deciding" factor.  Frankly, I think skill at manipulating the media and negative campaigning are more important.  It's worth noting that part of the skill of negative campaigning can be going negative without appearing to do so.