It's Charisma, Stupid (2004)

It's Charisma, Stupid (2004)(paulgraham.com)

141 points by pashapiro 9 years ago | 48 comments

mc32 9 years ago |

As someone aptly put it on twitter (Nate Cohn), the "white working class" is voting like a minority block--and why would they not? The elites have ignored the working class (white and black) for ages and when they do think of them, white (and other) elites look down at them with the contempt of 'white privilege' while they, the elite whites, sit comfortably in their protected perches rarely exposing themselves to insecurity.

It's possible this is a consequence of overplaying identity politics used to try and counterbalance Trump's followers' politics. In other words the working class had their identity unintentially forged in the scrum of identity politics.

venomsnake 9 years ago | |

It is not only the white working class - she captures Latinos and Blacks with a lot lower margins than Obama.

You cannot take a person's vote for you for granted. Last week a life long anticommunist in my country voted for the communist candidate - he just said "fuck it, I want to see the face of the ruling party hit the pavement".

And a lot of whites obviously got fed up with being used as an intellectual punching pag

douche 9 years ago | | |

That's the thing that has struck me the most about the Clinton campaign. It's been incredibly lazy, as if Clinton were the anointed one who simply had to waltz to the White House. Not wanting to debate. Not putting in the work of campaigning, at least compared to Trump's marathon schedule. The arrogance and condescension at having to even be involved in the race against her opponent.

mc32 9 years ago | | |

Well, She's not going to get the same energy from black voters as Obama --Obama was once in a lifetime unifying and exciting effect on the black electorate. As for the Hispanic vote, not sure what happened there --except there are more than one kind of person of latam descent wealthy, middle-class, Cuban, Mexican, undereducated, Americanized, some who still feel more Latin American than American, etc.

retreatguru 9 years ago | |

Trump runs as the anti-establishment candidate and with his charisma does a good job selling it. His candidacy reminds me of the movie Idiocracy.

edblarney 9 years ago | | |

I'm not a Trump supporter, but he is no idiot. He's a 'populist genius'. The leaders in 'Idiocracy' were truly idiots.

He was 'charismatic' in kind of a perverse/uncliassical way ... enough to motivate enough people to tip the scales.

I think we will finally see the 'real Donald Trump' when he starts doing the actual work. I'm very interested, but honestly, I'm worried, I think the risk is high.

mc32 9 years ago | | |

I dunno, I think that kind of thinking is what likely sunk Hillary's campaign. Discounting the working class as undeserving, as the ones who meekly assume the role of punching bag for all ills we cannot ascribe to anyone else.

Frqy3 9 years ago | | |

The DNC's mistake was misunderestimating (sic) Trump. The media played their part too.

icantdrive55 9 years ago | | |

I think the working class was really tired of Globalism. I'm as liberal as they get, but building in the cheapest country always bothered me.

I get hammered for this, but we buy Apple products. We pay a premium. We are told Apple has to build overseas, in order to sell us products at their low prices. Then they have the gut wrenching corporate problem of too much cash?

I'm sorry--it always bothered me.

That said, I'll be shocked if Trump succeeds in bringing back manufacturing. Those senators are not going to raise Tarriffs, or do anything to upset their corporate lobbiests.

LargeCompanies 9 years ago |

Hilary Clinton has and is highly unlikeable and her narrative is similar.

The DNC chose her over Sanders... would the results be different?

runevault 9 years ago | |

Both the super fiscally conservative and the more... unpleasant parts of Trump's voting block would never vote for someone as liberal as Sanders. I have a hard time believing anyone that would have voted for him would vote Trump, now if you think it would've swayed enough people who voted 3rd party to vote Sanders instead you might have something.

retreatguru 9 years ago | | |

The thrust of the essay is that people don't vote by issues but by charisma - and Sanders has more charisma than Hillary. And he is also an anti-establishment candidate.

venomsnake 9 years ago | | |

Sanders could have picked the working class given enough time. Not only on issues.

eli_gottlieb 9 years ago | |

>The DNC chose her over Sanders... would the results be different?

Yes. All the data at the time said:

* Hillary will beat Trump narrowly (she's losing as I write).

* Bernie would beat Trump in a landslide (I think Bernie would defeat Trump at all).

Socialism or barbarism.

code_duck 9 years ago | |

I have dozens of friends who were energized about Bernie. 250 of my FB friends like his page. I know exactly one person who really supported Hillary. 28 of my FB friends like her page. I saw many people post saying they were very disillusioned by her becoming the candidate. I also have some very liberal friends who specifically dislike Hillary and not only refused to support her, but opposed her.

Sanders had energetic youth support similar to Obama, but more so. I believe he would have won.

soneca 9 years ago |

Wow. I think it applies perfectly today.

"Theory: In US presidential elections, the more charismatic candidate wins.

People who write about politics, whether on the left or the right, have a consistent bias: they take politics seriously. When one candidate beats another they look for political explanations. The country is shifting to the left, or the right. And that sort of shift can certainly be the result of a presidential election, which makes it easy to believe it was the cause.

But when I think about why I voted for Clinton over the first George Bush, it wasn't because I was shifting to the left. Clinton just seemed more dynamic. He seemed to want the job more. Bush seemed old and tired. I suspect it was the same for a lot of voters."

retreatguru 9 years ago |

Trump is entertaining to watch. Even though I find him a buffoon I still find him fun to watch. Hillary has more experience, matches my views on policy but she is a bore to watch, I can't bear it.

(I'm Canadian, and our immigration server is now down due to the load).

Gupie 9 years ago |

The election of an "Entertainer in Chief"

farright 9 years ago |

It's a number of things:

Going against political correctness by voicing controversial but popular views on immigration and Islam.

Populist economics in a recession after two terms of Obama.

And of course a yuuuge charisma.

wavefunction 9 years ago | |

I don't find him particularly charismatic. I'd probably punch the dude in the mouth if I had to deal with him and his attitude in person.

But your points about populist economics are the bigger cause I believe. But then I'm a Bernie supporter who knew he could steal that issue from Trump. C'est la vie.

ethbro 9 years ago | | |

I think pg's quality could also be termed "dynamism", which Americans have historically been very drawn to at the polls.

If one feels that the current economic outlook is not good for oneself, then I can absolutely see preferring a candidate who seems excited in proportion to the perceived challenge. And I would chalk the advantage there to Trump.

inimino 9 years ago | | |

Sounds like you're just not his audience. Would you at least agree that he's much more charismatic than his opponent?

Moshe_Silnorin 9 years ago | | |

Populist economics is about as useful as populist physics.

farright 9 years ago | | |

The fact the so many progressive's response is to want to "punch the dude in the mouth" is exactly the kind of oppresive political correctness Trump voters are rebelling against.

These scenes probably garnered even more support for Trump's rallies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EMux_UHmpvc

blfr 9 years ago |

It surely helps and Trump exploited every opportunity, spared no effort to make sure he wins but charisma is generally not the path to the White House

https://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2016/11/does-charisma-...

Overall, 6 of 29 modern elections were won by strongly charismatic leaders (Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, JFK); another 4 elections were won by well-liked but uncharismatic figures, Eisenhower and Reagan. About 80% of the time, an uncharismatic person wins the presidency.

Retric 9 years ago | |

BS. Reagan Like trump was a popular actor and was very charismatic.

Importantly Trump (likely) lost the popular vote by a large margin. But he focused on the few areas that actually count. Remember the extra 250 thousand Hillary voters in DC count for 3, the significantly smaller margin in Florida, and PA count for 49.

cableshaft 9 years ago | |

Things change over time. Nowadays people are inundated by video of the candidates for over a year straight up to the election. Back then that certainly wasn't the case, especially before the time of television. I'm certain charisma plays more of a factor now than it used to.

anondon 9 years ago |

This is from 2004. The title should be updated to reflect that.

kayoone 9 years ago | |

That makes it even better