Presidential contests are now congeniality contests

[hotpprs]

If you look back at the last 7 Presidential contests, it seems to indicate that the winning President is a winner of a congeniality contest. That does not appear to be the case for a number of elections before 1984. I don't want to get into why this is the case in this post, (it probably has to due with the rise of cable TV and the internet), but why it is critical for the GOP to pick the correct candidate.
I think there are a set number of people that vote on policy or party of the candidates.
That is probably around 85% of people who vote. (I'm just pulling these numbers out of the air just to illustrate the point I am making. The exact numbers do not matter, just the outcome). Out of these, lets say around 37.5% each never change which party they vote for, which leaves the other maybe 10% who are open minded on policy and will vote for the opposing party based on policy. I do not think these 10% decide the election.
I think it is the 15% that are left that just vote by who they "like". I am not saying these people are ignorant, or don't understand the politics involved. I just think when it comes down to it, those 15% vote subjectively, not objectively.
So now I will cut to the chase.
I think this election will follow this current pattern. The GOP needs someone who is more likeable DIRECTLY compared to Obama. Not compared to someone one else, or not within a multiple group, or not based on a poll just on how likeable they are independently. Just think of it as a simple 2 sided balance weight scale that tips one way or another. You combine likeability, trustworthiness, if they have a mean streak, a weird personal affect, or even how they look in person or on TV, and put that in one big lump. Then you take each lump (candidate), and put that on that simple balance scale and see which way it tips. I contend that the heavier lump,(heaviness being favorable), won in the last 7 elections. George H.W. Bush was a perfect case because he both won and lost. He weighed better then Dukakis, but not better against the big loveable Bubba.
And as hated (by some) as Clinton and Bush were during their reelection campaigns, they ran against candidates that everyone said had personality flaws, Dole and Kerry.
Their parties were sure personality did not matter, and that the utter disdain for the current President would guarantee a win.
Does this sound familiar this year?
Here's my opinion on how the scales would tip this year.
(And I'm not basing this on who I like or dislike. I'm basing this on who I think the whole of the electorate would like or dislike).
Obama weighs better then Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann, Christie.
Obama weighs worse then Daniels, Santorum, Perry, Jeb Bush, Cain.
This is subjective on my part, so you can argue all you want on my scale picks.
And like I said, I am not basing this on policy or who is Presidential material or who can best serve the country. Just the congeniality contest.
Bottom line, the GOP is in big big big trouble if the things are not tremendously worse in October then they are today, and they go with Romney, when it is now painfully obvious he has the Kerry, Dole, Dukakis, McCain, Gore personality issues.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Now?  Now!?  This has been the case since at least  the dawn of the broadcast TV era, if not earlier.  Those who listened to the first Kennedy-Nixon debate on the radio thought Nixon had won it, but those who watched on TV thought Kennedy had.  Dewey likely lost votes for looking like the little man atop a wedding cake as TR's daughter Alice put it.

[LastVoter]

Now?  Now!?  This has been the case since at least  the dawn of the broadcast TV era, if not earlier.  Those who listened to the first Kennedy-Nixon debate on the radio thought Nixon had won it, but those who watched on TV thought Kennedy had.  Dewey likely lost votes for looking like the little man atop a wedding cake as TR's daughter Alice put it.

It could be just different audiences that listened to the radio and that watched TV.

[TomC]

Some of that 15% isn't just voting on whose personality they prefer, but who they perceive is going to win.

[hotpprs]

Of course it is almost somewhat true in all politics. But since 1984 in the Presidential contests it seems more so. Kerry and Dole had golden opportunities to win.
If you look at the last few before 1984, it didn't seem so clear cut to me.
Reagan-Carter? Close, just about a tossup, but arguably Carter may have had the niceness edge there.
Carter-Ford? Another close one. Both seemingly very bland, but nice.
Nixon-McGovern? McGovern.
Nixon-Humphrey? Humphrey.
So maybe in 3 out of the last 4 elections before 1984, the congeniality contest, might not have been the case so much.
Those elections were probably more about the mood of the country at the time, and what policies the voters wanted.

Now?  Now!?  This has been the case since at least  the dawn of the broadcast TV era, if not earlier.  Those who listened to the first Kennedy-Nixon debate on the radio thought Nixon had won it, but those who watched on TV thought Kennedy had.  Dewey likely lost votes for looking like the little man atop a wedding cake as TR's daughter Alice put it.

[bgwah]

Well duh. I remember Obama beating McCain in a "Who would you rather have a burger with?" poll in 2008 and realizing Obama had the election in the bag.

Haha, I found it: http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2008/07/02/89920-poll-obama-beats-mccain-as-barbecue-guest/

The July poll even nailed the margin: Obama +7.

But yeah. Mitt Romney is a horrible candidate politically and he's just plain unlikable. He's a weak candidate. Gingrich is even worse. Which leaves Santorum as your best bet, amusingly enough.

[BM]

Duh. National policy only matters in congressional races.