How significant is personality in Presidential elections?

[Reaganfan]

I've been finding a common thread about people and how they vote in Presidential elections. It seems that most people I talk to, young and old, men and women, agree with me on several issues.

Against gay marriage
Pro death penalty
Against gun control
Dislike of taxes, the IRS, big government
Against bailouts

Yet every person I spoke with voted for Barack Obama. When I ask them why, they often say he's cool, they like him, ect. They don't even seem to negatively critique the Republicans as much as just shimmer about Barack Obama.

How significant is personality in Presidential elections? Does it make a large difference in election results?

[ElectionsGuy]

Oh yes, sadly personality and appearance is a key factor to any presidential or political race. The reason Bob Dole lost in a landslide in '96 is because he would put you to sleep rather than hype you up like Bill Clinton, even though he had good solutions at the time. Most people don't pay attention to politics, and many people vote against their own preferences because they don't care who their voting for or don't know and don't care to know. That's why conservatives always say "Wake Up America!" I talked about uninformed voters in another thread and how the Democratic base is more uninformed (99% of people on this forum are informed). The proof is turnout, even though the Republican base is pretty uniformed as well, democrats are more so though. You may not agree with that but it's the truth.

[Asian Nazi]

Personality, or rather, charisma, can make a HUGE difference.  George W. Bush arguably won the Presidency on his charisma in 2000.  Personality, however, can be interpreted differently depending on who the audience is.  Plenty of people thought that Bush was relatable, they would have a beer with him, etc, but a section of the population thought of him as dumb.  Obama comes off as likable to some but arrogant and elitist to others, etc.

[barfbag]

Winners of the White House have always had a leadership personality in the past several decades. They need to be persuasive and charismatic enough to win over the swing voters. Exceptional public speaking skills is a must.

[bballrox4717]

It's significant to an extent, but it more or less depends on how a campaign utilizes a candidate's  personality. A campaign that has a clear defined message lets their candidate's strengths shine through, while a poor one lets their weaknesses spill out all over the place. Some candidates are better than others. Romney was a perfect candidate for a well oiled campaign machine like Obama to shred into pieces. They destroyed Romney's credibility by using the primaries while staging Obama's integrity and coolness right next to it. For every comment Romney made like the 47 percent comment or his continued refusal his tax returns, Obama seemed more connected to the people, trustworthy and relaxed. Not to mention, he was already likable to begin with, and has never been perceived by the vast majority of the public to be unwilling to deal with the issues at hand.

[Pessimistic Antineutrino]

Very, very important.

Just look what happened to Howard Dean after his "Dean Scream".

Personality no doubt played a part in Romney's loss as well as he couldn't shake off the public's perception of him being elitist and out of touch.

[barfbag]

It apparently didn't matter the last two times. We elected an ego maniac who talks about America as a "downright mean country" and whose wife claimed "for the first time in my adult life I was proud of my country." His personality is that of a freeloader and a leech. He grew up on welfare, got into Harvard because of affirmative action, his loans were paid for because of grants funded by wealthy tax payers, defended ACORN who helped people lie in order to get money from the government and ran prostitution rings with girls as young as twelve, and after spending two years in the U.S. Senate decided he should be the most powerful person in the world. If that isn't a self-indulgent hypocritical, lowlife, then I don't know what is.

[eric82oslo]

It apparently didn't matter the last two times. We elected an ego maniac who talks about America as a "downright mean country" and whose wife claimed "for the first time in my adult life I was proud of my country." His personality is that of a freeloader and a leech. He grew up on welfare, got into Harvard because of affirmative action, his loans were paid for because of grants funded by wealthy tax payers, defended ACORN who helped people lie in order to get money from the government and ran prostitution rings with girls as young as twelve, and after spending two years in the U.S. Senate decided he should be the most powerful person in the world. If that isn't a self-indulgent hypocritical, lowlife, then I don't know what is.

Having a bad day?

[stevekamp]

"Personality" is hard to quantify.  One analyst who posits a mixture of economic and noneconomic factors is Ray C. Fair, Predicting Presidential Elections.  He was wrong in 2012, 1992, 1960, but otherwise has been accurate back to 1916.

If you look at the Atlas national percentages chart, you will see the percentages for either party rarely move below 40, and above 60 only four times (1920, 1936, 1964, 1972).  Hard to say "personality" was the factor -- rather party trends, incumbent advantages or disadvantages, economic factors.  Remember that the P election is not a national popular vote, but a state by state contest, where one has to get 53 percent to make the Electoral College irrelevant. Obama 2008 52.87, Bush 1988 slightly over 53 -- highest recent is Reagan 1984, 58.77.

Re 2000, Gore plus Nader equals a national popular vote majority.  Bush the Younger did not win except in NH and FLA. 

[barfbag]

"Personality" is hard to quantify.  One analyst who posits a mixture of economic and noneconomic factors is Ray C. Fair, Predicting Presidential Elections.  He was wrong in 2012, 1992, 1960, but otherwise has been accurate back to 1916.

If you look at the Atlas national percentages chart, you will see the percentages for either party rarely move below 40, and above 60 only four times (1920, 1936, 1964, 1972).  Hard to say "personality" was the factor -- rather party trends, incumbent advantages or disadvantages, economic factors.  Remember that the P election is not a national popular vote, but a state by state contest, where one has to get 53 percent to make the Electoral College irrelevant. Obama 2008 52.87, Bush 1988 slightly over 53 -- highest recent is Reagan 1984, 58.77.

Re 2000, Gore plus Nader equals a national popular vote majority.  Bush the Younger did not win except in NH and FLA. 

Would you agree then that presidential candidate's personality can hurt them as well? I'd say there are times it hasn't mattered such as 1936, 1964, and possibly 1972. In most elections though it has the potential to be the decider.

[barfbag]

It apparently didn't matter the last two times. We elected an ego maniac who talks about America as a "downright mean country" and whose wife claimed "for the first time in my adult life I was proud of my country." His personality is that of a freeloader and a leech. He grew up on welfare, got into Harvard because of affirmative action, his loans were paid for because of grants funded by wealthy tax payers, defended ACORN who helped people lie in order to get money from the government and ran prostitution rings with girls as young as twelve, and after spending two years in the U.S. Senate decided he should be the most powerful person in the world. If that isn't a self-indulgent hypocritical, lowlife, then I don't know what is.

Having a bad day?

Oh don't mind me, but what I said was true.