The more charismatic candidate always wins

[Statilius the Epicurean]

How true is this?

[PoliticalShelter]

Well Trump had worse personal favourablity ratings than Clinton, so it kind of depends on what you define as "charismatic". Another possible American example of this not being true is the 1968 and 1972 presidential election.

But otherwise it's pretty much always true. At least in recent American presidential elections.

[SingingAnalyst]

How true is this?

True in each of the last 15 Presidential elections, going back to 1960, with the possible exceptions of 1968 and 1972.
1960- Kennedy's charisma was legendary.
1964- Johnson was folksy; Goldwater may have come across as stern sometimes.
1968- Probably a 3-way tie in terms of charisma. Humphrey, ever eager to please; Nixon, statesmanlike in demeanor.
1972- McGovern (I have heard) was a rather boring speaker; though Nixon was a bit of a grouch.
1976- Carter again was folksy and down-home; Ford was a bit more awkward.
1980- Reagan was the Great Communicator.
1984- Ditto ("I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I will not exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience").
1988- Bush performed better than expected. "Read my lips"
1992- Clinton had charisma.
1996- Ditto
2000- Bush seemed folksy; Gore seemed wooden and automaton-iike.
2004- Bush, still folksy.
2008- Obama had charisma.
2012- Obama had charisma.
2016- I guess you could call Trump's campaign style a form of charisma, but Hillary Clinton certainly did not have the political savvy of her husband.

[darklordoftech]

I'd say it's true as long as one of the candidates is more charismatic than the other.

- Andrew Jackson was more charismatic than Quincy or Clay
- TR was more charismatic than Parker
- FDR was more charismatic than Hoover, Landon, Wilkie, or Dewey
- Kennedy was more charismatic than Nixon
- Reagan was more charismatic than Carter or Mondale
- Clinton was more charismatic than HW or Dole (people called Dole "Bob Dull")
- Dubya was more charismatic than Gore or Kerry
- Obama was more charismatic than McCain or Romney
- Trump has a devoted group of followers while Hillary didn't

[Progressive Pessimist]

I don't think it's particularly true. I won't deny that shallow and superficial Charisma is a very subjective descriptor. For instance, I wouldn't call Trump charismatic, he isn't boring, but he doesn't have a natural presence of confidence or likability that I would associate with the word. But again, that's me. Others will probably disagree. This is why I hate how personality-driven politics has become. The campaigning aspect of running for office is a means to an end. It will not matter anymore at a later point, when that politician has to do their job. Their ability to do it and what they want to accomplish is all that should matter. But I'm just wasting mental energy by point this out. We are way too far-gone from this ideal.

[Senator-elect Spark]

How true is this?

True in each of the last 15 Presidential elections, going back to 1960, with the possible exceptions of 1968 and 1972.
1960- Kennedy's charisma was legendary.
1964- Johnson was folksy; Goldwater may have come across as stern sometimes.
1968- Probably a 3-way tie in terms of charisma. Humphrey, ever eager to please; Nixon, statesmanlike in demeanor.
1972- McGovern (I have heard) was a rather boring speaker; though Nixon was a bit of a grouch.
1976- Carter again was folksy and down-home; Ford was a bit more awkward.
1980- Reagan was the Great Communicator.
1984- Ditto ("I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I will not exploit, for political purposes, my opponent's youth and inexperience").
1988- Bush performed better than expected. "Read my lips"
1992- Clinton had charisma.
1996- Ditto
2000- Bush seemed folksy; Gore seemed wooden and automaton-iike.
2004- Bush, still folksy.
2008- Obama had charisma.
2012- Obama had charisma.
2016- I guess you could call Trump's campaign style a form of charisma, but Hillary Clinton certainly did not have the political savvy of her husband.

[Peanut]

I do think this is true, albeit charisma is something very subjective at times, say, in 1968. But in elections like 2008 it's pretty evident.
Another thing I've noticed is that, in open seat elections, the less experienced candidate seems to win more often than not.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

I think it was a tie in 1964.

[Alabama_Indy10]

I think Trump is much more charismatic than Clinton

[darklordoftech]

William Jennings Bryan was more charismatic than McKinley or Taft, but lost three times.

[Da2017]

Pretty much true since the age of television. You could argue 1988 and 2016 to an extent as an exception to the rule. 

1984 Reagan you can't top that
1988 Neither candidate was electrifying. H.W had Reagan's coattails
1992 Young and Easy Going Bill Clinton over the Tired George H.W
1996 Same as 92
2000 The folksy George W over the nerdy Al Gore
2004 Folksy W over boring John Kerry
2008 Dynamic Obama over boring old tired John Mccain
2012 Obama was more likable than the stiff awkward Mitt Romney.
2016 Both candidates were unlikable. Trump had anti establishment message going for him.

[darklordoftech]

Pretty much true since the age of television. You could argue 1988 and 2016 to an extent as an exception to the rule. 

1984 Reagan you can't top that
1988 Neither candidate was electrifying. H.W had Reagan's coattails
1992 Young and Easy Going Bill Clinton over the Tired George H.W
1996 Same as 92
2000 The folksy George W over the nerdy Al Gore
2004 Folksy W over boring John Kerry
2008 Dynamic Obama over boring old tired John Mccain
2012 Obama was more likable than the stiff awkward Mitt Romney.
2016 Both candidates were unlikable. Trump had anti establishment message going for him.

Why didn't you include 1960 and 1980?

[Da2017]

Pretty much true since the age of television. You could argue 1988 and 2016 to an extent as an exception to the rule. 

1984 Reagan you can't top that
1988 Neither candidate was electrifying. H.W had Reagan's coattails
1992 Young and Easy Going Bill Clinton over the Tired George H.W
1996 Same as 92
2000 The folksy George W over the nerdy Al Gore
2004 Folksy W over boring John Kerry
2008 Dynamic Obama over boring old tired John Mccain
2012 Obama was more likable than the stiff awkward Mitt Romney.
2016 Both candidates were unlikable. Trump had anti establishment message going for him.

Why didn't you include 1960 and 1980?

I not familar with those.

[darklordoftech]

Charismatic candidates often promise change and claim to have a solution to the problems of the day.

[Mr. Smith]

TV ensured it and warped perceptions of a campaign enough to turn it into such an affair.

Bryan, Al Smith, and even Teddy Roosevelt would've stood to benefit had the TV existed. Teddy probably would've taken every state but The Confederacy in 1904 and defeated Wilson in 1912.

Al Smith would've deflected the Church-baiting and possibly managed to turn the whole wet-dry conversation on its head. It's entirely possible 1928 could've been like 2016 in reverse, y'know Hoover wins popular vote because "good economy".

And Bryan speaks for himself. His loss in 1896 isn't entirely different from 2016 had Comey kept his mouth shut.

[CookieDamage]

How true is this?

In the television campaign era (roughly 1976–2008), it was universally true — 1988 being the closest to an exception.

I'd say it was also true in 1948-60 and 2016. Not sure about 1964-72. The last true exception to the rule I can identify is 1944; Roosevelt was dying and Dewey was a young celebrity.

Interesting point, do you feel like we are in a different era where charisma doesn't matter?

[Dukakisite1988]

There's a temptation to say this, but how about if we look at primaries instead.

In 2004, John Kerry was able to overcome Howard Dean and John Edwards amongst others. Kerry was perhaps the least charismatic candidate in the entire field.

My man Dukakis defeated Jesse Jackson in 1988.

Walter Mondale was up against Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson in 1984.

On the Republican side, Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani were arguably all more charismatic than McCain in 2008. Reagan was certainly more charismatic than Ford in 1976, although the latter did have the advantage of incumbency.

[Statilius the Epicurean]

There's a temptation to say this, but how about if we look at primaries instead.

In 2004, John Kerry was able to overcome Howard Dean and John Edwards amongst others. Kerry was perhaps the least charismatic candidate in the entire field.

My man Dukakis defeated Jesse Jackson in 1988.

Walter Mondale was up against Gary Hart and Jesse Jackson in 1984.

On the Republican side, Huckabee, Romney and Giuliani were arguably all more charismatic than McCain in 2008. Reagan was certainly more charismatic than Ford in 1976, although the latter did have the advantage of incumbency.

Largely because primaries aren't a fair fight, in pretty much every one of your cases the "party establishment" was trying to stack the deck in favour of the boring winning candidate.

[Alben Barkley]

It’s been generally true in the modern era, i.e. since FDR. Only a couple arguable exceptions.

1932/1936/1940/1944: FDR was one of the most charismatic candidates of all-time, far more than any of his Republican competitors.

1948: Truman was much more fiery and charismatic than bland, stuffy Dewey.

1952/1956: Stevenson wasn’t exactly uncharismatic, but he had nothing on the war hero Ike.

1960: JFK quite possibly won this election solely because he was so much more charismatic than Nixon.

1964: LBJ was more charismatic in a gruff, down-to-earth, dominant sort of way than Goldwater, whose uncompromising idealism didn’t play well at the time.

1968: This is one of the possible exceptions. Wallace might actually have been the most charismatic candidate. Neither Humphrey or Nixon were very charismatic; between the two, I might actually give the edge to Humphrey, but then the election was very close in the popular vote and unusual in many ways.

1972: Nixon was still not charismatic, but neither was McGovern. Another wash, more or less, that was thus decided on factors outside charisma. Where Nixon had a clear advantage.

1976: I love Jimmy Carter, but I’m actually not sure I’d call him more charismatic than Ford. Both were likable, but in different ways. Again pretty much a wash, this time because both candidates had some charisma rather than because both lacked it.

1980: Carter’s charm had worn off by this point to much of the public, and Reagan was the most charismatic candidate since JFK if not FDR. No contest.

1984: Mondale was less charismatic than Carter and maybe even McGovern. And he was going up against Reagan. Small wonder he got destroyed.

1988: Another one where neither candidate was very charismatic at all. Dukakis made more mistakes however (e.g. the tank, the debates), and Bush coasted to victory on the popularity of Reagan combined with a ruthless campaign. Lloyd Bentsen was actually the most charismatic candidate on either ticket though. Could have won if the ticket was reversed.

1992: HW fell apart when he had to go up against an extremely charismatic candidate in Clinton, who was the Democratic answer to Reagan.

1996: Dole was possibly even less charismatic than HW, basically a sacrificial lamb thrown up against Clinton.

2000/2004: Dubya’s folksy, plain-spoken charisma helped him immensely against the stuffy, boring, and intellectual Gore/Kerry. Probably wouldn’t have won if he was less charismatic or if he was running against more charismatic candidates, as close as both elections were anyway.

2008/2012: McCain was a bit more charismatic than Romney (and had Palin, charismatic in her way), but neither had anything on Obama. Another once-in-a-generation charismatic politician.

2016: People didn’t like either candidate, but ultimately Trump’s form of “charisma” helped him motivate his base more and win over more undecideds, which was enough to eke out a win.

2020: I’d argue this year that Biden is more charismatic than Trump; he polls as more likable/favorable for a reason. I guess we’ll have to wait and see what happens, but for now he’s on track to win which would continue the pattern.

So clearly there is a strong correlation between charisma and electoral success since around 1932. What’s interesting is that no such correlation is evident before then; Coolidge and Hoover were not charismatic at all, yet won big in the 20s. Wilson before them was not that charismatic either. Bryan was more charismatic than any of his opponents, yet lost three times. There were actually loads of dull, uninspiring presidents in the pre-modern era who had no trouble getting elected, sometimes even over more charismatic candidates. I think there is a clear reason for this however: With the rise of radio, newsreels, and television, charisma became far more important. Far more people than before could hear and see candidates speak. Before it didn’t really matter so much if you had no charisma, because most voters would never hear you or see you outside maybe occasional photos in the paper.

Nixon is the only candidate in the modern era who managed to win twice despite having hardly any charisma. But he lost the first time to a much more charismatic candidate, and the circumstances under which he did win were heavily skewed in his favor, including the fact that his Democratic opponents weren’t all that inspiring either.

[Orwell]

I'd say Stevenson was more charismatic then Eisenhower, no matter your opinion Stevenson came to the nomination in 1952 by the grace of being a fine orator, he to the opposite of Kennedy was not made for television though. 

[Tiger08]

Definitely true. Maybe modify to "more exciting" in the case of Trump

[Del Tachi]

While I generally agree with this, there's probably some biased revisionism going on.  Namely, we will remember winning candidates as charismatic in part because they happened to win.  For elections "on the margin" (1968, 1976, 1988, 2000, 2004, 2016 etc.), I could see us easily arguing the loser was "obviously more charismatic" in the event they had actually won.   

[darklordoftech]

While I generally agree with this, there's probably some biased revisionism going on.  Namely, we will remember winning candidates as charismatic in part because they happened to win.  For elections "on the margin" (1968, 1976, 1988, 2000, 2004, 2016 etc.), I could see us easily arguing the loser was "obviously more charismatic" in the event they had actually won.   

Bush’s charisma and Gore’s and Kerry’s lack of charisma were talked about before election night, and if Hillary won in 2016, people would say it’s because Trump is divisive, not because Hillary is more charismatic.