Does the Presidential election come down to nothing more than basic charisma?

In a way, yes, charisma counts (no sh!it Sherlock) if you assume the majority of voters vote along party lines anyway, therefore a studly persona would defintely put it over the top. On a side note, to illustrate the weathervane fickleness of your average voter with a sanctimonious bent, if, God forbid, it turns out our incumbent got a bj in the rotunda while Michelle videotaped the whole thing and it went viral on YouTube, it wouldn't even matter if while in office our prez reduced the trillions dollar deficit to zero. For such a gross peccadillo (the bj, not the deficit reduction -- please focus), our children's children's' children must pay. Sort of like the god-du jour making every generation in perpetuity pay for Eve taking a chomp out of a Granny Smith. If the world were just plain nuts, I could probably handle it. But psycho creepy? -- that is a problem.

P.S. the part about Romney having zero charisma? How fortunate. Though obviously it is a given that any Republican reeks. So it's kind of a given, zero charisma-wise. I'll be expecting your letters.

This one of the most interesting questions I have seen on here.

You're right, after looking at the history it appears that the person with the most charisma wins. There is a difference with this year's election though, a lot of people have not forgotten what seemed to cause the economic downturn and skyrocketing national debt. When the Bush 2.0 took office he inherited a fiscal surplus. Eight years later, Obama inherited an economy in free fall.

Bush 2.0 and the republicans can't be blamed for everything that happened, but they were at fault for the "Bush tax cuts" that have had a big hand in weakening the middle class, and republicans are always the reason that capitalism is under-regulated which allows for things like "credit default swaps" to exist, and for financial corporations becoming "too big to fail".

I got off topic quite a bit there, so back to the question. I totally agree that voters tend to go with the candidate that has more charisma. I disagree that Romney lacks it though, and I feel this will become more apparent as the campaign continues.

I think this has everything to do with human nature. Charisma is not actually a specific trait, and it covers a variety qualities that a person might have. Even still, we all seem to be able to come to consensus on who has it and who doesn't for the most part. We are hard wired to pick up on subtle and obvious things that let us know, this person has...it.

So this truth seems to carry with it a big flaw when it comes to the democratic process: Voters are going to vote for the person rather than his/her policies. Not on the whole, but enough to decide who wins. Remember George W. won 2 times by slim margins.

My sad conclusion: This trend will continue as long as the two party system dominates our democracy. I believe in democracy, but not in being forced to choose "the lesser of 2 evils" or always along party lines. As long as the race comes down to either the Democrat or the Republican who has the best smile.

The worst part is that we technically have the power to change it, we could all vote based on our specific beliefs on what our country should be doing. I'm not just talking about the president, but congress and local government as well. If congress members didn't have the option to band together along party lines to force their party's agenda, then each representative would only be left with his or her opinion, and if his/hers constituency disagreed with said opinion, they would vote for someone else. Imagine the utopia.

Anyway, you bring up an excellent point, and I guess my answer is that we need to get rid of the 2 party system for it to go away. I don't know how we do it, but it's the only way.

In my opinion, the Presidential election does not come down to merely charisma, but a candidate's platform. In this upcoming election I predict Obama winning not because he has charisma (although he is an amazing public speaker), or because Romney has no charisma, but because of the differences in their stance on social issues like abortion and gay rights. I think these elections are based on who the American voters have more faith in and can identify with more consistently.

It is sad that our elections have become reality TV. Maybe we should just read their platforms and vow not to watch or listen to them.

If Abraham Lincoln was on TV he would have lost. If we saw Roosevelt in a wheelchair he would have lost. Taft was so fat he got stuck in a bathtub. Think about how many have lost just because they did not have charisma, but probably had the brains, ideas an know-how to really make a difference.

Vote for unattractive nerds.

Good point. You could have started with Kennedy and the first major impact of TV on the election.

I hope it holds through this election, we really can't afford Willard Romney as Pres.

Keep in mind that the roll of the President is to distract the people away from those pulling the strings. So the candidate with the best personality will be caused to win. This year, there is no question of who should win.

That is a keen observation-

But think about it.......when does the total NERD *EVER* win a popularity contest???

Look at Dennis Kunnich......he could be the smartest man on the planet.......

(he's not, but I am just saying.....).........but he has ZERO chance, because he looks like a DORK-

Romney has got even LESS appeal than that. There's no way anyone is electing that stiff Herman Munster .

a block of wood has more personality-

For a startling percentage of voters? Oh yes, absolutely. I'd bet the bank that several million people will vote for Romney just because he seems like a nice guy and has an aesthetically dreamy running mate. I mean, come on...Who do you think looks better in a pair of Speedos...Ryan or Biden? I rest my case.

Superficially speaking, Obama may not be the most charismatic guy, but he has a beautiful smile, so he's got that going for him *swoon* And am I the only one who would love to see him get really pissed, just once? Dude stays as cool as a cucumber, no matter how much those damn right wingers rake him over the coals. I'd like to think that when he turns in for the night, and the staff is out of sight, he picks up furniture and hurls it against the White House walls in a psychotic rage, then moves on to the backyard, where he busts out his Glock and blows off the heads of gnomes in Michelle's vegetable garden.

I mean he's gotta...How else can he cope with a job like that?

Yes, but I think it's because the guy with more charisma will convince more people that his plans are better. Those speeches are a big deal.

Also, I've read that the taller candidate usually wins. I've heard that the candidate with the better sounding name usually wins, but that researcher picked McCain.

2012 is it

For the most part this is true. But it's really about the candidate appearing to meet the needs of given groups. People are afraid, their candidate tells them the other one is the reason for their fear, they vote against that person. All negative these days.