What happened in 2016 was the same thing that happened in every presidential election since 1968: the more charismatic candidate won. http:/paulgraham.com/charisma.html
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
If you had read the essay, you'd have seen that I only claim the rule applies to general elections. Primaries are decided in other ways. The answer to your question is that Reagan was more charismatic than Carter, who was more charismatic than Ford.
-
-
Why has the “less charismatic” candidate won the popular vote twice in the last 20 years? Are swing state voters more susceptible to the lure of “charisma” than the nation generally?
-
A swing state is a battleground due to having an equal number of confident voters on both sides of the political issues. The winner is decided by the small number of people left who are unsure how to vote. Easy to imagine those few uncertain voters being swayed by charisma.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
You know your rule is dumb when you have to make arbitrary exceptions to it. I mean come on
-
Also, Hillary and gore won the popular vote. So I guess charisma only counts in the weird antiquated electoral college system?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.