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.
-
The counter point here actually is 2016. Clinton got more votes. And a lot more votes. Trump won the election. You’re probably onto something but it’s not as bulletproof as you claim here.
Since electoral votes are what wins elections, those are what campaigns contend for, and thus how you measure which campaign had more appeal.
-
-
The election came down to 107k votes, so it was essentially a tie. Therefore any thesis was just as likely to be wrong:https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/swing-state-margins/ …
-
Oh, Florida was even closer in 2000: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_United_States_presidential_election_recount_in_Florida … So again, a toss-up. If two toss-ups broke the other way, this theory would lose a lot of steam.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
By a teeny amount of votes spread over three states, it was luck, or cheating wouldn’t surprise me a bit. The gop is a win at any cost party. He was a polarizing candidate people generally loved or hated him. Some held their nose & voted for him over one issue. Oh and racists.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
wow, really interesting point! the candidate who had more "charisma", where "charisma" is defined by the ability to win the electoral college, won the electoral college. i'm learning so much today
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Charisma obviously doesn’t affect electoral college voters so campaign strategy here must play part. Advertising money in swing states multiplied by charisma = victory? TV face time multiplied by charisma?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
If you're measuring popularity just counting the votes is much more straightforward
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Further thought is to see if this holds true around the world. Germany might be counter example. Canada is certainly validating the hypothesis.
-
Don’t bring Canada into this
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Which would you think charisma is more likely to play a factor in: the total number of people who vote for you, or in how geographically conveniently located your voters are?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.