very true , but it's an oversimplification to say that Clinton lost because she wasn't charismatic enough .
-
-
-
If it's an oversimplification, it is one that has worked for the last 14 elections in a row. http://paulgraham.com/charisma.html
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Why is it more likely that these "builder-types" are the best person for "the job"? Which job? What makes Hillary a "builder"?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
put 'the builder' as Operstions Dir and the schmoozer as CEO
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
politics aside, have u had truly great founders without their own kind of charisma? I'd say passion usually comes across as charisma
-
Yes, they're often more charismatic than a random person. But also more powerful, so c/p ends up lower.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
I think the fact that she was a familiar figure and had a lot of baggage from being attacked for decades had as much to do with it
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
both Obama and Trump benefited from being totally new on the scene. A blank slate allows folks to project their hopes more easily
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
He's the opposite of a magnet. Magnet = you once had an insecure mail server, and people care.
-
Not 'people care' -people can be manipulated in2thinking it's major,via media bias due to a diff http://j.team/candidate .
- Show replies
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.