-
-
Replying to @paulg
very true , but it's an oversimplification to say that Clinton lost because she wasn't charismatic enough .
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rajatsuri
If it's an oversimplification, it is one that has worked for the last 14 elections in a row. http://paulgraham.com/charisma.html
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @paulg
are you sure Nixon was more charismatic than Humphrey, for example?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @paulg
we should note though that for this theory to be truly valid , it should predict popular vote winner - i.e. Will of the people
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rajatsuri
The essay talks about that too: http://paulgraham.com/charisma.html#f2n …
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @paulg
but fact is 3 M more people picked the less charismatic individual on their ballot
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @rajatsuri
Because Trump never bothered asking them to pick him.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Right, so you should compare candidates' results among voters they tried to appeal to. I.e. the electoral vote.
-
-
Replying to @paulg
election set-pieces that highlight charisma the most like the debates are broadcast nationally to all voters.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @rajatsuri @paulg
so if voters are persuaded solely by charisma, you would expect the popular vote to go to most charismatic every time
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 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.