that issue.

And it is sad that so many in the GOP vote based on such nonsense.

It's also independents and disengaged Dem voters.

Slogans replace substance.

Hit the nail on the head.

They vote republican because their grandparents were republicans, and their parents are/were republican sooo, they are republicans.

They don't have any idea how electing republicans affect them, their kids, the country and the world negatively, they don't want to understand. Everything republicans do on a daily basis to screw everyone, one would think that they would understand republicans are the wrong choice, but they don't because they don't read, they don't think, they also hear from the repubs pundits that it is the democrats' fault, and they believe it, no questions asked.

A brilliant piece that I have not seen,

And, she noted the media complicity in the likeable contest.

Will Samantha Bee ever overcome her likability problem if she doesn't embrace her inner 10 y.o. Finnish boy who wants to play a saxophone in the Oval Office? Maybe Politico could send a reporter to ask.


(Thanks for that video. She covers a lot of ground in 7 minutes!)

❤️

But the media defines likeable differently for men and women, and in any case, we should vote for the most qualified.

And in 2016, the most qualified ran against the least qualified, but the US corporate media treated the least qualified as a legitimate contender with actual ideas.

Based on that, McCain was much more qualified than Obama, but there was no way he was going to be elected in 2008.

But he picked Sarah Palin.

That's why HRC didn't win the nomination in 2008.

When he was President, but came across to many as a cold fish. Reagan came across as really likeable. The rest is history.

It may not matter to you but likability means something to many voters.

Carter is a person who works for the betterment of the country and other people.

Reagan was a racist who could read a script.

And the likeability of each was determined by the media.

A rather sizeable number of the registered voters are generally apolitical. They pay little attention to politics day to day as they are too engrossed in kids, family, work, school, and other activities. Some often struggle to even name their own state representatives and senators, so it isn't a surprise that they never heard of presidential candidates from other parts of the country.

They usually make up some proportion of the undecided voters every election and while they may favor one party over another, many don't have strong convictions and their votes are often made on intangibles like likeability and other factors unrelated to policy positions.

Why do you think we often change parties back & forth every 8 years?

In my lifetime, there has only once been an election in which the same party won three terms in row and that was Reagan and Bush.

My quarrel is with the US corporate media, and the role it plays in determining who is likeable.

that many thought Bush would be like a third term of Reagan. Plus, they did a number on Dukakis.

their record on those issues.

But some prefer to vote based on intangibles.

I'd like someone as a Democratic party president who is not concerned about being likeable ... a president who will really stick it to the Republicans, the way past and present Republican presidents shit on Democrats.

Obama was way too nice to Republicans, and they hated him anyway.

so I can see how "likability" is a factor to consider. It should be objective and not subjective but it isn't at this time in the US.

And the media defines the likeable narrative and frames who passes the likability test.


And a life long crook and open racist passed the media test, in part because the same media created the myth of Trump the brilliant businessman.

The ultimate in packaging cow manure and labelling it roast beef.

It makes you wonder how much of a choice we really have (as opposed to how much we would like to think we have) when it comes to electing someone.

and the packaging, or the crafted message.


And in a money dominated system, the rich speak very loudly.

So, you go by the "laundry list" or checklist method of all the correct positions on issues. Fine, I admire you for your integrity.

But my Democratic lifetime is littered with all the noble, most intelligent, most idealistic, most selfless public servants -------------who have *LOST* mostly because they didn't have that extra little edge of likability/charisma. I have ACHED more times than I can say. One of my earliest memories was of my mother and elder sister crying when Adlai lost (the 2nd time).

"Likability", besides "charisma", also means: the *COMMON TOUCH* - relatability, a candidate who COMMUNICATES their UNDERSTANDING of what the populace lives through.


So, again, I admire the "issues" approach, but ultimately, the top tier of our Democratic candidates will - ANY ONE OF THEM - do the right thing, which means being correct on the issues, and that extra little bit of likability that puts us over the top is a plus.

on who has the best chance and likability is a factor in winning

Reagan played a likeable person, but it was a role.

Bush Jr. played a likeable person, but again, it was a role.

Some people have that charisma, that ability to connect. Obama has it, so does Bill Clinton.

Can we agree that our system is winner-takes-all, with winning being the key for good or Ill. So one item on a list of what makes it happen is what we're calling likability, which attacts more than ONLY a discussion of issues.

Agreed, but in a system where the corporate media prefers style to substance, and in a system where the same media determine the narrative, style wins.

I'm checking out.

So we are going to end up picking who we pick but of course their likeability matters.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

"Trump and Clinton were the No. 1 and No. 2 least-popular nominees on record,"

"This set the stage for the unusual campaign dynamic. Instead of the usual tussle to obtain the votes of people who had a broadly favorable impression of both candidates, Trump and Clinton were in a slug-fest where the pivotal voters disliked both of them and — in many cases — ended up voting for neither."

As a result both Johnson and Stein revieved more votes then they did in 2016.
"Stein nearly tripled her support to 1.06 percent and Johnson more than tripled it to 3.27 percent. Evan McMullin, who basically only ran in Utah, got a larger share of the vote in 2016 than Stein had gotten in 2012.

And the third-party vote made a big difference in the aggregate. Trump carried Arizona, Utah, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin with less than 50 percent of the vote. Clinton did the same in Maine, New Hampshire, Virginia, Minnesota, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado."

Neither Stein nor Johnson had any chance of winning, so the votes were wasted unless the voter felt that a point was being made.

I'm not sure purity is the correct term. These people , whether we understand their logic or not, felt that they could not vote for either Hillary or tRumpus.
A coworker that I am friends with voted for Johnson because he thought trump was an idiot and would never vote for Hillary.

I understand.

Image is almost everything. Creating an image is the cornerstone of a campaign. Very very few voters know a candidates qualifications or platform. Only the image generated.

I think John Kerry would have been one of the greatest Presidents in history but the image he portrayed didn’t generate the push necessary in the end. Near the end of his campaign his image was actually being generated by his opponents.

Reality should be as you state. It’s not. Image is damn near everything. You mention Clinton. Amazingly qualified. Yet she was passionate about image.

and the conservative, corporate media buying in to that disinformation and treating it is as valid speech.

That is what it did.

Everything you described about how men and women are viewed is correct. It is the reason I don't have any trouble emphasizing that I hope a man emerges atop our 2020 field.

It is hellish to oust an incumbent. I don't care what it looks like now. Today means nothing. The incumbent owns massive advantages and Trump as a life long liar and cheat will use tactics beyond our comprehension to get a second term.

I don't know much about Kamala Harris. I know that she would be savaged. Any Democrat will be savaged. It is the reason that charisma and likability need to be atop our priority list, not well down the line, and that is particularly true if we nominate a woman. It is simply more difficult for a female candidate to weave through the unfair maze toward saying and doing everything perfectly to maintain favorability and deflect/absorb the attacks.

Throughout my life I have handicapped the #1 requirement to oust as incumbent as likability. I started posting that here in 2002. I posted it elsewhere years earlier. And I'm darn sure not going to change course based on pressure to fall in line.

This is the key point: If we nominate someone who is not likable, we essentially nullify Donald Trump's problem of low approval rating. We give him a pass.

Our likability-challenged nominee will settle nearby his numbers.

Paul Ryan, a person who demonstrates no real knowledge of reality, is called a policy wonk because the media focused on his delivering his nonsense in shirt sleeves and in front of a white board.


HRC, a real policy person, was criticized for her hair, her clothing, and her supposed inability to connect with people.

I don't feel like I have to "like" that person in the sense of wanting to be their friend, or thinking that if I knew them we would be friends. What I do want to know is that he or she is a decent person - honest, honorable compassionate, thoughtful and reliable. I know people who fit that description that I respect but don't necessarily want to hang out with or be their best friend, you don't necessarily always click with another person, even a very good person. But because my president will never be my drinking buddy I don't care about likability. I do care about fundamental decency.

This is why I still don't understand how anyone who was paying the slightest attention could have voted for Trump. Even if they got a kick out of his perverse, iconoclastic personality, it was always obvious that he is absolutely not a good, decent man.

The US media knows this, knew this, but in the interest of generating ratings, presented Trump as a functional human.

People vote based emotions.

It's been shown over and over again and again.....

commented that we like our presidents to be personable. This was in the 90s when Bill Clinton who clearly, was very personable, was the president. And I recalled how sour and dour Pat Buchanan and Bob Dole lost primaries while Forbes, with his goofy smile did OK in New Hampshire.

Yes, of course, we want to vote for the candidates based on their platform and track records. But one cannot dismiss the likability factor. This is an instinctive reaction that voters feel toward the candidate. And i think that this is why Reagan was so popular, why so many still consider him the best president, or something. (No, I am not going to analyze Reagan, just observing).

The sad reality is that, in the work force and in politics women do have to show likability. No, Hillary was not instinctively personable. I think that this is what "pundits" refer to when they say that she was not a good campaigner. And this is why we would hear that one really has to know her, to spend time with her away from the campaign to hear her roaring laughter.

And this is why so many, who were not going to vote for Bush Jr. said that they would love to have beer with him.

I remember the 2008 debate. It was supposed to be relaxing, when they: Obama, Richardson, Edwards and Hillary were going to debate while sitting down. The guys were schmoozing, perhaps commenting on the recent "game" while Hillary sat quietly considering the points she was going to make.

Obama famously was talking about his "brackets" (basketball?) would Hillary had? Will Harris?

And, yes, it reminded me of work where, again, before a meeting the guys would schmooze about the last game, while the woman - often only one - would sit quietly thinking of the upcoming meeting.

Again, this was in the previous century - so things may have changed.

And, hope you won't alert - this is why so many were attracted to Trump with his celebrity instinct, offering hope as opposed to dour Cruz. Otherwise, why would people readily agree to appear on national TV to be "fired?"

What I would like our candidate is to promise hope. Not to point to "carnage" - even if they see it, but to, yes, borrow from Reagan, about the shining city on the hill.

Well, social science is not my area so perhaps others can offer a better analysis.

Highlighting the double standard which we must all pretend is not there.

And Trump, like Reagan, is a media creation. Neither is what the media portrays him to be.

Reagan was a semi-talented actor who hid his racism beneath a veneer of politeness.

Trump is a racist sociopath, and a failure as a business man, but reality television allowed him to pose as a tycoon.

A big part of the reason she “lost” is because so many people simply don’t like her. And many of those who do not can’t explain why.

And sexism is so ingrained into society that a strong minded, intelligent, capable person who also happens to have a vagina, uterus, and ovaries throws off those who cling to the patriarchy.

Not everyone who votes does so after long research on candidates and their positions. Like it or not, elections are a popularity contest, at least in part.

A "Likable" candidate is essential, really. It's far from the most important factor, but it is still important. People who "Like" a candidate are more likely to show up and vote, in the first place.

To win, the Democratic candidate will have to be likable. We need maximum voter turnout. Without it, we will lose again. We need to win. We need those voters who only vote when they like someone to show up.

And the corporate media can create likeability by focusing on certain aspects of a candidate and ignoring others.

Trump was allowed to present himself as this successful businessman, and as this master negotiator, because the media chose to ignore the reality of his business career.

Many claim to have voted for him because they perceived him as a successful business tycoon and master negotiator.

Others voted for him because he was the most openly racist.

show up at my door to tell me the three things he thought were important. After saying that we were overtaxed, and that he wanted to protect the rights of the unborn, he couldn't remember the third thing...

This boob was elected.

I like to like some likeable people, but I'll vote issues, not personality.

others don't. I think it definitely makes a difference when it comes to getting elected.

but it is a negative charisma.

He was playing a role, with Bush Sr. as his handler.

Charisma matters and IT shouldn't. Competence and intelligence is all that SHOULD matter
But its the world we live in.

Welcome to DU.

And the US media is often crucial in determining, by their coverage, who is considered charismatic.

The media is a reflection of us. They provide the information we want to hear so that we will watch. Furthermore, that are subject to all the same unconscious biases that everyone else is.Therefore they reflect all of our prejudices about what makes someone likable or not. So don't ask why the media painted Hillary as unlikable. Ask why your friends and neighbors wanted to hear that.

6 large corporations control over 90% of it.

And these corporations are run by the 1% to generate profit.

And the media decide which stories are worthy of coverage, and what aspects of the story will be covered.

Trump is a failed businessman, but through the magic of reality television, the failure that is Trump was allowed to play a successful businessman. "We" did not do that.

If people did not watch reality TV, they would stop offering it. Personally, I hate it and have no idea why people watch that crap. But it gets ratings.

For election coverage, they could offer a detailed analysis of each candidate's policies with real experts and no shouting, but would anybody but a policy wonk watch it?

But is it a matter of what people prefer, or what they are conditioned to prefer?

Before any possible conditioning, there was a first reality show, and it was a big enough hit that they made more. I vaguely remember it. I thought it was the downfall of Western Civilization. I think current events are proving me right.

did because I know quite a few of them. Then you have people holding cable news to the same standard as print medium. EVERY newspaper came out against rump. Is the "media" perfect...of course not but everybody who bashed them will be thanking their God that they exist by the time this is all over.

You can dislike that, or like that. But people decide for themselves what's important in who they vote for. You can look at all the Presidents in the 20th Century, and see that most of them were very likable. Likability is one of the characteristics of natural leaders. It doesn't matter if you're the smartest guy in the room, the one with all the answers...if no one wants to follow you or work with you.

Trump is extremely UNlikable....to us. But not to his base. They love him. It's warped, because he's a disagreeable, lying POS. But that's what they like.

I like broccoli okay and know that it is a superfood. It's very good for me. I LOVE ice cream, and know that it's bad for me. If I am out of both broccoli and ice cream, but I want both with dinner, I am not going to get in the car and make a special trip to get broccoli. But I might, to get ice cream. Just because I love it!

Yes, Trump is unlikeable, but if that is what his base likes, he is likeable.

You aren't voting for a best friend, you're voting to fill a job. You're voting for someone to oversee the executive branch.

The apparent test for some.

feelings to me. I really can't think of any repug who has that. If that is likability, so be it. I will support whoever is chosen as our candidate.