Lunch Time Conversation

[billroper]

I picked Gretchen up for lunch today and we headed for Portillo's, as is our habit on Saturday. Over lunch, I tried this theory out on her; now I present it to you.

Since the watershed post-Watergate election of 1976, the American voter has picked the more likeable of the two Presidential candidates without regard to their policies. (Winner in bold.)

1976 Ford vs. Carter
1980 Reagan vs. Carter
1984 Reagan vs. Mondale
1988 Bush vs. Dukakis
1992 Bush vs. Clinton
1996 Dole vs. Clinton
2000 Bush vs. Gore

This is obviously just a theory and may well have more to do with the familiarity that voters now have with the candidates' images via television than anything else -- like, say, Watergate.

Comments

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

Image over substance? Sounds like America to me.

Where did you get the data on who is more likeable? I think you have it right in each match, but I'm curious where the data comes from.

B

[billroper]

Personal opinion. :) I'm sure someone has run such a poll somewhere, but I don't know how I'd find it.

Actually, the only two races that are difficult to handicap are the first two on the list. But, even so, I (and Gretchen) recall one of Carter's assets in his first race was that big friendly smile, as opposed to Ford, who was seen as a stiff bumbler. By the time Carter's re-election campaign came around, he was smiling a lot less and Reagan was, of course, a trained actor. (I couldn't tell you if he was actually more or less likeable in person, of course.)

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

I think you picked them all right. (And that's public perception, which has little to do with reality.)

B

[kevinnickerson.livejournal.com]

You may have something, but 1980 bugs me a little bit. I might agree Reagan was more likable than Carter, but really I probably would have reversed it. Too close to call might be a better rating.

The Power of Prediction Using Obscure Variables

[tnatj.livejournal.com]

Hmm ... interesting, although I prefer the "candidate-closer-related-to-Queen of England" test, as a tie-breaker, particularly because both Bush and Kerry attended Yale.

The main reason is the quantifiability of the relatedness statistic.

No, it's your television. :-)

[poltr1]

Let's go all the way back to 1960, and the Nixon vs. Kennedy debate, so we can better see the television effect.
1960: Nixon vs. Kennedy
1964: Goldwater(?) vs. LB Johnson
1968: Nixon vs. Humphrey
1972: Nixon vs. McGovern

I certainly don't remember watching the '64 or '68 debates, and am hazy on the '72 debate. But I've heard enough about the effect TV had on the '60 debate.

But then again, hasn't the presidential election *become* a popularity contest? It's not "Vote for the candidate that you think is best qualified to lead the country", but "Vote for the candidate who looks more presidential". What a sad way to choose a leader.

A leader has to have a strong chin.
--Lt. Cmdr. Susan Ivanova, BABYLON 5

[folkmew.livejournal.com]

I definitely liked Carter much more than Reagan.
I mean not policy, I mean I think he was more likeable. But I agree that Reagan was likeable and many people "liked" him.

Just the other day I was thinking "I suppose Carter really is too old to run again and anyway why would I wish that on such a nice and decent man..."

[minnehaha.livejournal.com]

And anyway, Carter has been the best ex-President we've had in a long time.

B