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