Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

We've heard for years about how important the "who would you rather have a beer" test is to voters, but I got to thinking about it, and as far back as I can think the more likeable, "cooler" candidate has won every presidential elections.

Obama over McCain
Bush over Kerry
Bush over Gore
Clinton over Dole
Clinton over Bush
Bush over Dukakis
Reagan over Mondale
Reagan over Carter
Carter over Ford (arguably not the correct result, but that was an atypical year with the nixon pardon and all that)
Nixon over McGovern (dont' know enough about them)
Nixon over Humpherie (how cool can a guy named hubert be?)
Johnson over Goldwater (I don't know enough about either)
Jfk over Nixon (the best example of this theory until clinton)
Ike over Stevenson,
Ike over Stevenson (eisenhower was awesome, Adlai was a nerd)
Truman over Dewey

Aside from a few I don't know much about, and a few that are close (carter/ford and Nixon/Humphrie) the more likeable, affable, and plain old cooler guy has won every year.

Is it possible that given how few votes are truly up for grabs that elections are just simpler than we think?

Jesse Ventura '12.

Although I must say, McGovern is a pretty cool name for the Head of State.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Jesse Ventura '12.

Although I must say, McGovern is a pretty cool name for the Head of State.

I wouldn't mind this

I'd say there is something to it. There is a bit of popularity contest to the whole thing.

GG

Have you heard Jon Stewart's routine regarding the "have a beer with the candidate" poll?

People want a leader they can relate to, or want to relate to I guess.

Well, it makes more sense when you realize how few votes are really being targetted. Most people live in pretty safe states for one party or another. Barring something wacky, each candidate can count on a lot of electoral votes from their base. That leaves mostly voters in battleground states. In those states, you can't count people that are registered with a party, because they almost all vote for their party's candidate. Likewise with non-registered liberals/conservatives. Take out the small percentage that vote third party. Take out strong issues voters when/where appropriate, and you're stuck with a big vat of undecided voters. Nobody knows how they make up their minds, but sheer likeability beats a coin flip.

Polonius wrote:Well, it makes more sense when you realize how few votes are really being targetted. Most people live in pretty safe states for one party or another. Barring something wacky, each candidate can count on a lot of electoral votes from their base. That leaves mostly voters in battleground states. In those states, you can't count people that are registered with a party, because they almost all vote for their party's candidate. Likewise with non-registered liberals/conservatives. Take out the small percentage that vote third party. Take out strong issues voters when/where appropriate, and you're stuck with a big vat of undecided voters. Nobody knows how they make up their minds, but sheer likeability beats a coin flip.

There's a lot of work done on the undecideds, but there's also a lot of work done in getting the base to care about this particular candidate. While registered Republicans and self-identified conservatives may never vote Democratic, they might also stay home on election day. A lot of work is done to convince the faithful that this Republican/Democratic candidate really is all about whatever the hell it is that leads people to think of themselves as liberal/conservative/Democratic/Republican.


Exactly how cool the candidate is matters, but I'm not sure how much information we can get from a look at past winners and thinking about who is cooler. The problem is that we're more likely to consider one candidate cooler than the other if he's already won the election. There was nothing particularly cool about most candidates, but a winning candidate that gets to fly about in his own plane is going to score a lot of cool points over the loser who ends up reduced to giving keynote addresses at fundraisers.

Likeability is certainly a factor, and was definitely important in Bush and Clinton's wins. But it probably isn't as important as being in the right place at the right time. You don't really want to run against an incumbent, and you don't really want to run when your party has just held the presidency for the last eight years (as you get saddled with your predecessor's failings, but get no credit for his successes).

The one that surprises me lately is the guy with military service getting beat. It’s been a big deal, and was a primary factor in the nomination of Kerry and McCain, but they both went down.

Perhaps too much time has passed since a real, conventional war.

The last one was Vietnam, which is generally considered a failure, and was part of the Cold War, which is no longer around.

sebster wrote:The one that surprises me lately is the guy with military service getting beat. It’s been a big deal, and was a primary factor in the nomination of Kerry and McCain, but they both went down.

About 13 million American men served during the course of WWII. Service guaranteed a great of respect. That respect easily translated into success in business, politics, or almost any other endeavor. The 30 years prior to Clinton were characterized by former military men in positions of power throughout the whole of the United States, not just the political sphere. So you've already got a bias towards those who served, then you throw in the inherent popularity of Eisenhower after being credited with defeating Germany, plus the intensifying Cold War, and you get a recipe for a military monopoly on the Presidency.

Now WWII is ancient history, the Cold War is over with no similar conflict on the horizon (China isn't enough of a military threat to count just yet), and the generation that served in WWII is on their way to the grave.

All of which boils down to an American hoi-paloi that no longer realizes that there are foriegn powers who prehaps do not wish us well.

grizgrin wrote:All of which boils down to an American hoi-paloi that no longer realizes that there are foriegn powers who prehaps do not wish us well.

do you really think that? I think most people realize that we have enemies.

Yeah, I think that is a bit too simplistic too.

With the amount of talk about terrorists recently, I am sure that most people are at least a bit on edge. Perhaps the Wars that we are fighting are making our soldiers a bit less popular? It is very true of public opinion abroad, not that we don't need to be involved in any conflicts; the need to stop steamrolling into mountains is an issue though.

At some point, we will have to leave the Middle East, and leave that whole lot alone for quite a while. Keeping a distance from the whole Iran debacle would only work out in our best interests, I am sure. Perhaps Israel will just take care of everything... ummm... maybe not.

Polonius wrote:

grizgrin wrote:All of which boils down to an American hoi-paloi that no longer realizes that there are foriegn powers who prehaps do not wish us well.

do you really think that? I think most people realize that we have enemies.

Not me. Everyone loves me.

dogma wrote:

sebster wrote:The one that surprises me lately is the guy with military service getting beat. It’s been a big deal, and was a primary factor in the nomination of Kerry and McCain, but they both went down.

About 13 million American men served during the course of WWII. Service guaranteed a great of respect. That respect easily translated into success in business, politics, or almost any other endeavor. The 30 years prior to Clinton were characterized by former military men in positions of power throughout the whole of the United States, not just the political sphere. So you've already got a bias towards those who served, then you throw in the inherent popularity of Eisenhower after being credited with defeating Germany, plus the intensifying Cold War, and you get a recipe for a military monopoly on the Presidency.

Now WWII is ancient history, the Cold War is over with no similar conflict on the horizon (China isn't enough of a military threat to count just yet), and the generation that served in WWII is on their way to the grave.

The US has a decent history of electing soldiers before WWII, and many of them were soldiers in wars that were not as 'clean' as WWII; Jackson, Grant, Roosevelt. It would reflect public perceptions and public values. In Australia the public goes ballistic whenever a soldier gives an opinion that's slightly political, we just don't grok that kind of thing. I think the UK would be fairly similar, and they didn't elect any soldiers after WWII. I think it might reflect different cultural values. Not that I'm saying the US would be unique, France elected de Gaulle.

Do you think the rise in prominence of soldiers among the US military led to the growth in military spending? The US went from having a rather noticeably meagre military relative to its economic strength prior to WWII, to now spending about half of all military expenditure in the world. I'd assume the relationship would be pretty direct.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

grizgrin wrote:All of which boils down to an American hoi-paloi that no longer realizes that there are foriegn powers who prehaps do not wish us well.

As other's have said, that is very simplistic, but it's also completely wrong. It's a basic, commonly accepted reality that there are people who don't wish the US well. If anything, there is a highly exagerated sense of how many people do not like you. There is also an incorrect sense of the scale of your opponents, from the ridiculous exaggerations of Russian capability to assumptions over China's independence from the world economy.

None of which has anything to do with the needing to elect soldiers into political roles.

sebster wrote:
The US has a decent history of electing soldiers before WWII, and many of them were soldiers in wars that were not as 'clean' as WWII; Jackson, Grant, Roosevelt.

Yeah, I thought of that right after I hit submit.

sebster wrote:
It would reflect public perceptions and public values. In Australia the public goes ballistic whenever a soldier gives an opinion that's slightly political, we just don't grok that kind of thing. I think the UK would be fairly similar, and they didn't elect any soldiers after WWII. I think it might reflect different cultural values. Not that I'm saying the US would be unique, France elected de Gaulle.

There might be something to the idea that nations with a revolutionary history tend to view the military as a necessarily trustworthy force.

sebster wrote:
Do you think the rise in prominence of soldiers among the US military led to the growth in military spending? The US went from having a rather noticeably meagre military relative to its economic strength prior to WWII, to now spending about half of all military expenditure in the world. I'd assume the relationship would be pretty direct.

The Cold War was also a major factor. As you said, the US has a long tradition of military men in high office, and our military wasn't especially significant despite that. Most US strategic analysts during the period believed that our military was inferior with respect to that of the USSR by a significant margin (even before they acquired the bomb, go figure ). That fact, combined with our increasing tendency to view ourselves as a global power, lead fairly organically into a surging defense budget.

Though certainly the presence of a former soldier in office is bound to lead to reduced scrutiny with respect to the military budget. Just look at Star Wars (the project, not the movie).

dogma wrote:There might be something to the idea that nations with a revolutionary history tend to view the military as a necessarily trustworthy force.

There's probably a lot of factors that tie in, and that would certainly be a major one.

The Cold War was also a major factor. As you said, the US has a long tradition of military men in high office, and our military wasn't especially significant despite that. Most US strategic analysts during the period believed that our military was inferior with respect to that of the USSR by a significant margin (even before they acquired the bomb, go figure ). That fact, combined with our increasing tendency to view ourselves as a global power, lead fairly organically into a surging defense budget.

Yeah, I actually argued against myself there, and now kind of think the opposite, that perhaps having soldiers in political positions doesn't really impact the importance of the military budget. Certainly there's never been an unemployed guy in the White House, yet social security is the biggest part of the budget.

Yeah, undeniably the growth of the US military standing had a lot to do with the Cold War, and a lot to do with the demise of Europe. If the US wasn't going to spend the money to stop Josef Stalin IIs rolling into Paris, then who was? But I wonder if, once the ball gets rolling, military spending tends to grow and grow, and if that's somewhat inevitable in all superpowers. I know that the cost of maintaining the British colonies steadily moved from the source of British wealth to a cash sink.

Though certainly the presence of a former soldier in office is bound to lead to reduced scrutiny with respect to the military budget. Just look at Star Wars (the project, not the movie).

But it's a good movie.

sebster wrote:
Do you think the rise in prominence of soldiers among the US military led to the growth in military spending? The US went from having a rather noticeably meagre military relative to its economic strength prior to WWII, to now spending about half of all military expenditure in the world. I'd assume the relationship would be pretty direct.

I don't necesarily buy this idea. In fact it was Eisenhower that warned us about the rise of the "Industrial Military Complex". Mcaine was for downsizing as well. Reagan wasn't in the military but increased the defense budget a lot in the 80's.

I think the rise of military spending has more to do with job creation and the Industrial Military Complex than anything else.

GG

I think the 'beer' test is second to the 'how much money is in my wallet' test. If the economy is doing well, in general, the incumbent party stays in power. If the economy is bad, the other party gets elected.

dietrich wrote:I think the 'beer' test is second to the 'how much money is in my wallet' test. If the economy is doing well, in general, the incumbent party stays in power. If the economy is bad, the other party gets elected.

Seconded.

Also wars. If we're losing war they party in power tends to get kicked out.

generalgrog wrote:I don't necesarily buy this idea. In fact it was Eisenhower that warned us about the rise of the "Industrial Military Complex". Mcaine was for downsizing as well. Reagan wasn't in the military but increased the defense budget a lot in the 80's.

Yeah, in talking about it with Dogma in latter posts I pretty much went on to disprove my own point, listing earlier soldier presidents that had presided during a time when military spending was quite low.

I think the rise of military spending has more to do with job creation and the Industrial Military Complex than anything else.

Yeah, military spending is great for targetted job creation. But there's also the rise of the US to a hyperpower, something that's going to produce a big military budget.

It will require a big budget. I don't know if it will produce one, as such. Can the US economy maintain that level of spending?

We are having trouble in the UK. We could dump Eurofighter and Trident, and spend money on helicopters, LAVs and infantry instead.

generalgrog wrote: Reagan wasn't in the military but increased the defense budget a lot in the 80's.

Reagan actually held the rank of Captain. He just never served in combat.

generalgrog wrote:I don't necesarily buy this idea. In fact it was Eisenhower that warned us about the rise of the "Industrial Military Complex". Mcaine was for downsizing as well. Reagan wasn't in the military but increased the defense budget a lot in the 80's.

I think the rise of military spending has more to do with job creation and the Industrial Military Complex than anything else.

Bingo. And I think everyone knows the current system is extraordinarily wasteful and not in our troops' best interests. The issue is that military leaders, contractors and Congressmen all have such vested interests in the status quo, I dunno how you untangle it all.

To the OP, I don't think it's any great secret that Americans (and probably human beings in general) vote with their guts and not based on issues. It's why politicians have always kissed babies and such. See, that's how you logicians and philosophers keep getting tripped up by us sneaky sophists.

dogma wrote:

generalgrog wrote: Reagan wasn't in the military but increased the defense budget a lot in the 80's.

Reagan actually held the rank of Captain. He just never served in combat.

Interesting, I'll have to wiki that.

GG

He made war movies and films as did many in Hollywood. He was in the military, but he was no soldier.

There were a few that actually served and saw combat-Steve McQueen, and Jimmy Stewart being two.

The only way to win an election is to appeal to the idiot.
the only person whoever wins is "the idiot who appeals to the idiot"

Thats nonsense and tripe. You can say a lot of things about US presidents, but idiot is not one of them.

It's not that people are dumb, either. It's that the logos mode of persuasion tends to be unpersuasive in elections. The ethos and pathos modes seem to be far more powerful in that context, whether you're talking about idiots or geniuses.

Obama cloaked himself in logic and intellectual discourse, but really his campaign was fueled by emotional and moral persuasion, in my opinion.

A few topics are bouncing around. I'll try to answer sensibly for once.

On the original topic, I think that the "cool guy" factor absolutely has a role in voting among the undecided and unaffiliated. It's one of a nebulous set of factors: Money in my pocket (mentioned above), cool guy, relatable guy, trustworthiness (should never be underestimated), and "Slings the least amount of mud". As to which one is the most important among the undecided/unaffiliated throngs, I certainly can't say. But I would submit that since people are people, there is simply no knowing what goes on in people's noggins.

On Americans electing war-heros (Generals, mostly). That might be easier to answer. There are a few possible reasons, which I feel all have contributed in the past.

1. We are a war-like country. It's not that we like war. But every generation of the US has been involved in a major war. Every 20 years. We see our generals as strong and competent "Leaders of Men." That isn't too far of a stretch from 'Leader of Our Country."

2. General Washington, General Eisenhower, and Teddy Roosevelt, as examples, were very charasmatic men.

3. Everyone loves a winner. Neither Kerry nor McCain were high ranking officers in Vietnam. Nor did we win in Vietnam.

How are we deciding on what is considered an undecided? Is it just people who decided they don't want to join a specific political party or people who choose not to make up their minds right off the bat? What is the criteria again?