Every presidential compaign since the era of television campaigning (ie: the Kennedy versus Nixon contest of 1960) has gone to the more charismatic of the two leading candidates. One could argue that the American voter ultimately does not decide on the basis of political affiliation, foreign policy, economic strategy, or any of the ostensible “serious” issues on the table.
No, what the contests between Kennedy/Nixon, Johnson/Goldwater, Nixon/Humphrey, Nixon/McGovern, Carter/Ford, Reagan/Carter, Reagan/Mondale, Bush/Dukakis, Clinton/Bush, Clinton/Dole, Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry all had in common is this: The one who projected the most charisma during that campaign cycle was the one who got to spend the next four years in the White House.
Of course this may all be mere coincidence…
So, Johnson was more charismatic than Goldwater? Nixon more charismatic than McGovern? That’s a point that could be debated.
Yes, I agree, the point certainly is debatable. In both cases the incumbant was coming off of an extremely strong first term (as was Reagan in 1984). In the once case, Johnson was seen as a strong and effective agent for continuing the Kennedy legacy, which he indeed was. Vietnam would not become an issue until three years later.
Also, it’s hard to recall post-Watergate that the mood through much of the country was one of relief at the perception that Nixon was bringing the Vietnam war to a close. In a sense the “charisma” comparison is not fair in the case of a strong incombant, since a strong first term confers charisma.
Interesting, if that is the case then how come folks like you, Randy Pausch (very fondly remembered), Chris Hoffman, Micheal Smith and Mark Guzdial don’t run for president. You are more charismatic than any of the random folks I’ve had the priviledge to vote for!