HawkShack.com

American history professor Allan Lichtman and Russian mathematician Vladimir Keilis-Borok developed a predictor for the US presidential election starting in 1984, using keys that they discovered going back to every presidential election since 1860. They used it to call the winner of the popular vote, until the narrow electoral victory of Bush in 2000 (which Gore won the popular vote). After that, they started predicting the overall winner, which included Trump in 2016. The basic premise is stability=incumbent party wins, and earthquake=challenger party wins, so if 7 or more statements are true, Trump stays. If 7 or more statments are false, Biden wins. Interestingly, only 2 of the keys are directly related to the personality traits of the candidate. It's not a quiz or a poll, as he called it using these keys even when Bush Sr was significantly down in the polls vs Dukakis, even though he supported Dukakis.

The 13 keys:

1.Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4. Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5. Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6. Long-term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10. Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12. Incumbent (party) charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13. Challenger (party) charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Keys_to_the_White_House#Prediction_system

https://youtu.be/mp_Uuz9k7Os

At least as far as the popular vote goes, the only election where pollsters failed to predict the winner was in 1948 (Truman-Dewey). They've been doing them since 1936. Most are within 2% of the actual and well within the 3-4% margin of error. At least as far as the nation wide polling goes, they are very, very reliable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historica ... l_election

Most of those items in Lichtman's model are pretty objective and I agree with some of them being indicators of electability, but several others are very subjective and I can't see how anyone can make a determination. For example, how do you define "major changes in national policy"? Does Trump's border wall qualify? Does his trade war with China qualify? Does Jimmy Carter's granting of amnesty for Vietnam war draft dodgers qualify?

I'm also at a loss as how one can define "charisma". We could probably agree who wasn't charismatic, like Richard Nixon, Walter Mondale, and Michael Dukakis, but what about FDR? Was he charismatic?

We can agree that JFK was a war hero as was Dwight Eisenhower, but what about John Kerry? He was awarded the silver star, the bronze star, and 3 purple hearts, so you would think he would qualify as a war hero, but does the fact that his subsequent behavior (throwing them away) and controversy surrounding them negate those decorations?

I'd also be curious as to how to define a scandal. Does Slick Willy's pre-Monica Lewinsky episodes of Whitewater, Travelgate, or Filegate qualify as scandals? Does McGovern's VP selection of Thomas Eagleton qualify as a scandal?

It's an interesting proposition as I think a lot of those items have merit in their ability to forecast elections but it seems that some of those subjective criteria can be molded or shaped to fit the author's narrative.

How's this for predicting elections. Since 1896, Ohio has voted for the winning POTUS candidate in 28 of the past 30 elections, or 93% of the time. And not only that, the state's final vote total has deviated from that of the nation wide result by an average of 2.2% since 1900, 1.3% since 1964, and just 1.2% since 1980. The 50 state average deviation is 6.9%. So goes Ohio, so goes the country.

https://www.wvxu.org/post/ohio-when-it- ... t#stream/0

And here's another indicator for the re-election of incumbent Presidents: Job approval ratings. If an incumbent POTUS's job approval rating is at or near 50%, they win. If it's below 50%, they lose.

In the 11 elections since 1948 where an incumbent was seeking a 2nd term, if their job approval was at or near 50%, they won (In 2004 Bush 43 had a 48% job approval and won a close election). The only other POTUS that had a sub 50% job approval and won re-election was Truman in 1948, the first year they ran job approval polls.

Since 1948, the one term Presidents that lost re-election had the following job approval ratings prior to the election: Ford 1976 (45%), Carter 1980 (37%), and George HW Bush 1992 (34%). Trump's current job approval rating is 43.1% and his high water mark for his current term has been 47.3%, another reason why I think Biden will win the White House.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/311825/pre ... cally.aspx

My point is that there are a lot of very simple models out there that one can use to accurately forecast the result of an election. I don't see Lichtman's as being any better or worse than other, less complicated means.

I read Lichtman's article. He said in the article Trump is winning in six of those areas and Biden in seven. He very much said these can shift before the election. So this isn't even close to to Lichtman making a final prediction like the article I saw circulating on Yahoo indicated. Lichtman said if the election were held today, Biden would likely win. He said the election is very close, far closer than the polls indicate. Biden has some work to do to hold on to his edge.

That's why I'm not even close to seeing a clear winner. So much dirt is going to start getting flung and so many moves are going to be made, calling this election is a real crap shoot. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a crap shoot right up to election day unless I see a kill shot released like Trump directly using a racial slur or some new trash on Hunter Biden. This is going to get real dirty before long here.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I read Lichtman's article. He said in the article Trump is winning in six of those areas and Biden in seven. He very much said these can shift before the election. So this isn't even close to to Lichtman making a final prediction like the article I saw circulating on Yahoo indicated. Lichtman said if the election were held today, Biden would likely win. He said the election is very close, far closer than the polls indicate. Biden has some work to do to hold on to his edge.

That's no better or worse of a prediction than any other talking head. I don't think that Lichtman has a corner on the election prediction market. The outcome of most elections are pretty easy to predict if you wait until the last week.

Aseahawkfan wrote:That's why I'm not even close to seeing a clear winner. So much dirt is going to start getting flung and so many moves are going to be made, calling this election is a real crap shoot. I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't a crap shoot right up to election day unless I see a kill shot released like Trump directly using a racial slur or some new trash on Hunter Biden. This is going to get real dirty before long here.

I don't think there's anything more to glean out of the Hunter Biden issue. It's old news. Same goes with Trump's use of racial slurs. If you're the type that's likely to be offended by that kind of language, you've already been disrespected by him on countless occasions. The allegations made by Trump's own niece of his use of racial epithets didn't put a dent in his popularity. His supporters and independents/undecideds have heard it all before and have either rationalized it, as Idahawkman has, or it doesn't matter to them.

Same goes with Trump's womanizing. Anyone who feels those issues are relevant have been exposed to it on multiple occasions and have long ago made up their minds. Even if something were to come out showing a definite link between Trump and Epstein wouldn't sway very many voters. His kind and gentle attitude towards Ghislaine Maxwell hasn't moved the needle in the slightest. Trump's popularity has actually increased since he publicly "wished her well".

I don't think that the election is over, but it's going to take something major, like a war or a terrorist attack, to flip enough voters back over to Trump's camp in order to change the dynamics. More dirt on the same subjects isn't going to change anyone's mind. This election is Biden's to lose.

Was FDR charismatic? I would think so, seeing that he was the first and last president to serve 3 terms. I don’t this it’s really that controversial, but now I’m curious who you think are more charismatic presidents. My modern list would include in reverse chronological order:

Trump*
Obama
Clinton
Reagan
JFK
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt

*he has undeniable charisma, but he also purposefully alienates, resulting in more haters

RiverDog wrote:I don't think there's anything more to glean out of the Hunter Biden issue. It's old news. Same goes with Trump's use of racial slurs. If you're the type that's likely to be offended by that kind of language, you've already been disrespected by him on countless occasions. The allegations made by Trump's own niece of his use of racial epithets didn't put a dent in his popularity. His supporters and independents/undecideds have heard it all before and have either rationalized it, as Idahawkman has, or it doesn't matter to them.

Same goes with Trump's womanizing. Anyone who feels those issues are relevant have been exposed to it on multiple occasions and have long ago made up their minds. Even if something were to come out showing a definite link between Trump and Epstein wouldn't sway very many voters. His kind and gentle attitude towards Ghislaine Maxwell hasn't moved the needle in the slightest. Trump's popularity has actually increased since he publicly "wished her well".

I don't think that the election is over, but it's going to take something major, like a war or a terrorist attack, to flip enough voters back over to Trump's camp in order to change the dynamics. More dirt on the same subjects isn't going to change anyone's mind. This election is Biden's to lose.

Did you not watch 2016? Hilary's email scandal had an effect on the election up to the last day.

It's absolutely clear Trump's followers mostly don't give a crap about his actions. Moderate voters may care if they hear the president directly using a racial slur.

I highly disagree. In an election won by as you put it a 100,000 votes, any little edge can move that one way or the other.

I-5 wrote:Was FDR charismatic? I would think so, seeing that he was the first and last president to serve 3 terms. I don’t this it’s really that controversial, but now I’m curious who you think are more charismatic presidents. My modern list would include in reverse chronological order:

Trump*
Obama
Clinton
Reagan
JFK
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt

*he has undeniable charisma, but he also purposefully alienates, resulting in more haters

Modern list? As in president's I've seen?

Reagan: an easy number one. Grandpa Reagan made you feel good to be American in so many ways.
Clinton/Obama: both were very charismatic and likeable.
Trump: Trump can work crowds and his salesman skills and personality can sell slogans and ideas that he knows how to echo and echo and push and push.
Bush Jr.: He had a weird, likeable goof quality.
Jimmy Carter: Good man, but I don't recall him having much of a charismatic personality.
Bush Sr: Probably the most powerful and smartest president of the the group in regards to world affairs, knew how manage America's international image and strength, but not much good at being America's face man domestically. He was much better behind the office than in front of it.


The most charismatic president in history in my opinion is Lincoln. Though I'm highly biased. A man that somehow held the North together to prosecute the Civil War while also manipulating all the various political elements to abolish slavery within a roughly 6 year period had to operating with charisma, intelligence, and political savvy that puts him among the best leaders in history. After reading on Lincoln and then reading on other Civil Wars that usually tore nations apart, even established nations, I am absolutely amazed he pulled it off. Not many presidents accomplish many simple things during their administration much less winning a Civil War and abolishing a 200 plus year institution within a 5 year span. Mind blowing political maneuvering. And if you read Lincoln's writings, speeches, and debates, they are amazing. Not sure how well he would do on TV, but on the written page Lincoln's charisma is clearly number one challenged only by Jefferson.

FDR and Teddy would have to be high. They were quite well liked. And obviously FDR winning four terms and handling World War 2 has to put you high on the list. JFK has to be up there as well because everyone I talk to Republican or Democrat say he was an amazing speaker. A lot of older Republicans I know who heard JFK liked JFK. They think he would be a Republican in the modern day.

Jefferson was one of the most charismatic in writing. It's unfortunate that so much of his amazing writings are tainted by the racial rubbish he was taught. He was obviously one of the most intelligent and far seeing of The Founders. His actual presidency was not particularly great from what I recall. He did not have the will and charisma to push his ideas as well as he would have wanted, though in writing few could challenge Jefferson's flair with the pen.

I-5 wrote:Was FDR charismatic? I would think so, seeing that he was the first and last president to serve 3 terms. I don’t this it’s really that controversial, but now I’m curious who you think are more charismatic presidents. My modern list would include in reverse chronological order:

Trump*
Obama
Clinton
Reagan
JFK
FDR
Teddy Roosevelt

*he has undeniable charisma, but he also purposefully alienates, resulting in more haters

I don't agree with that list. My idea of charismatic is that numerous people are attracted to another simply based on personality or physical looks
rather than ideology. JFK certainly qualifies as does Hitler. Clinton definitely doesn't as I once saw a survey that found that most people did not want their son to grow up like him
and did not want their daughter to marry someone like him. TR probably does, but I don't think Abe would as he was widely regarded as ugly and back woodsy. Depending on who you talk to, FDR was either charismatic or snobbish. I can agree with Reagan as he was blessed with an extraordinary ability to connect via a prepared speech such as his one after the Challenger accident.

Bottom line is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The criteria can't be quantified.

RiverDog wrote:I don't agree with that list. My idea of charismatic is that numerous people are attracted to another simply based on personality or physical looks
rather than ideology. JFK certainly qualifies as does Hitler. Clinton definitely doesn't as I once saw a survey that found that most people did not want their son to grow up like him
and did not want their daughter to marry someone like him. TR probably does, but I don't think Abe would as he was widely regarded as ugly and back woodsy. Depending on who you talk to, FDR was either charismatic or snobbish. I can agree with Reagan as he was blessed with an extraordinary ability to connect via a prepared speech such as his one after the Challenger accident.

Bottom line is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder. The criteria can't be quantified.

Are you saying a guy who built up his image on TV and in the public eye for 20 plus years doesn't have charisma? Just because people hate him doesn't make him less charismatic. Trump has charisma in spades. Age has diminished it, but when younger he was the tall, billionaire playboy from New York who could give good interviews and get people to believe him with his mouth. Trump did not win on ideology. He won on charisma. Plenty of people share his ideology or one more moderates would prefer. They couldn't sell it as well as Trump.

Bill Clinton had tons of charisma. He messed up and that is what took him down. When he ran that first election, people loved him based on his looks and charisma, especially women. I talked with female liberal voters who voted for him and told me, "Because they liked him." They didn't even know his ideology. They didn't care. I don't much care for Bill Clinton and I don't respond to charisma myself, but I remember that smarmy dude playing the sax and delivering speeches and people loved Bill Clinton.

Charisma doesn't make everyone like you. No one has that power. Charisma is a very apparent ability and JFK, Reagan, Trump, Obama, and Clinton oozed charisma. Bush Sr was probably one of the sharpest and most powerful presidents in recent history, yet he lacked the charisma of many of the others. But If I needed a president to manage a war, I'd take Bush Sr over every president in my lifetime. Charisma be damned. Bush Sr. had the mind and skill to manage a foreign war better than any president of the last 50 years.

I'd take Bush Sr over every president in my lifetime. Charisma be damned. Bush Sr. had the mind and skill to manage a foreign war better than any president of the last 50 years.

I’d take someone like Bush I in a war, too, which goes to show why charisma plays very little into the 13 keys.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Just because people hate him doesn't make him less charismatic. Trump has charisma in spades. Age has diminished it, but when younger he was the tall, billionaire playboy from New York who could give good interviews and get people to believe him with his mouth. Trump did not win on ideology. He won on charisma. Plenty of people share his ideology or one more moderates would prefer. They couldn't sell it as well as Trump.

Part of the definition of charisma is that a person possess a certain type of attractiveness or charm. Even most of Trump's supporters won't claim that he's charming. To the contrary, it's Trump's complete lack of charm, ie his frankness and absence of any kind of manners or decorum, that attracts them to him. Russell Wilson has charisma because he's very charming always smiling, always positive, and physically attractive. People are drawn to him because of it. Not too many people dislike him. Richard Sherman, on the other hand, is not a charismatic figure. You either love him or hate him.

RiverDog wrote:Part of the definition of charisma is that a person possess a certain type of attractiveness or charm. Even most of Trump's supporters won't claim that he's charming. To the contrary, it's Trump's complete lack of charm, ie his frankness and absence of any kind of manners or decorum, that attracts them to him. Russell Wilson has charisma because he's very charming always smiling, always positive, and physically attractive. People are drawn to him because of it. Not too many people dislike him. Richard Sherman, on the other hand, is not a charismatic figure. You either love him or hate him.

Russell has ok charisma. I like Russ, but he's a little stiff on the mic. His character carries him as much as his charisma and his work ethic. Neither of which Trump has equal to Russell.

Trump has tons of charisma. He is charming to people who are with him. He inspires crazy loyalty. People who don't want to admit that he controls them fall back on excuses. Look at even followers like IDhawkman who thinks he's one of the greatest presidents in history. His followers flock to him even when he lies. The Apprentice and The Celebrity Apprentice were super popular for 20 years. Trump built his name up with him as the face of it based on his charisma. Even if you listen to some talk show hosts that used to have Trump on did so because he was a good interview. Even the hate he inspires is an example of charisma. He moves people towards him and against him because he has a powerful quality to move people. It's why you've seen both devotion and hate you haven't seen for a president in a long time because of Trump's ability to rouse the masses.

Charisma is his greatest asset. He's not super smart. He's not logical. He doesn't project education. He doesn't have a lot of friends in D.C. Trump won because of charisma. He hired people to tell him what agendas he needed to address when he was in front of a particular crowd. Then he got in front of them with that magnetic charisma and salesman skills he's used to build his name to a household name over 40 plus years and moved the crowds in his favor.

I know you certainly aren't going to tell me it was Trump's intelligence that won him the election. As far as his agenda, plenty of people with the same agenda as him. He spent less money than Hilary as far as I can recall. What remains as to how Trump went against the Republican establishment and the Democrats and won?

I know you don't like the guy, but he can move crowds. He projects magnetism. He's convincing and charming enough to convince enough Americans to vote for him that won the presidency even with the liberal media against him, the Democrats throwing everything they can at him, and having multiple scandals and investigations.

Charisma is literally his greatest asset. He doesn't have much else going for him.

I-5 wrote:I’d take someone like Bush I in a war, too, which goes to show why charisma plays very little into the 13 keys.

I wish more Americans voted less on charisma and likability and focused more on competence myself. And I wish we had term limits on Congresspeople.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Trump has tons of charisma. He is charming to people who are with him. He inspires crazy loyalty.

Trump gets about 80% support from evangelicists. You can't convince me that he does so though charisma as his personality is a polar opposite of the vast majority of them that exspouse morality and devotion to family as part of their core beliefs. His attraction to them is strictly political in nature.

We have a different definition of charisma. Mine is that loyalty and admiration is achieved through charm, good manners, and self identification, you want to strive to be like that person. Even those that did not agree with Kennedy on much of anything were attracted to him, especially after his election. People would grow their hair to look like JFK's. I don't see that with Trump. I don't see people coloring their hair and face orange. The man hardly ever smiles or laughs. He's all business. He gains his followers because his political idealology aligns with theirs.

I don't think his political ideology aligns with anyone other than those that have got on the Trump bandwagon and
now can't get off. What he's done is a great sales job and people have been snowed by him. He's not a leader, he's
not a good business person, he doesn't care about anyone but him, and he doesn't care about the country other than
for what he can get out of it by being in power.
That's not charisma, that's being an opportunist and taking advantage of people who are being played for suckers.
Do you really think he would mingle with his supporters? Not a chance. For him they are to be used for their votes
so he can achieve his personal ends, be it political or financial.

I agree with NH and Riv, which is why I put an * next to Trump's name. His version of charisma is extreme, and only fires up one group.

I dont see Trump as charismatic at all. I see him as a blowhard with a 5th grade vocabulary. I'd love to jump into the TV and kick him right in the ball sack every time he opens his fat yap.

He may rile up his racist ignorant base but there's a reason he's never cracked 50% in any average of polls. Matter of fact were it not for slavish shill pollster Rasmussen he would be considerably farther underwater in the polling average.
I have a feeling many people are just tired of the bluster, the lies, the dog whistles and are turning off to Donalds *charisma*. Polls inside the polls show Trump cratering among voters who dont like either candidate. He got something like 90% of that vote in 2016 and Biden is pounding him in that category. Biden has a lead with every single demographic except white males.The suburbs are looking like a blue tsunami at this point.

Only 36% approve of Trump's handling of the Coronavirus and the racial unrest.

I think the selection of Kamala is brilliant. She has a background in both law enforcement and civil rights. This primary is the only election shes ever lost, she is charismatic and attractive and yes it does matter, especially for a woman. My guess is with her prosecutorial background she will give pence a run for his money in the debate and he's tarred and feathered right long with trump on this . I think Biden gets a bump for this pick. We will see.

RiverDog wrote:Trump gets about 80% support from evangelicists. You can't convince me that he does so though charisma as his personality is a polar opposite of the vast majority of them that exspouse morality and devotion to family as part of their core beliefs. His attraction to them is strictly political in nature.

We have a different definition of charisma. Mine is that loyalty and admiration is achieved through charm, good manners, and self identification, you want to strive to be like that person. Even those that did not agree with Kennedy on much of anything were attracted to him, especially after his election. People would grow their hair to look like JFK's. I don't see that with Trump. I don't see people coloring their hair and face orange. The man hardly ever smiles or laughs. He's all business. He gains his followers because his political idealology aligns with theirs.

That's not charisma. I find it funny that you think Trump gets 80% of his support from Evangelicals. You have a link to that.

There have been plenty of charismatic leaders who didn't have good manners or required self-identification. So not even sure why you are tossing that in. As far as wanting to be like the person, that doesn't have much to do with charisma.

Charisma is the ability to move crowds with the magnetism of your personality and sell them on ideas and yourself. A lot of people want to be look like Brad Pitt, doesn't mean Pitt has an enormous ability to sway crowds. Same with James Dean or George Clooney. Saw people getting their haircuts all the time, so that is a poor way to judge charisma.

Charisma is a term that originated in religion. It was a power to move people usually by preaching or speaking the word of God and things like that.

That is what Trump does. He's like a preacher preaching to whatever group he gets in front of that he is going to give them what they desire in the best way possible because he can.

I can see you're already set in your mind, so not going to continue to argue the obvious. Trump literally has nothing else going for him but his incredible charisma. It's what got him elected when the Republican establishment didn't want him and the Democrats threw everything they had against him. Even you refer to him as dumb. You keep bringing up his agenda, but plenty of people have his agenda. His agenda wasn't special. The only thing Trump had that made him stand out to win was his charisma, his ability to draw people towards him. Same thing that kept him on TV for 20 plus years and made him a household name on talk shows.

Hawktawk wrote: I think the selection of Kamala is brilliant. She has a background in both law enforcement and civil rights. This primary is the only election shes ever lost, she is charismatic and attractive and yes it does matter, especially for a woman. My guess is with her prosecutorial background she will give pence a run for his money in the debate and he's tarred and feathered right long with trump on this . I think Biden gets a bump for this pick. We will see.

I'm not sure if I would call Biden's selection of Harris "brilliant", but it was a safe choice. I would have preferred that it would have been Klobaucher but Floyd's killing made that choice unviable. It's a helluva lot better than someone like Elizabeth Warren or some of the others that were being considered, like Karen Bass.

Harris does have her drawbacks, particularly in that she has supported initiatives like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, so the Trump campaign will use her to paint Biden as being beholden to the radical left. This could hurt him some in Biden's attempt to cut a path through the middle of the electorate. Being from California, a state already solidly in the Dem column, she does not add any electoral value to the ticket. But there are advantages in that he'll be merging two campaigns, she fits the bill of being a minority, and she will help galvanize the liberal wing of the party to get on the bandwagon.

Bottom line is that I see the positives balancing out the negatives. Biden neither gains or loses with this pick, and being that he's built up a substantial lead and doesn't need any help, it was a smart choice.

Aseahawkfan wrote:That's not charisma. I find it funny that you think Trump gets 80% of his support from Evangelicals. You have a link to that.

Re-read my statement. I didn't say that Trump gets 80% of his support from evangelicals. I said that he gets 80% support from evangelicals. That means that 4 out of 5 evangelicals support Trump, and I do have links if you don't want to take my word for it.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on our definition of charisma.

NorthHawk wrote:I don't think his political ideology aligns with anyone other than those that have got on the Trump bandwagon and
now can't get off. What he's done is a great sales job and people have been snowed by him. He's not a leader, he's
not a good business person, he doesn't care about anyone but him, and he doesn't care about the country other than
for what he can get out of it by being in power.
That's not charisma, that's being an opportunist and taking advantage of people who are being played for suckers.
Do you really think he would mingle with his supporters? Not a chance. For him they are to be used for their votes
so he can achieve his personal ends, be it political or financial.

You guys are making my case for me. Trump's not smart. His political ideology isn't even aligned with many Republicans. Charismatic leaders are almost always opportunists. The best salesman have enormous charisma. You get face to face with them, they'll sell you ice in the winter. That is what Trump does and has done for years.

Trump is literally the example of the type of charismatic leader that you don't like in office because he moves people in a way that makes them stupid. He uses his charisma for division and personal gain. He turns his followers against those that disagree with him. They show an almost slavish devotion to him. This is literally what we have seen from his followers. All that we've seen from Trump is what we see from a charismatic leader of a type people fear.

We've seen historically negative charismatic leaders many times like Trump who sow division and drive groups against each other to hold power. Charisma has very little to do with likability. Charisma used to be a religious term and it was used for preachers and prophets. Leaders both positive and negative have it. Positive guys like JFK or Reagan. Negative guys like Hitler or Mao. Trump lies somewhere in the middle of group on the negative side since uses his charisma to benefit himself and move his followers against his enemies.

That's why I'm happy we have checks and balances so charismatic leaders like Trump can't do too much damage.

RiverDog wrote:Re-read my statement. I didn't say that Trump gets 80% of his support from evangelicals. I said that he gets 80% support from evangelicals. That means that 4 out of 5 evangelicals support Trump, and I do have links if you don't want to take my word for it.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on our definition of charisma.

Not really disagree as charisma is clearly defined and Trump has that definition. You are once again defining charisma along with others who dislike Trump on this forum in a way that suits you rather than what it really is to avoid attributing any positive qualities to Trump. Given I don't have that same bias, I can see charisma when it is displayed and the reactions from it.

The proof of Trump's charisma is written all over his career. Even the way his followers act is proof of his charisma. They act more like religious devotees than regular political followers. Charisma doesn't make everyone likes you or votes for you in polls. Charisma moves people to act. Trump most definitely has a cult of personality that are devoted to him no matter what he says or does and a group that stands against him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charisma Give the Wikipedia overview a read and tell me his followers aren't acting just like this. The man inspired some nut in India to worship him.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cults_of_personality

Taken from Cults of Personality.

United States
Several Presidents in American history have been accused by various historians as being supported by the effects of a cult of personality, among them George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Donald Trump. [161][162][163][164][165][166][167] Another American politician to whom a cult of personality has been ascribed is Huey Long, the populist Governor of Louisiana from 1928 to 1932, who continued to control the politics of the state as a United States Senator until he was assassinated in 1935.[168][169] The cult of personality which grew up around John F. Kennedy largely came about after his assassination, and the cult of Ronald Reagan also came mostly after his time in office, when his administration was adopted by many conservative and right-wing personalities as being the "last good time" in recent American history.[citation needed]

A number of scholarly papers and peer-reviewed articles have assessed the personality cult that some say has developed around U.S. president Donald Trump. A paper that appeared in the 2016 American Political Science Association Annual Meeting stated that "during the 2016 Presidential primaries, the 'cult of personality' candidate, Trump, won the primary."[170] Larry Schweikart and Joel Pollak's How Trump Won: The Inside Story of a Revolution, states that "some conservatives looked forward to Trump's defeat as a chance to rid the GOP of the insufficiently conservative insurgents who were bringing it to defeat by choosing a candidate who was a mere reality-show Hollywood celebrity, a lifetime liberal who was hijacking their party and their cause with a vain cult of personality."[171] Ethnologists Jonathan Rosa and Yarimar Bonilla wrote of "Trump's xenophobia, bombast, and cult of personality, reminiscent of leaders in South Africa, Gambia, Uganda, Libya, and Zimbabwe."[172] Daniel Kato noted that "according to political theorist Hannah Arendt's thinking Trump may yet hunker down, drawing strength from the resistance to him, and continue to consolidate his cult of personality."[173] Articles, editorials, and a number of elected officials on both ends of the political spectrum have noted Trump's emerging cult of personality,[174] while others have cited in particular his repeated claim that "the news media are the enemy of the people"[175] as one hallmark of such a central figure, deriving directly from Stalin's use of the phrase.[176]

I don't much care if people disagree. The proof is apparent Trump wins on charisma. He encourages devotion. He does so because he is charismatic because no one can much sell me on any other aspect of his personality that can do what he has done. And saying Evangelicals mostly follow him isn't somehow proving he lacks charisma as religious people are the ones more likley to respond to charisma.

Once more, charisma is not that important. At least according to the formula in the OP. It's literally 1 each (incumbent/challenger) of the 13 keys. Neither of this year's candidates qualify on that scale.

I-5 wrote:Once more, charisma is not that important. At least according to the formula in the OP. It's literally 1 each (incumbent/challenger) of the 13 keys. Neither of this year's candidates qualify on that scale.

Agreed. Whether or not Trump has charisma is beside the point. He has a certain attraction to about 30-35% of the voting population. Even snake oil salesmen can make a living by convincing a relatively small number of people to trust them.