Why is Barack Obama beating Hillary Clinton pretty handily in contest after contest? The Curmudgeon's brother has a simple theory: because he's simply more appealing--more pleasing to look at and more pleasing to listen to.
"The fact is that Barack Obama is more pleasing to look at than Hillary Clinton, and he also is more pleasing to listen to. For a great number of voters who otherwise have trouble making up their minds (two terrific candidates, right?), this has and will continue to carry the day in his favor. Nobody articulates their decision this way, but the impact is very real, and now magnified when only these 2 candidates are left. CNN reported one exit poll from Wisconsin that 62% of voters making up their minds in the last 30 days went for Obama. Hillary looks and sounds and smirks like an old-school politician. She says all the right things but there’s an element of sincerity and likeability that’s missing. Barack oozes confidence and inspiration, yet doesn’t seem condescending or pandering."
We have to agree. The distinction becomes important especially when you have two candidates whose substantive views on the issues are virtually indistinguishable. It's the "all things being equal" scenario: if two candidates are the same on the issues, then appearance and likeability will carry the day.
Brother Curmudgeon also points to a book by motivational speaker/author Tony Robbins, who compared Kennedy v. Nixon, Carter v. Ford, Reagan v. Carter and Reagan v. Mondale to explain that the winner of each of those races had it over the loser in terms of appealability.
Of course, if that's the standard, both Obama and Clinton should be able to defeat McCain this fall. But Obama would have the bigger advantage.
No comments:
Post a Comment