« Lessig on Obama | Main | The Best Paragraph I've Read Today »
November 15, 2007
My E-mailers Are Smarter Than I: Political Science Edition
Talking about whether personal qualities matter in presidential candidates, political scientist Larry Bartels e-mails:
I once wrote a paper about "The Role of Candidate Traits in American
Presidential Elections." The analysis was based on survey questions
asking voters to rate presidential candidates on a variety of
dimensions. Here are the estimated effects of those evaluations on
voting behavior, averaged over elections from 1980 to 2000. (The numbers
are not directly interpretable, but the relative magnitudes are.)
1.38 Real cares about people like me
1.13 A strong leader
0.87 Moral
0.46 Inspiring
0.40 Knowledgeable
In 2000, "Inspiring" was not asked, but the estimated effects for the
other traits were:
1.48 A strong leader
0.93 Real cares about people like me
0.89 Moral
0.28 Knowledgeable
At one point, there was also an "Intelligent" item, but it got dropped
from the battery because it didn't have any discernible effect on voting
behavior. (As I recall, the point estimate was slightly negative.)
So toughness, strength, and the associated heuristics really are the most politically potent character traits. Seeming intelligent and knowledgeable really is of very little use. Caring for the little guy makes a difference, but it can't overcome the strong leader effects.
This is why I worry about Giuliani, who does radiate "strong leader." I don't know that Barack Obama or John Edwards check that superficial box -- even as I believe both would be much better leaders. Hillary Clinton, I think, does, if only because the Right has spent the better part of two decades painting her as a cold, Machiavellian monster. They may come to regret that effort.
Also, if you want more on this sort of research, you can buy the book where Bartels originally published this research at Amazon. The description of the title is actually somewhat heartening:
This unique edited volume by some of the leading scholars in the field, examines the importance, or non-importance, of the personalities of political leaders in determining the outcomes of democratic elections. The book argues, contrary to conventional wisdom, that relatively few voters are swayed by candidates' personal characteristics. Their findings imply that modern democratic pointers is not nearly as candidate-cent red and personality-orientated as is often supposed. They also suggest that parties' policies and their performance in office usually count for far more than the men and women they chose as their leaders.
Let's hope.
November 15, 2007 | Permalink
Comments
Wow. Now I am really curious what people think a strong leader is? One that cannot give a straight answer to a straight question? One that would not utter an opinion in case it is not popular? One that believes spreading fear makes us stronger? Somebody who alienates the other parties (other countries or other colors)? Somebody who is uncertain as to if "torturing people" is the same as "torture"? A strong leader is somebody who twists your arm first, forces you to comply - in order for diplomacy to start? That is a strong leader? Aka Giuliani and Clinton (they go after each other because they are oh so the same?)
Somebody define "strong" leader for me please?
Posted by: Hugo Pottisch | Nov 15, 2007 1:01:23 PM
Yeah, "strong leader" is a pretty vague attribute. In politics, I always thought a candidate's perception as a strong leader came mainly from his/her personal charisma.
Let's say, for example, Giuliani and Edwards were to debate. Wouldn't this come across on TV much like Nixon vs. Kennedy, both in appearences and personalities?
And the same would be more or less true for Obama and Clinton. All three are incredibly charismatic. I'm sure I'm biased, but Giuliani does not seem that charismatic at all.
Posted by: PapaJijo | Nov 15, 2007 1:38:25 PM
"Strong leader" is not only vague, it's arguably just circular in this context. Is the meaning of "strong leader" really all that different than the meaning of "person I would like to see as president"?
Also worth noting: people did like Nixon. He got beat by Kennedy (barely), but he won two elections soundly (one close but with a third-party candidate dragging him down on the right, the other a blowout the likes of which would be unthinkable nowadays).
Posted by: Jason C. | Nov 15, 2007 2:49:51 PM
Are your e-mailers more grammatical than your commenters is?
Posted by: micah | Nov 15, 2007 3:12:22 PM
I'm with Yglesias on this one: I have no fuckin' clue which candidate is more electable than who. I think that Clinton/Obama/Edwards are all electable, but who is relatively more electable? I don't know. And you probably don't know either.
Posted by: Korha | Nov 15, 2007 3:53:36 PM
Korha
I am with Yglesias and most other voices on The Atlantic on this one too:
I've been pondering what, exactly, makes the primary season so unbearable and the crux of the matter is that it's the epistemology, damnit. If I had to vote today, I would definitely vote for Obama, because when I think about the factors that I feel certain about they definitely tilt in his favor.
Posted by: Hugo Pottisch | Nov 15, 2007 4:22:38 PM
An important component of a strong leader can be intelligence and knowledge. But if you isolate knowledge without the ability to be effective you get a much lower rating.
BTW: How do you figure that leadership ability is a superficial trait when selecting a chief executive?
Posted by: slickdpdx | Nov 16, 2007 3:35:55 PM



