- #1
wasteofo2
- 478
- 2
The thread about how more people suddenly call themselves Republicans than Democrats got me thinking about how quickly things change in this country. For instance, In 1976, Carter won Texas, and in 1992, Clinton lost Texas by only 3 points. Now, in '76 and '92, the nation probabally was a bit sick of Republican Presidents in general, but it seems more likely that Clinton and Carter did so well in the south (where Democrats before and after them haven't) largely because they were from the south and had charismatic personalities. And, looking in recent history, we've had the most charismatic president win almost every time.
But then there's Richard Nixon.
I don't care what you think of Nixon's politics, he's not a charismatic guy. Which leads me to wonder, were Humphrey and McGovern equally as uncharismatic as Nixon, less charismatic than Nixon, or did Nixon win solely on policy and nationalism, even if he didn't have charisma on his side.
Bassically what I want people to discuss is: How did Nixon win with his personality when every other president seemingly had to win a popularity contest to become Commander in Chief.
But then there's Richard Nixon.
I don't care what you think of Nixon's politics, he's not a charismatic guy. Which leads me to wonder, were Humphrey and McGovern equally as uncharismatic as Nixon, less charismatic than Nixon, or did Nixon win solely on policy and nationalism, even if he didn't have charisma on his side.
Bassically what I want people to discuss is: How did Nixon win with his personality when every other president seemingly had to win a popularity contest to become Commander in Chief.