I remember my U.S. Government teacher telling us that one of the most important factors in how Americans select our leaders is this one-question test: "Could I grab a beer with him?"Albeit our thought processes in selecting a President is probably more complex than this one question, her point stuck; we want leaders who are likable, and personality matters.
In 1960, when John F. Kennedy was elected, it was widely believed that his appearance and charisma during the first televised Presidential debate directly related to his success over Richard Nixon. In 1992, Bill Clinton's saxophone showcase on television turned his falling polls and caused an increase in popularity. In 2008, the young and charismatic Barack Obama swept millennials off of their couches and put them in voting booths.
Although just how much personality affects voters is controversial, this USC study examined how voters perceive the importance of certain personality traits, and found that the weight of that importance directly corresponds to how votes are cast. In 2016, likability (also referred to as "agreeableness") wasn't an element either major candidate scored well in (Clinton Polls vs Trump Polls), nor was it something the study indicated had impacted voters.
But, this doesn't seem shocking. In my personal experience, almost everyone I talked to would say, "well, I don't like either candidate, but I think >insert candidate name here< is >insert negative adjective here<, so I'm voting for >insert opposing candidate here<. " Example 1: "Well, I don't like either candidate, but I think Clinton is corrupt, so I'm voting for Trump."
Example 2: "Well, I don't like either candidate, but I think Trump is crazy, so I'm voting for Clinton."
Example 3: "Well, I don't like either candidate, but Gary Johnson seems to be a viable candidate and so I'm casting a vote his way. Look, I even have a skirt with his face on it." (Okay, this one I never heard. But I did see this skirt in real life at a campaign rally for a different candidate. It was momentous.)
So, we shifted away from whether or not we liked candidates, and focused on other elements of their personalities. In researching this, I've found it difficult to find hard evidence beyond opinion pieces that discuss how personality affected votes. But, if we look at circumstances, I think the trait Americans focused on is trustworthiness.
I say this for a few reasons, but mainly because of the research I did on media in week 6. As I mentioned there, candidates' scandals received a lot of coverage, and each had to deal with that in their own way. Media coverage shifted from policy to focus on corruption, and, as outlined in this study of media influence in 2016, a change in what the news covers can correlate to a change in what the public pays attention to.
Clinton's email scandal, among the allegations of "pay-to-play" and other corrupt practices, branded her with the name "Crooked Hillary". In July of 2016, a CNN poll showed 68% of Americans thought Clinton was untrustworthy, and that number was steadily increasing. Once a candidate loses trust, it's difficult to gain back. Russel J. Schriefer, a Republican strategist and senior adviser to Mitt Romney, explains in a New York Times article on Clinton's trust problem that "Trust is one of the hardest things to regain once it's lost...There are two things that drives us in politics: the head and the heart. Trust is a question of hear." And, as I mentioned in week 4, this is an issue when trust is the 3rd most important trait Americans want to see in a candidate.
Also in week 6, I mentioned that Trump's identity as a business man, rather than politician, helped him in facing scandals. This also helped him when branding. Despite undergoing serious media scrutiny for business ties and allegations of involvement with Russia, Trump was never necessarily branded as "corrupt" in any way similar to Clinton. Rather, his temperament was placed under scrutiny. But, even with these questions, 55% of Americans, in the same CNN poll as I mentioned before, saw Trump as "untrustworthy", and this number was on a downfall. This is likely due to his lack of political experience, as it's easier for people to assume temperament may change when Trump takes office. Barack Obama even said that Donald trump would be forced to adjust his temperament once he "confronted the realities of his new job".
Trump, although "unliked", was still trusted more so than Clinton. This could of been because of his reputation as "honest" because he spoke his mind, or because of the leeway he received from never being in office. Being perceived as honest brought him support from voters without college degrees, a major portion of his voting base. (I'll expand more on this in the demographics post).
Clinton's scandals, and her errors in handling them, created an untrustable persona that she couldn't get out from under. Her general inability to be as charismatic as Barack Obama hurt her with millennials (see week 2), and her inability to be "trustworthy" hurt her with moderates and other voters.
Despite these differences, there's still an argument to be made that personality doesn't have the effect we all assume it does. But, in a way, both candidates were hurt by their low likability and even low trustworthy poll numbers. If we look at voter turnout, we can see that popularity, even if it doesn't indicate which candidate you vote for, impacts whether you vote at all. And if candidates, like Clinton, need turnout from groups that need to be motivated, then personality really does matter.
Below is my mind map for the week. At the bottom left, you'll note some terrible depictions of Bill Clinton with his saxophone and John F. Kennedy with his hair. Enjoy!
