Star Power

There is an endearing quality that some people possess in the pursuit of their goals that attracts others to them with a magnetism defying easy description. It is usually short-lived, but at its peak manages to transcend nearly all other obvious and objective information that might normally place the possessor in a lesser context. It is what we call “star power”- including qualities like self-confidence, drive, and a palpable energy. It induces loyalty effortlessly and naturally, fed by an internal will to succeed. It can result in the attainment of lofty rank or position quickly without requiring a highly-credentialed resume. Its traits/characteristics can’t be taught and attempts to artificially create it come off as embarrassingly obvious and contrived.

When major media outlets take note of a person fitting the above description and amplify this quality even further, he or she can truly become an overnight sensation. People with this quality can pop up in any profession – sports, entertainment, business, healthcare, etc. But when they appear in politics, they not only cause a public sensation but can have truly historical/transformative consequences for the country, both good and bad.

The sensation surrounding incoming New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (featured picture) is a current example of this phenomenon. Her energy, excitement and lively “presence” are blindly captivating to a growing number of followers including the major media. Her obvious shortcomings and extremely radical political positions are not, at least for the moment, negatively affecting her star power. Paradoxically, her foibles seem to even enhance her attraction as they support an appealing underdog role. The intriguing unknown of where this all might lead is helping keep her melodrama alive.

With the fascination of Ocasio-Cortez occupying a lot of the news cycle lately, we thought it would be interesting to look back through the last several presidential elections to see how this same personal quality did or didn’t affect the outcome. This analysis ignores policy, politics and party affiliation altogether and looks only at the unique personality factors described in the first paragraph. What really stands out in this exercise are the candidates who have never possessed this quality but tried to make it look like they did (i.e. the last seven Presidential election losers).

1992 – (Bush v. Perot v. Clinton) – As we just learned again from the historical information brought out during the funeral proceedings of George H. W. Bush, he was clearly the most experienced and qualified person on the ticket in the 1992 election. It should have been an easy and decisive stride for him into his 2nd term. However, history chose that moment for not one, but two, captivating personalities to burst onto the scene out of nowhere. Ross Perot and Bill Clinton both had the magnetic quality that drew enough people to them to deprive Bush of his victory.  The fact that Bush was decidedly un-charismatic made his sterling credentials nearly invisible among all the razzle-dazzle headlines about his competitors.

1996 – (Clinton v. Dole) No contest. The still-vibrant Bill Clinton contrasted sharply with the absolute lack of that same quality in his opponent Bob Dole and left no surprise regarding the outcome.

2000 – (Bush v. Gore) – Here was a case where neither contestant was a charismatic sensation or attracted voters with a special energy. However, the loser (Al Gore) so obviously and unnaturally tried to project that larger-than-life image that it was painful to watch. In an election as close as this one, even just the hint of a false facade was enough to lose it for Gore.

2004 – (Bush v. Kerry) No contest. Again, not because George Bush had star power, but because his opponent John Kerry, much like Al Gore four years earlier, lacked any natural charisma and made the same mistake of trying to artificially create it. A lot of people saw right through it.

2008 – (Obama v. McCain) Barack Obama may be the best example of how quickly a person with alluring personality qualities can rocket past every competitor as if they were standing still. In 2008 Obama was lifted in stature entirely by those elusive forces of star power, stage presence, and ability to energize a crowd. The historical significance of being African-American just added to that already potent mix. Much like Ocasio-Cortez today, his resume at the time was severely lacking in substance and was not at all commensurate with the position he was about to hold. Despite that, his two main opponents, Hillary Clinton in the primary and John McCain in the general election, never really had a chance. Interestingly, this election did feature one other charismatic personality that briefly captured as much attention and magnetism as Obama. Sarah Palin was literally an “overnight sensation” when she entered national politics as McCain’s running mate. Her instantaneous fame and attention were so captivating, she even outshone McCain at the Republican convention. McCain, just like George H.W. Bush in 1992, was unlucky enough to be in the presence of two personalities who glowed much brighter than he did at a critical moment.

2012 – (Obama v. Romney) No Contest. Obama’s star power had dimmed some, but not nearly enough for Romney to out-charm him. Curiously, Romney embodied almost all the personal qualities like politeness, respect, intelligence, statesmanship, morals, etc., that are cited today as so wanting in President Trump. Even with all that, Romney still lost handily because he didn’t have that charismatic quality Obama possessed.

2016 – (Trump v. Clinton) If Barack Obama was the best example of this star power quality, Donald Trump is a very close second. However, Trump also added a big dose of fearlessness into the mix of personality traits mentioned above. This was most apparent with his instant hard-hitting (and sometimes impolitic) reactions to political or personal attacks. That trait, while repugnant to some, endeared him to a different class of people who were just as numerous and as fiercely loyal as the Obama followers. Without any political experience, his supercharged charisma and fearlessness propelled Trump past 16 other candidates in the Republican primary and to victory in the general election. Trump’s case demonstrates (much like Perot in 1992) that this quality is not limited to younger people. In fact, this election featured another older candidate with just as much energy and magnetism as Trump – Bernie Sanders. Of course, the complete and total lack of any high-energy charisma in Hillary Clinton accentuated the star power effect of both Trump and Sanders. It was embarrassing at times (as with Al Gore) when Clinton attempted to contrive an unnaturally-charming facade to try and compete with these other brightly-shining personalities who effortlessly drew attention and loyalty.

Evaluating the 7 most recent Presidential elections in this way, the candidates with “star power” personality won 5 of them (1992, 1996, 2008, 2012, 2016). In the other two elections, neither contestant had this quality. If you had instead used the complete absence of this same personality trait to predict the loser, you’d have been right all 7 times. This was not always the case throughout our history. We think it is much more a symptom of today’s constant 24/7 news cycle along with the shorter attention span of most voters. Only a small fraction of all that news can be absorbed during busy workdays which gives tremendous advantage to highly charismatic candidates who can cause “sensation” and capture imagination. Their seductiveness sticks.

We think this is as reasonable an explanation as any why recent candidates without any previous leadership experience or any prior political experience are able to transcend those usually fatal deficits and become President. Once we know who the candidates will be for the 2020 election, we think the odds are pretty good you’ll be able to predict the winner this way.