Will the most telegenic candidate please stand up?
Commenter “Rufus T. Firefly” makes this observation:
In a national campaign always bet on the most telegenic. Been that way since Kennedy-Nixon.
Here, he points out Hillary Clinton’s lack of that telegenic quality. Then he throws out a challenge: “name a Presidential election since Nixon-Kennedy where the most telegenic candidate lost.”
Okay, will do.
Nixon in 1968 versus Humphrey. Now, neither were what you would call “telegenic.” But Nixon was worse than Humphrey.
Nixon, 1972. McGovern was much more telegenic. I was there; I remember. Of course, most people on earth are more telegenic than Nixon was.
Carter, 1976. Carter won over Ford. Neither was particularly telegenic, but Carter was always a bit goofy-looking, and Ford looked like a regulation guy.
Bush, 2000. This one was somewhat of a tossup, but at the time Gore was quite good-looking, and I thought he was more telegenic (and articulate) than Bush. Of course, the election was very close.
Obama, 2012. Romney is one of the most handsome men on the planet, particularly for his age, and he cuts a fine figure, as well. I realize that many people find Obama telegenic, but I really don’t know why—particularly in 2012, when his every word should have rung bitingly false.
Now, you can define “telegenic” in a way so that none of the above fits your definition. But I submit that by the usual definition (looking good and/or appealing on TV), these are exceptions to that telegenic rule, so many exceptions that I don’t think it’s actually a rule.
In addition, I question the idea that Trump is more telegenic than Hillary. To her supporters, Hillary comes across as forceful, strong, articulate, and attractive for an older woman. Not so (at all!) to those who don’t like her. To his supporters, Trump comes across as funny, incisive, strong. He is no more physically attractive than she is; although both were good-looking when young, neither is young anymore. But to his detractors, Trump’s a comical figure, full of bluster and bombast and meandering in his words, as well as insulting and crass and juvenile.
Sometimes a candidate is clearly and indisputably telegenic, even to his/her detractors. Kennedy was one obvious example, and Reagan another—and to a somewhat lesser extent, Clinton. The rest of them may have been cases of “telegenic is in the eye of the beholder.” Trump definitely is a person who has been successful on television. Does that make him telegenic as a candidate and a presidential prospect? My answer is that it certainly seems to have done so for a certain group, but it does absolutely the opposite for the group that finds him unpleasant and untrustworthy, narcissistic and loud-mouthed—the rather large group responsible for his very high unfavorables.
In other words, it seems you either like him or hate him, and the real question is how many people are in each group.
Much the same is true for Hillary. She’s every bit as familiar a figure as Trump, although for different reasons. She’s been in the public eye nearly as long. People have mostly made their minds up about her. Her unfavorables are high, although not as high as his.
As with Trump, it seems you either love her or hate her, and the real question is how many people are in each group.
[NOTE: If it’s telegenics you’re after on the Republican side, I think Rubio’s your candidate. But of course, telegenics are not everything.]
Anyone is more telegenic than Bernie!
Marco. Hands down.
As I wrote on Power Line, “It’s not a crime to be young, handsome, articulate and whip smart.”
There’s telegenic, but which ones come across as iconic?
I always felt that Romney was a little too handsome, like it actually worked against him at some point. I seem to remember many jokes told by liberals saying it was like he was some sort of and android (like something out of The Stepford Wives or whatever) that was programmed to be the perfect charming candidate.
Before we wander too far into the weeds, let us remind ourselves of a definition of telegenic: “Having a physical appearance and exhibiting personal qualities that are deemed highly appealing to television viewers.”
Television. the medium for non-readers, the ignorati, the bulk of the electorate.
But let us take TV-exhibited personal qualities. Who wins there?
Some might argue Trump does, with his vehemence. Some might say Rubio, for his quickness. Why would anyone then say Bernie and Hillary are telegenic? That should doom the Dems, IMO.
Frog:
Did you actually watch the Democratic debates? Clinton comes across as forceful, energetic, quick, and not unattractive for a woman of her age.
I know lots of people who find her just fine (I am NOT one of them). As I said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
I wrote about Hillary’s appeal here.
Regarding Hillary, for an old criminal she looks okay. She has had plastic surgery. Expertly done, I might add. I saw her from 20 feet.
I think you’re right about “eye of the beholder”, especially for well known folk.
But I strongly remember NOT liking Ford, because of too many pictures of him in newspapers bent over a football (he was a good center in college). Very un-presidential.
Ted Cruz needs a bit more humor, but Romney was not able to seem sincere enough (if you can’t fake sincerity, you’re dead meat on the screen). Trump exudes sincerity, even when contradicting a prior sincere comment. Too slimey for me, but for others — he’s the best anti-PC warrior seen.
Tom G:
In line with this “eye of the beholder” thing—to me, Trump excudes sincerity about the following.
I believe he’s sincere when he says he loves America. But that hardly distinguishes him from the other GOP candidates, who all love America. I believe he’s sincere when he brags about his accomplishments; he is indeed a narcissistic braggart. I believe he’s sincere when he says he can do just about anything: ditto. Narcissists believe their own hype.
Yea, Neo, I watched as much of debating Hillary as I could stand. She is the quintessential, highly practiced attorney, and she does play well to the rubes in the jury box. She does not worry about being an Officer of the Court, though. Not even for a moment.
O.K.
Time to eat some crow. You are correct about ’68 and ’72 and now I realize I should have mentioned incumbency as a factor. It’s hard to overcome incumbency (unless you are as obvious a failure as Jimmy Carter).
I think Bush – Gore was a telegenic toss-up and the electoral results indicate as much. Gore was considered handsome and I know there was a lot of surprise at how likable Bush came off in the debates, and that’s when his stock began to rise.
Carter was much more youthful and vigorous appearing than Ford. Vitality is very important to folks keying on physical appearance (that’s why the GOP fed us so many of those pictures of a young Jerry Ford centering a football).
Being a straight male I’m not the best judge, but Obama – Romney probably was close to a toss up and Obama was an incumbent.
Regardless of my quibbles, you made your point. How about I rephrase my statement to:
“Telegenics is worth about 5 percentage points in a general election.”
If, and this is a big IF at this moment, Rubio gets to the final showdown with Hillary, I think he wins. He has all the cards, it’s just in how he plays them. He just can’t make the mistake of a Rick Lazio moment and he can’t take anything for granted against the snake.
One mistake many on the right make is assuming that the electorate can see the person for what they are, when in truth the adoring sheep, with great help from the media, see what they want to see (ex: Obama). He will have to deftly reveal her for what she is: an aging relic of past failed policies with huge undertones of conflict and criminality, without actually attacking her in base ways. I think he can do that.
In the end, the lefties flock to their nominee and the righties flock to theirs. Then the challenge is to gain enough of the mushy middle and to motivate the base to turn out. I think Rubio can do that, even with his immigration foibles. He’s “telegenic”, smart, has the foreign policy chops to counter Hillary’s supposed strength, and it doesn’t hurt that he’s hispanic. And he represents the future with an appeal to younger people that Obama tapped into. I think it’s all enough to tip the balance in his favor that no other GOP candidate can do.
He wasn’t my first choice, maybe not even my second. But out of who’s left and taking into account Trumpmania and the Cruz factor (like him but don’t think he would translate well in the main election), he’d be my pick now. Add in someone like Fiorina as VP for the woman/business vote, and I think it’s a winner.
Maybe the telegenic thing matters more in primaries, where there are more people to choose from. A smaller (but significant) percentage of people will vote superficially in the general election. Or maybe the primaries filter out any Duponts and Jindals so there are only handsome people in the general.
Well, after hearing that Carly went and got all birther on Ted, perhaps Nikki Haley would be the better VP choice.
Think of it: Old establishment white Hillary versus young and new current America: Marco Hispanic Rubio and Nikki Indian Haley. I hate to go all ethnic oriented there but if it’s true what they say, that the next race is all about the minority vote, then that is a big plus.
And what more telegenic a pair can you get than those two?
Neo-neocon,
This quote from a new piece by Pat Buchanon is germane to this discussion:
“Yet, in January and February of 1980, Ronald Reagan, during the Iowa Caucuses and New Hampshire Primary, never got closer than 25 points behind President Jimmy Carter, who led Reagan, on March 1, 58-33. Yet, that November, 1980, Reagan won a 44-state landslide.
Today, according to a new Fox Poll, Trump would beat Clinton by 3 points in the general election, if held now. Another poll shows Trump pulling 20 percent of the Democratic vote.”