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.
