Party loyalty, economic conditions and the electorate's make-up account for the result

The argument

Those who hold that charisma does not influence political campaigns argue that the outcome is largely determined before anyone takes the stage. On this account most voters identify with one side and vote accordingly contest after contest, which fixes the bulk of the result; among the remainder the dominant influences are conditions such as whether earnings are rising, whether the incumbents have been in office long enough to be blamed for things, and whether the country is at war. Proponents argue that outcomes can be anticipated reasonably well from these conditions alone, with nothing in the account about the candidates' personal qualities, and that a factor adding little once conditions are known is not doing much work. The second argument concerns the composition of the electorate. Proponents point out that who turns out, and in what proportions, is shaped by registration rules, the location of polling places, how competitive the contest is thought to be and the strength of local organisation. These are structural matters that a candidate's manner does not touch. On this account what looks like personal appeal mobilising supporters is usually a well-resourced organisation doing its work, which the candidate happens to be standing in front of. Proponents also stress how unstable the attribution is. A candidate described as magnetic while winning is described as glib or remote when the same manner coincides with losing, which suggests the quality is being read back from the result rather than observed independently. A factor that cannot be identified before the outcome is known, they argue, cannot be what is explaining the outcome.

Premises

Counter-arguments

Those who hold that charisma matters accept that conditions and loyalty explain most of the variation and deny that this settles the question. Many contests are decided by a narrow margin, so a factor that moves a small share of voters can decide the result while adding little to an account of the whole. They also argue that the account is incomplete rather than wrong: conditions set the range of plausible outcomes, and who the candidates are determines where within that range the result falls. Explaining most of the variation, they argue, is not the same as explaining the outcome.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Fixing the bulk of the result leaves the margin unexplained, and the margin decides close contests, so the premise concedes the space in which charisma is said to operate. [Rejecting P2] Anticipating outcomes reasonably well from conditions is not the same as accounting for them, since the residual errors are large enough to change who takes office. [Rejecting P3] Local organisation is partly a product of the candidate, because volunteers and donors are recruited by someone, so turnout machinery is not independent of personal appeal. [Rejecting C] The premises support the claim that conditions matter most, which the opposing position already grants.