2016 Postmortem

JDPriestly

(57,936 posts)

83. What in your view does mean a person is charismatic?

Sat Jan 2, 2016, 01:11 PM

Jan 2016

Charisma draws large crowds in my book.

The Roosevelts, both FDR and Teddy were charismatic. They both drew huge crowds.

I can't think of a charismatic president who did not draw big crowds.,

I can't think of a charismatic movie star who didn't attract crowds.

Same for musicians.

The mark of charisma is the ability to draw big crowds.

What do you consider to be the signs, the marks of charisma in politics?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

132 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

94% of Clinton's donations for 4th quarter under $100. Tops year end goal by $12 million [View all] Persondem Jan 2016 OP

I love the way HRC is all about outcomes sans the noise. underthematrix Jan 2016 #1

But ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #5

don't think we, the DEMS have any candidates that are underthematrix Jan 2016 #8

But Bernie is the one bringing out thousands. His crowds testify to the fact that he is JDPriestly Jan 2016 #20

Which supports the underlaying research ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #69

We need to stand up against "them" because there is a them Armstead Jan 2016 #74

We do not disagree ... There is a "them" ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #76

+1 uponit7771 Jan 2016 #116

Someone who will protect "us" from "them." JDPriestly Jan 2016 #85

That is just a recital of what the research found ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #89

Hillary stands for the corporate state, like all third way corporate democrats. JRLeft Jan 2016 #88

Okay. n/t 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #90

I know it's hard for you to see it, because you are a fan. JRLeft Jan 2016 #91

Oh, a lot of us will remember not just your post but the rest. My prediction... Hekate Jan 2016 #96

TPP is the nuclear bomb of damage to working class people, but I JRLeft Jan 2016 #101

Ad hominem attack is weak sauce. Tata. Hekate Jan 2016 #102

All the proof I need. JRLeft Jan 2016 #104

A fan of whom/what? ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #98

By the time that kicks in it will be worth less than it is now. JRLeft Jan 2016 #100

Boogie Man Alert ... 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #107

I think people are gonna be surprised by HRC. I think she's gonna underthematrix Jan 2016 #126

LMFAO, based off what evidenc?. I'm sorry, but how many times JRLeft Jan 2016 #127

ohmymy-that boring talking point over and over. Get some new material. riversedge Jan 2016 #94

No, people not looking at bernie as a "protector" Voice for Peace Jan 2016 #131

Crowds don't mean he's charismatic. It just means he's speaking underthematrix Jan 2016 #82

What in your view does mean a person is charismatic? JDPriestly Jan 2016 #83

Check out President Obama underthematrix Jan 2016 #86

He is charismatic compared to the rest of our politicians, but not compared to JDPriestly Jan 2016 #87

Too funny. Those presidents are long dead. Is that all you've got? Hekate Jan 2016 #103

Our recent presidents have not had the charisma that those prior, dead JDPriestly Jan 2016 #106

President Obama is a great President and is the most charismatic President of the underthematrix Jan 2016 #125

+1 uponit7771 Jan 2016 #117

"Bernie is like a small town mayor" who GOT THINGS DONE Armstead Jan 2016 #73

I wouldn't use that line of reasoning if I were you. For one thing, the US presidency.... Hekate Jan 2016 #97

Same dynamics required Armstead Jan 2016 #130

yeah. she sure is. read this little ditty: roguevalley Jan 2016 #59

So how much has Bernie raised for the Democrats down ticket or the Party itself..... Historic NY Jan 2016 #80

Nice post with some details that were new to me. Thank you. nt Persondem Jan 2016 #81

+1 uponit7771 Jan 2016 #115

Astroturfing her donations sonofspy777 Jan 2016 #2

Conspiracy theories are the stuff of legend on DU. eom. 1StrongBlackMan Jan 2016 #6

Post removed Post removed Jan 2016 #7

That's funny astroturfing donations even though I have no idea what you mean underthematrix Jan 2016 #12

$18 million for the Democratic Party in the fourth quarter.. ! Cha Jan 2016 #15

Unfair hide for upaloopa replying to this post. Codeine Jan 2016 #128

Could it be that the "More Debates" crowd wants less debate oasis Jan 2016 #132

98% of her 2016 contributions come from individuals: ucrdem Jan 2016 #3

Way to ignore the super PACs Fearless Jan 2016 #25

PAC contributions are shown and I included them. ucrdem Jan 2016 #27

PAC contributions are not superPACs with which she is directly coordinating. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #30

Bingo. Fearless Jan 2016 #35

LOL, it's illegal to directly coordinate with SuperPacs: ucrdem Jan 2016 #36

You should do some reading about your candidate. Or inform her of the (il)legality of her actions. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #40

In other words, I'm correct. nt ucrdem Jan 2016 #46

If you say so. Brilliant retort to a refutation of "illegal to directly coordinate with SuperPACs" JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #50

I wonder what the self financing is. joshcryer Jan 2016 #39

K & R SunSeeker Jan 2016 #4

This is great news Gothmog Jan 2016 #9

These numbers are misleading. Of course the small donations will look larger if you... Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2016 #10

Max individual contribution to one candidate: $2,600 ucrdem Jan 2016 #11

So are they "misleading"? Cha Jan 2016 #13

Clearly they're in the pocket of the 1% ucrdem Jan 2016 #14

Hi you! I'm just wondering if Cha Jan 2016 #16

Well, "one person can donate $1 million" is a crock of bs, ucrdem Jan 2016 #17

Thanks.. I probably won't bother.. I just get tired of them jumping on Hillary threads with Cha Jan 2016 #21

Ah. ucrdem Jan 2016 #23

Strictly speaking you are correct. It is however possible to donate $997,400 to a superPAC. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #32

But SuperPacs can't give money to or coordinate directly with a candidate or campaign: ucrdem Jan 2016 #37

See post #40. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #41

Lovely. And? ucrdem Jan 2016 #45

Love that graphic. NCTraveler Jan 2016 #77

Is that a real graphic?? If it is, it wins the Internets. Today, tomorrow and every day after Number23 Jan 2016 #114

The only thing incorrect in that post is the degree of impact large dollar donations have. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #33

Yes but that was the whole gotcha. ucrdem Jan 2016 #43

The source is clearly the Clinton campaign. I don't know who works for Clinton & it isn't relevant. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #47

That's your assumption. I'll wait to see the report. nt ucrdem Jan 2016 #49

In what universe is "The campaign declined to say what percentage..." not sourced from HFA? JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #51

Could be the HFA answering service for all we know. nt ucrdem Jan 2016 #53

I might not trust the NYT's narrative and spin, but the source here seems rock solid. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #55

I know that. It's an example of how numbers can be skewed if you only look at the number of donors. Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2016 #26

It's best to check your facts before "unskewing" anything. ucrdem Jan 2016 #28

Yeah, the fact is 81% of Clinton's individual contributions come from large individual contributions Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2016 #31

"large" = $200 to $2,700. ucrdem Jan 2016 #38

Yep. Nowhere near 94% of the donations come from sub $100 donations. Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2016 #44

What are you talking about anyway? ucrdem Jan 2016 #54

What they mean is the 94% of the money did not come from sub $100 donations JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #56

Reuters: "In the most recent quarter, 94 percent of donations received were $100 or less" ucrdem Jan 2016 #57

I am not. I was explaining the mistake that the other poster was making. I.e. agreeing with you. JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #58

Okay. In that case ucrdem Jan 2016 #60

I wasn't making a mistake. Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2016 #61

Oh absolutely. It is incredibly misleading. I just thought you were contesting the facts JonLeibowitz Jan 2016 #63

I tried to make it clear in my first post I was talking about dollar amounts. Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2016 #64

Bundled contributions. cali Jan 2016 #65

Is there a breakdown in $100 increments? joshcryer Jan 2016 #42

I don't know. I was just typing the same question in # 44 before I saw this. Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2016 #48

I found the data and made a thread: joshcryer Jan 2016 #67

I'm a former stat analyst, database and Excel user. TexasTowelie Jan 2016 #109

Can you use a pivot table? tammywammy Jan 2016 #118

Yes, I know how to use pivot tables. TexasTowelie Jan 2016 #122

I didn't mean to offend you, I was just making a suggestion tammywammy Jan 2016 #123

No offense was taken. TexasTowelie Jan 2016 #124

Yeah, I made that argument about "small donors" in the other thread. joshcryer Jan 2016 #129

I looked at this data a little, and it's only through the previous quarter ending 30 Sept. tammywammy Jan 2016 #121

I Get It. gordyfl Jan 2016 #66

It only counts if they vote in Internet polls! tritsofme Jan 2016 #18

Now you're catching on! Cha Jan 2016 #22

Strangely enough, despite my Sanders avatar, I got a note from HRC mikehiggins Jan 2016 #19

The major donors maxed out months ago already. Fearless Jan 2016 #24

What major donors? ucrdem Jan 2016 #29

Those that donated the maximum? Fearless Jan 2016 #34

It can be a problem for a campaign. Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2016 #52

There are candidate events in which big donations Eric J in MN Jan 2016 #62

$45 million of that comes from 16k people. joshcryer Jan 2016 #68

Can you link and quote this? tia uponit7771 Jan 2016 #119

Kick for the nay sayers. oasis Jan 2016 #70

"There's lies, damned lies, and statistics" hobbit709 Jan 2016 #71

Figures lie and liars figure. 99Forever Jan 2016 #72

The contradictory inconsistancy of These claims Armstead Jan 2016 #75

O, so funny! chervilant Jan 2016 #78

Big deal. "(This version of the story corrects paragraph 5 to say 94 percent of donations ... GoneFishin Jan 2016 #79

That highlights the reasoning behind advertising "94% of donations are under $100 dollars" Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2016 #93

How do we know a lot of millionaires didn't write $100 checks, 25 times. reformist2 Jan 2016 #84

That's not how political donations work. They are tracked by the person Persondem Jan 2016 #105

It's funny reading the responses on this thread... coyote Jan 2016 #92

It's not a matter of trust. It's a fact. Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2016 #95

Post removed Post removed Jan 2016 #99

That's a hell of a non sequitur. "... and everyone else in the progressive movement ..." GoneFishin Jan 2016 #110

I had to look. I still don't know what that one was belly aching about. LOL Hassin Bin Sober Jan 2016 #111

People don't trust facts, more proof some people are more emotionally involved in this than uponit7771 Jan 2016 #120

Jeb has raised a mountain of money, too, but I doubt he'll see the White House anytime soon. Vinca Jan 2016 #108

As of the previous report, 64% of all money she raised was from maxed out donors jfern Jan 2016 #112

That's a play on words. If 94 people of 100 gave her one dollar each and six people gave her Snotcicles Jan 2016 #113