I didn’t get a chance to make note of it at the time, but, despite all the good things I’ve said about him on this blog, Andrew Romanoff lost to Michael Bennet last week.
It’s something of a setback for the charisma theory, but I’ve already noted that charisma has less impact in primaries.
So I’m curious, dear readers: who do you find more charismatic? Or are neither of them charismatic?
(I should mention that I don’t live in Colorado, and know very little about these two men’s policies. I only blog about them because it relates to my ongoing analysis of the power of charisma.)
Jane Norton lost narrowly to Ken Buck, who can be seen here not being charismatic:
Like I said when they first came to my attention, Norton did not seem terribly charismatic; but she did seem less anti-charismatic than Bennet. I still think Norton will be the nominee, though. But I do not like Bennet’s chances of beating either of them. Romanoff, however, has the charisma to knock out either Buck or Norton.
Andrew Romanoff, the more charismatic candidate, won them. As the article notes, however, that doesn’t mean he’ll win the nomination.
Still, it’s a victory for charisma.
People are starting to notice he’s a lousy candidate.
In a new poll, he’s “actually beating [Jane] Norton.”
As I have repeatedly pointed out, he’s the most charismatic candidate.
He’s already been doing better than Bennet; now he’s closing in on the likely Republican nominee. As I noted last month, Romanoff is the most charismatic of the three.
Okay, that might be an overstatement. But you have to love his line “There’s obviously an incumbent protection racket in D.C.”
For those of you who don’t know, Romanoff is more charismatic than his primary opponent, Michael Bennet. And now we find that he is capable of getting off clever quips, which is also important to winning.
Obama went to Colorado to help out Senator Michael Bennet, who is facing a tough fight for reelection.
Alright, Bennet; do you have any charisma?