PG has already addressed that: http://paulgraham.com/recharisma.html

"Kennedy was the same way. He couldn't bear to be alone."

But Reagan and Obama are both famously introverted, while still considered very charismatic.

>This may change if charisma starts to be perceived as the key to winning.

So, in other words, this submission is a survey of the people who don't want Trump to win?

Man A walks into a bar and says hi to a stranger, and then tells a joke and then winds up telling a story and somehow by the end he got to know 5 people there and they all really liked him. Man B just went and sat at the bar.

Do you mean to tell me it is "popular opinion" that ascribes Man A as charismatic in this scenario?

Addendum: I've heard it said that when you're talking to Bill Clinton, he makes you feel like you're the center of the world.

Sure, but in the case of presidential elections you have both Man A and Man B walking into a bar and telling different jokes, with roughly half the people laughing at each joke.

Why did some people laugh at Man A's joke more? Was it an objectively better joke? Was it the delivery? Did they already know Man A from before, and thus were more likely do laugh at his jokes?

We're talking marginal degrees of charisma here, not giant leaps. Hence the debate in this thread.

Not just degrees, but style.

Man A might tell a racist or bawdy joke, and Man B might tell one that relies on in-group knowledge. Each charms one group and alienates another.

> Do you mean to tell me it is "popular opinion" that ascribes Man A as charismatic in this scenario?

Is the concept of "charisma" meaningful here? Does it have any explanatory power? Or is it just functioning as another word for popular, and we're just saying that more popular people are more popular?

Charisma is the cause, popularity the effect.