The Least Considered Factor:



Claudette mentions that Richardson's standing improved after the New Hampshire debate because of his “experience.”

One suspects it is more than that.


And offers me an opportunity to side step into a case that can be made for winning qualities that go beyond the obvious.

Many who have studied the phenomenon of winning suggest that one of the most important and decisive factors may be the Likeability factor.

You can, it appears, have all of the background and experience in the world, but if the voter perceives that there is more to you than meets the eye

, or that you do not readily project compassion, understanding, a sense of humor, or those other home-spun qualities that most of us can relate to--you are dead in the water!

Nobody typically talks about this but it is an increasingly important factor in elections.

The people want somebody they can relate to.

And if you bolster your likeability with credentials, you are bound to pick up additional support.

Such is the case for Richardson.

He is likeable.


He is not a snob; he doesn't try to floor you with how smart he is; how high above the crowd. He is a down to earth guy, you could break bread with and not feel intimidated.

And that counts for a lot in the lexicon of electioneering.

For many, who enter the race, they struggle with this dimension of their being all along.

Mitt Romney tries to be nice; but our instinct tells us that as Obama said he is more like the guy who is going to fire you than hire you.

He somehow does not seem to fit with his message.

And he seems the last to realize it.

Besides all his money, all his glibness--and he is glib--all of his self praise, he is not the kind of guy that most of us can identify with.

And for many voters, that is the bottom line.



Perhaps too little time is spent considering the likeability of the candidates as a future barometer of success….

Les Aaron