"WHO DO I VOTE FOR IN THE MID-TERMS"

     As the mid-term elections get closer ( and they can't get much closer than they are right now ), a peculiar phenomenon begins to take shape. We are so sick and tired of the debate replays,   breaking news about candidates' bad deeds, social media outpourings and political attack ads that we don't know who to vote for. It seems that considering party affiliation may or may not be the primary reason to vote for anyone these days.

     There are now other new reasons why we should vote for a particular candidate although we probably don't realize it. It's no longer whether we agree with a candidate on policy issues or whether we have found so called "common ground." In a nut shell, research shows that three elements play the biggest part in our voting decisions: the candidate's perceived knowledge, trustworthiness and charisma. Of course, our assessments are often subjective and just plain inaccurate. No matter. What counts is that charisma is what voters consider most important in their decision-making.

     Here are some diverse samples of what we mean when applied to five current candidates. Such examples include both males / females and Democrats / Republicans, all played out in a debate setting or interview situation.

     First, there's the element of knowledge which appears to be a salient consideration among TV news hosts. Recently, participants on "Morning Joe" mentioned individuals who simply did not have the qualifications to be a Senator: Dr. Mehmet Oz, Hershel Walker and J.D.Vance. ( Obviously, all Republicans. ) It's easy to conclude that lack of "qualifications" means lack of "knowledge." Moreover, Oz has shown a lack of trustworthiness in the past when a product he was pushing proved to have no medical worth. In the debates with his opponent, John Fetterman, charisma was Oz's  one positive factor, his delivery tactics ( animation, articulation ) and physical attributes relatively impressive.

     Conversely, Fetterman's charisma was non-existent, although it seems a shame to even mention it. At the beginning of the debate, Fetterman made a point to admit his delivery ( use of words) had been harmed by his stroke. By so doing, he, unfortunately, called attention to what followed: the viewers didn't listen much to what he said, but, instead, looked for his "mistakes in how he communicated."

     In the debate between Raphael Warnock and Herschel Walker, charisma played an important role as well. However, Walker exhibited a different kind, one that Aristotle called "ethos" ( based on the body type, posture, and how the speaker moves and dresses, for example). Today, the term ethos is not directly associated with charisma per se but connotes a speaker's reputation and character, among other aspects.

     Yet, we must acknowledge that Walker's charisma is related to a physicality established by Aristotle, a notion that suggests strength and power. For instance, Walker is tall, well built, and healthy looking, while in comparison, Warnock appears fragile and older.

     Finally, there's Keri Lake in one of her many TV interviews; her use of trustworthiness is probably the most valuable tool among her campaign tactics. As she likes to say, "For 27 years ( as a TV newsperson ), you've trusted my telling you the real story." Additionally, Lake's long-standing reputation speaks to her "ethos" as we know the word today and to her charisma focusing on excellent delivery techniques ( particularly animation ).

     While some of these reasons for voting for specific candidates are open to question, we can also come up with other accounts"" having little to do with the people on the ballot. Thus, election results can depend on voter turn-out, current cultural trends and even the weather on election day.

     How about the position of the stars in the sky?