DANIEL HENNINGER, in today's Wall Street Journal, proposes applying the metric of television stars to the current herd of Democratic contenders. That metric is knows as the "Q-Factor." In plain english that means "likeability." Used for years by television stations in figuring out who to choose and/or maintain for their on-air slots, the Q is determined by asking a bunch of people who they like better, A or B or C, etc.
Finding the professional marketing companies unwilling to take on a Q study of the candidates, Henninger launched his own. His conclusions?
...of all the marquee candidates, Dick Gephardt, John Edwards, Joe Lieberman and Wes Clark would have low Q, below the 19 minimum. Rating candidates for the U.S. presidency in this way is of course ridiculous, but they bring it on themselves. Television, amid the vapors of its two dimensions, somehow exposes artifice, and when these men speak, you can hear the gears shifting to match the audience.Henninger is prevaricating here. The most natural thing to do with the crop of candidates is to assign them a Q. We all assign them Q's whenever we watch them, which of late is far too often for our shared mental health.
As the Q goes, so goes the nation, but will the nation go towards John Kerry? Face it, you knew weeks ago that Kerry was wandering around the country with a large black "L" tattooed on his forhead. And the Q catches this as well:
John Kerry's Q is even lower, in a way that may be quite unfair and even frivolous; he's the best-looking candidate on the stage, yet somehow the least Q'able. I can think of one other American political figure who physically resembles John Kerry -- Abe Lincoln. Gaunt, long, hang-dog and at war with internal demons. You don't need me to explain the crucial difference in the way the Kerry and Lincoln personas touch the public heart.All we can say is that Henninger has obviously missed the resemblance between Kerry and Lurch of the Addams Family.
So, who is going to be the golden boy at the end of the Democratic marathon? Of course, it is Howard Dean (even though his resemblance to Howard the Duck is striking):
Howard Dean is winning the Q race and the nomination because, on television, he seems more real than the rest; the Dean words and belief system sound in sync. Against this field, it adds up to victory. (Al Sharpton's Q isn't bad; worth a shot at a sitcom.)Ah yes, sweet victory. But once one has become the crown prince of a party that is rapidly bidding bye-bye to the majority of Americans, the day comes when you have to strap on your Q and walk down Main Street for a shoot-out with "The Texan." And the Q of the Texan's is bigger than anybody the Democrats can hope to field.
If any of this is true, then people in politics, especially the Bush-haters, need to come to grips with George W. Bush's long months of high personal ratings. My guess is that Mr. Bush's Q Score would be OK, but not great. In person he's ebullient, but the guy on TV makes some people anxious, including supporters. So what's he got?"True commitment" really does matter. And, say what you want about Bush, there's little doubt, and there will be less when he begins to campaign, that his commitment to defend the nation is total and true. You simply don't get the same feeling when listening too the Democrats who "support the troops" in a cause they feel is mistaken and fradulent. That's not support, that's pandering to their woebegone base.Supporters would say he's right on the issues, but I don't think that's enough. George Bush has street cred. He not only says it, he actually believes it. This certitude as much as anything accounts for the hatred, but for less ideologically invested voters the ability to discern true commitment matters a lot.
This long pander campaign by the Democratic candidates, an unprecedented exercise in sail-trimming, has been pretty much a disaster for them. By now the whole party's Q Score is probably low. Conventional wisdom holds that after Howard Dean secures the nomination, he'll tack back to center, away from the primaries' left. Smart politics. But it may be wrong on Q.The short form: Dean may have the Hi-Q of a Lo-Q field, but compared to Bush, he's got No-Q at all.
Source: Wonder Land
