Current Events and the Psychology of Politics
Loading

Featured Posts        



categories        



Links        



archives        



meta        




Feb 25th, 2020


Sen. Mitt Romney (R-Utah) was the only member of the Republican Party to vote with Democratic senators to convict President Donald Trump of abuse of power in a 52-48 not guilty vote after harshly criticizing Trump in his Senate floor speech announcing his intended vote.

Romney asserted that “the president committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor”; accused him of being “guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust” for what he called “a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security, and our fundamental values”; and concluded that “corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office” that he could imagine.

This was not the first time Romney publicly lambasted Trump. In an op-ed published in the Washington Post a year earlier, Romney wrote that Trump had “not risen to the mantle of the office,” adding that a president “should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect.”

Similarly, Romney sharply rebuked the president’s actions outlined in special counsel Robert Mueller’s report, saying, “I am sickened at the extent and pervasiveness of dishonesty and misdirection by individuals in the highest office of the land, including the president,” implying Trump had “strayed from the aspirations and principles of the founders.”

Granted, motives can be complex and difficult to discern, yet Romney’s personality profile offers at least a partial glimpse into his underlying motivation for bucking the GOP party line with his impeachment vote.

A psychological study of Mitt Romney conducted at the Unit for the Study of Politics during Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign revealed that “Romney’s primary personality pattern was … Conscientious/dutiful, complemented by secondary Dominant/asserting, Ambitious/confident, and Accommodating/cooperative features and a minor Retiring/reserved tendency” and characterized him as quintessentially “prudent, proper, dignified, dependable, and more principled than most personality types.”

Regarding his primary personality pattern of conscientiousness, Romney’s political-psychological profile depicts him as a principled person who does his best to uphold conventional rules and standards and to follow regulations closely, with a tendency to be intolerant of deviance and judgmental of those fail to adhere to those norms.

As stated in Romney’s profile, conscientious individuals “tend to follow standards from which they hesitate to deviate, attempt to act in an objective and rational manner, and decide matters in terms of what they believe is right.” They are often religious, and maintaining their integrity “ranks high among their goals” while “voicing moral values gives them a deep sense of satisfaction.”

As Romney asserted in his Senate floor speech:

As a senator-juror, I swore an oath before God to exercise impartial justice. I am profoundly religious. My faith is at the heart of who I am. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential.

In summary, Romney’s personality profile contains the following observations across the matrix of attribute domains comprising his overall personality composite:

  • Expressive behavior: scrupulous in matters of morality and ethics, but may strike others as prudish, moralistic, and condescending. (p. 11)
  • Interpersonal conduct: unbending in his relations with subordinates [which Trump arguably embodies in his capacity as a defendant in an impeachment trial], insisting they adhere to personally established rules and methods. (p. 11)
  • Cognitive style: concerned with matters of propriety and tends to be rigid about regulations and procedures. (p. 11)
  • Mood/temperament: dignified, serious minded, solemn demeanor. (p. 12)
  • Self-image: values aspects of himself that exhibit virtue and moral rectitude. (p. 12)
  • Morphologic organization/ego-defense mechanism: public facade of conformity and propriety may mask an undercurrent of repressed urges toward self-assertion and defiance. (p. 13)

Finally, the section on leadership implications in the report of Romney’s political personality concludes that, in his policy choices, consensus building likely plays a secondary role to the implementation of the “morally correct” policy. (p. 17)

Objective assessment of the psychological motives underlying Romney’s “guilty” impeachment vote dictates that he was simply acting in character and in accordance with his deeply held personal and religious values. However, that determination belies the probability that some of Romney’s Republican Senate colleagues possess a similar personality profile and set of values.

What, then, could account for Romney’s dissenting vote?

One clue may be implicit in Trump’s public humiliation of Romney, whom the president called “a pompous ‘ass’” who had been “fighting me from the beginning, except when he begged me for my endorsement for his Senate run … and when he begged me to be Secretary of State.”

In that regard, it’s notable that Romney’s personality profile is suggestive of an individual more likely to nurse grudges than most. From that perspective, an alternative explanation for Romney’s vote might be that he gave the president a taste of his own kind of quid pro quo.

 


Cited report

The Political Personality of 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney. Paper presented by Aubrey Immelman at the 35th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Chicago, July 6–9, 2012. Abstract and link for full-text (35 pages; PDF) download at Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/98/


 

Related reports on this site

What Motivates Mitt Romney to Question Donald Trump’s Character? (Jan. 3, 2019)

Romney poster (2013)
Click on image for larger view

Mitt Romney Announces Bid for U.S. Senate in Utah (Feb. 17, 2018)

Embedded video

Mitt Romney for Secretary of State? (Nov. 19, 2016)

Mitt Romney’s Personality Profile (June 2, 2011)


As shown in the pie chart, Romney has a primarily Conscientious-dutiful personality, complemented by secondary Dominant-asserting, Ambitious-confident, and Accommodating-cooperative features and a minor Retiring-reserved tendency.

Mitt Romney’s Leadership Style (Sept. 3, 2012)


Research assistants Amanda Nusbaum and Feiran Chen presented their research on “The Personality Profile of 2012 Republican Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney” at the College of St. Benedict in St. Joseph, Minn., July 30, 2012.

Why Mitt Romney Won’t Be President — In Theory (Oct. 29, 2012)


Aubrey Immelman and Andrew Obritsch in Chicago at the annual scientific meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology to present their research on Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, July 2012.


Feb 4th, 2020

CNN reports:

There’s no result yet from last night’s all-important, first-in-the-nation, election season-opening Iowa caucuses. … A vote-reporting debacle has delayed results in the contest, leaving candidates and voters furious and precincts scrambling to come up with answers. Officials from two Democratic campaigns say they were told an app used to tabulate the votes crashed, and the Iowa Democratic Party said it found inconsistencies in some vote sets.

In the absence of official election results 12 hours after the caucuses, I examined the Google Analytics report of visits to the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics pages for Democratic presidential contenders in the 7 days up to and including the Iowa caucuses (Jan. 28–Feb. 3, 2020).


            Note: Biden’s page (/joe-biden) ranked 20th in USPP page visits
 

Descriptive analytics for Iowa caucus contenders
 

1.  Bernie Sanders

      220 page visits (52.1%)
 
      Note: 170 (2016 page) plus 50 (2020 page)
 

2.  Elizabeth Warren

      74 page visits (17.5%)
 
 
 

3.  Pete Buttigieg

      56 page visits (13.3%)
 
 
 

4.  Amy Klobuchar

      50 page visits (11.9%)
 
 
 

5.  Joe Biden

      22 page visits (5.2%)
 
 
 


 

Update: February 7, 2020

Pete Buttigieg keeps narrow lead in Iowa caucuses with 100% of precincts reporting (Dan Merica, Jeff Zeleny, and Adam Levy, CNN, Feb. 6, 2020) — Pete Buttigieg holds a slim lead over Bernie Sanders in the Iowa caucuses with the Iowa Democratic Party announcing on Thursday night [Feb. 6] that 100% of precincts are reporting. The former South Bend, Indiana, mayor leads the Vermont senator by one-tenth of one percentage point in the all-important state delegate equivalent count. Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, former Vice President Joe Biden and Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar are trailing behind Buttigieg and Sanders. The Democratic candidates have until 1 p.m. ET/12 p.m. CT on Friday to file a request for a recanvass or a recount. If there are no challenges by that time, CNN plans to report a winner. … Full report



How will President Trump respond to Iranian retaliation for the killing of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force commander Gen. Qasem Soleimani?

The two guiding principles of behavioral forecasting based on psychological profiling are:

  1. Personality directs — and therefore predicts — behavior.
  2. The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior.

Based on (1) empirical studies of Donald Trump’s personality profile and leadership style conducted at the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics and (2) rational-intuitive inference derived from President Trump’s observed behavior in office, the following general expectancies present themselves with reference to Trump’s likely response to Iran’s anticipated retaliation for the targeted killing of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force commander Gen. Qasem Soleimani.

Key personality traits driving President Trump’s behavior

Donald Trump is bold, self-assured, and levelheaded under pressure and in the face of adversity; is a dramatic attention‑getter more inclined to precipitous action than to indecision; enjoys the power to take charge, evoke respect, and seeing that the job gets done; is tough, competitive, and unsentimental; and is willing to flout tradition, acting autonomously in accordance with his personal goals and preferences.

Relevant indicators from President Trump’s past behavior

Donald Trump prides himself on “promises made, promises kept” and completing projects on- or ahead of schedule; is motivated to extricate the United States from “endless wars”; is driven to project military power to buttress U.S. prestige and national security; and is generally explicit in stating his intent.

General expectancies for President Trump’s response to Iranian reprisal

  • President Trump is highly unlikely to order a full-scale war such as George H.W. Bush’s Gulf War (1991) or George W. Bush’s invasions of Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003).
  • President Trump is unlikely to escalate the current standoff with Iran in the absence of revenge operations by the Iranian regime or its proxies.
  • President Trump is likely to respond proportionately to Iranian retaliation outside the United States, provided no U.S. nationals are harmed (but may incrementally escalate counterattacks if revenge attacks persist).
  • President Trump is likely to respond disproportionately to Iranian retaliation outside the United States if U.S. nationals are killed or injured.
  • President Trump is likely to respond with overwhelming force to attacks by Iran or its proxies within the United States or its territories.

———————————————

Update: January 9, 2020

Trump backs away from further military conflict with Iran (Peter Baker, New York Times, Jan. 8, 2020) — President Trump backed away from further military action against Iran and called for renewed diplomacy on Wednesday as the bristling confrontation of the past six days eased in the aftermath of an Iranian missile strike that seemed intended to save face rather than inflict casualties. … The president’s statement came hours after Iran’s government indicated that it had “concluded proportionate measures” avenging the killing of the commander, Maj. Gen. Qassim Suleimani, with the launch of ballistic missiles at two Iraqi military bases housing American troops. The missiles did not result in any American or Iraqi deaths, an outcome interpreted by some analysts as a deliberate attempt by Iran to claim it had responded, but without provoking Mr. Trump. …



On December 14 the New York Times reported:

A second test [at the Sohae Satellite Launching Station] of what appeared to be an advanced missile engine, part of what North Korea said on Saturday was part of a “reliable strategic nuclear deterrent,” left little doubt that the country is moving quickly toward resuming the program that led to a crisis with Washington two years ago. … It was the second such test in a week, and came after weeks of increasingly vocal attempts to press the United States into further talks and new concessions. … American analysts and intelligence experts said they believe the ground test … was intended as a signal that the country could soon resume testing of an intercontinental ballistic missile.

Analysts have speculated an ICBM test might occur after the end of December, a deadline Kim Jong-un imposed for the U.S. to resume negotiations and provide sanctions relief.

In its report, the New York Times quotes Pak Jong-chon, chief of the general staff of the North Korean People’s Army, as saying: “We should be ready to cope with political and military provocations of the hostile forces, and be familiar with both dialogue and confrontation” and that the U.S. and its allies would “spend the year-end in peace only when they hold off any words and deeds rattling us” — signaling that amid stalled diplomacy “the voice of North Korea’s hard-line military was rising,” according to Cheong Seong-chang, vice president of research planning at South Korea’s Sejong Institute.

In conjunction with the North Korean foreign ministry’s veiled threat in early December that North Korea was preparing a surprise “Christmas gift” for the United States, the latest rhetoric emanating from the DPRK sounds ominous.

Left: Image of King Tongmyong from a North Korean book. Right: Image of Kim Jong-un, courtesy of KCNA. (Photo composite by Jean Lee / The Wilson Center)

 

Analysis: How should the U.S. respond?

  1. In planning its response, the U.S. should exercise caution in ascertaining the personal policy preferences of Kim Jong-un and distinguishing between that and the intent of hardliners in the DPRK military establishment.
  2. To the extent that Kim is losing ground in his grip on power vis-à-vis the top military leadership, the U.S. could strengthen Kim’s hand by giving due consideration to the resumption of personal diplomacy between the two nations’ leaders as a complement to the continuation of working-level talks.
  3. It would be prudent to delay any significant response or intervention until after evaluating the tone, and learning more about the details, of Kim’s policy options in his annual New Year’s Day speech.
  4. In the context of the central role of personal diplomacy in the US-DPRK nuclear negotiations, consider that with the specter of impeachment and the uncertainty of Donald Trump’s reelection as president, Kim might be reluctant to strike a deal at the present juncture, preferring to adopt a wait-and-see attitude; thus, it would be prudent to exercise patience and avoid any abrupt policy reversals.

—————————————————————————

One-month follow-up — January 31, 2020

The Many Faces of Chairman Kim Jong Un


Kim Jong-un and wife Ri Sol-ju ride a white horse on Mt. Paektu (Photo: KCNA)

Commentary by Kenneth B. Dekleva, M.D.

January 30, 2020

Excerpts

At the recent December 2019 plenum, Chairman Kim, rather than giving his traditional New Year’s speech, outlined a different strategy toward the US moving forward in 2020. … Kim’s strategic shift portends not only political, military and diplomatic changes, but also offers clues as to his evolving leadership style, intentions and flexibility as he begins his ninth year in power. …

Chairman Kim has shown restraint and patience. He has not tested an intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) or resumed nuclear testing—nor is he likely to do so, although a public “display” of a new ICBM or ballistic missile submarine is not out of the question.

Rather, Kim has carefully allowed his subordinates to give lip service to a “Christmas gift,” and he has substituted strategic ambiguity for his previously demonstrated (during 2018) nuclear opacity. Doing so highlights his strategic sensibility, patience and evolving maturity as a leader. Importantly, while disappointed (and likely humiliated) by his failure to achieve sanctions relief at the 2019 Hanoi Summit with US President Donald Trump, Chairman Kim has refrained from attacking the president personally. …

Kim remains an aspirational leader, even as the DPRK’s diplomacy is likely to shift—given the replacement of Ri Yong Ho and appointment of Ri Son Gwon (a military hardliner and protégé of Kim Yong Chol) as foreign minister—to a more muscular, hard-nosed version. And Kim, rather than acting impulsively to provoke an unpredictable President Trump, has surely taken measure of America’s current impeachment drama, the upcoming American presidential election, and Trump’s recent show of resolve with respect to the killing of Iran’s Quds Force leader General Soleimani, as well as the signing of the China trade deal. Kim is patiently waiting—with a tendency to avoid unnecessary political risks—knowing that, if Trump were to serve another four years, time is on his and the DPRK’s side. …

Full commentary

 


Related media reports

North Korea promises a Christmas surprise. Here are the options
(Geoff Brumfiel, NPR, Dec. 23, 2019)


Experts worry that North Korea may be about to test an advanced solid-fuel missile. (Photo: Wong Maye-E / AP via NPR)

U.S. on high alert for possible ‘Christmas gift’ missile from North Korea
(Bradford Betz, Fox News, Dec. 23, 2019)

What is North Korean leader Kim Jong-un’s ‘Christmas gift’ for Donald Trump? (Erin Handley, Australian Broadcasting Corporation, Dec. 24, 2019)


Related research reports

The Leadership Style of North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un. Working paper, Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics, St. John’s University and the College of St. Benedict, Collegeville and St. Joseph, Minn., June 10, 2018. Abstract and link for full-text (17 pages; PDF) download at Digital Commons: https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/120/

Titles_KJU

The Personality Profile of North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un. Working paper, Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics, St. John’s University and the College of St. Benedict, Collegeville and St. Joseph, Minn., April 1, 2018. Abstract and link for full-text (32 pages; PDF) download at Digital Commons: https://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/119/


Related links on this site

The Leadership Style of North Korean Leader Kim Jong-un (June 12, 2018)


Photo credit: Saul Loeb / AFP / Getty Images

North Korea Threat Assessment: The Psychological Profile of Kim Jong-un (April 8, 2013)


Click on image for larger view


Related interest

Kim Jong-un’s 2019 New Year’s Message


Oct 27th, 2019

President Trump: ISIS Leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is Dead

By Maegan Vazquez, Zachary Cohen, and Kevin Liptak

October 27, 2019

Excerpts

President Donald Trump declared Sunday morning that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi was dead after a US military raid in northwest Syria over the weekend. …

The President said a US special operations forces mission went after the ISIS leader and there were no US deaths during the operation. …

The death of al-Baghdadi marks the culmination of a years-long hunt to find one of the most wanted terrorists in the world and the man who declared a so-called Islamic caliphate in Iraq and Syria in 2014. …

Trump said al-Baghdadi was chased to the end of a dead-end tunnel by dogs, taking three children with him. At the end of the tunnel, he detonated a suicide vest, killing himself and the children. …

“He died like a dog. He died like a coward. The world is now a much safer place,” Trump said. …

Trump told reporters al-Baghdadi was under surveillance for a couple of weeks and that two to three planned missions were scrapped before the successful one was launched. …

[Secretary of Defense Mark] Esper told CNN’s “State of the Union” Sunday morning that the President approved the raid “late last week” after being presented with different options. …

Esper described the death of the ISIS leader as a “devastating blow” to ISIS. “This is not just their leader, it’s their founder. He was an inspirational leader in many ways,” Esper told Tapper. …

Full story


The Psychology of Terrorists (Pt. 2): The Messiah Complex

How might the personalities of bin Laden and al-Baghdadi be similar?

By Stephen A. Diamond, PhD
Psychology Today
September 26, 2014

Excerpts

What motivates terrorist leaders like Osama Bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the self-proclaimed head of ISIS? … [L]ike bin Laden, al-Baghdadi seems to exhibit some sort of messiah complex. He reportedly sees himself as the successor to Muhammed, the founder of Islam. To understand better the psychology of someone like al-Baghdadi, about whom very little personal information is currently available, we might do well to look at what we knew and thought we knew about his late predecessor, Osama bin Laden. Here is a previous piece posted on the day the death of bin Laden was announced to the world by President Obama back in 2011:

Obviously, analyzing or profiling the personality of such a shadowy, enigmatic and elusive figure as Osama bin Laden is a difficult task. Nevertheless, in a paper presented at the 25th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology in 2002, Dr. Aubrey Immelman, associate professor of psychology at Minnesota’s St. John’s University, did just that.

Plugging bin Laden’s known biographical data into a personality profile using the second edition of the Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria (MIDC), Immelman concluded that “Bin Laden’s blend of Ambitious and Dauntless personality patterns suggests the presence of Millon’s ‘unprincipled narcissist’ syndrome. This composite character complex combines the narcissist’s arrogant sense of self-worth, exploitative indifference to the welfare of others, and grandiose expectation of special recognition with the antisocial personality’s self-aggrandizement, deficient social conscience, and disregard for the rights of others.”

Elsewhere, Immelman diagnosed Osama bin Laden — as did psychiatrist Dr. Jerrold Post, the renowned CIA political profiler — a “malignant narcissist”: a term based on psychoanalyst Otto Kernberg’s conception of malignant narcissism, the core components of which are pathological narcissism, antisocial features, paranoid traits, and destructive aggression. …

Yet surprisingly, in the final analysis, Dr. Immelman found that a “major implication of the study is that bin Laden does not fit the profile of the highly conscientious, closed-minded religious fundamentalist, nor that of the religious martyr who combines these qualities with devout, self-sacrificing features; rather, it suggests that bin Laden is adept at exploiting Islamic fundamentalism in the service of his own ambition and personal dreams of glory.”

While I agree that Immelman’s diagnoses of malignant or unprincipled narcissist may be accurate, and that Osama’s behavior, at least at first, was primarily self-serving, I strongly doubt the latter part of his commentary about bin Laden not being a closed-minded religious fundamentalist or devout, self-sacrificing martyr. Indeed, from everything I’ve seen, this is exactly — even archetypally — what Osama seems to have become. A religious and political martyr.

Immelman did, however, mention Dr. Millon’s syndrome of “puritanical compulsiveness.” These individuals, writes Harvard psychologist and noted personality theorist Theodore Millon (1996), are “austere, self-righteous, [and] highly controlled.” Their “intense anger and resentment … is given sanction, at least as they see it, by virtue of their being on the side of righteousness and morality.” This resentment-based syndrome certainly closely resembles bin Laden’s messianic character.

Does al-Baghdadi suffer from some mental disorder? Could the ISIS leader, like the late Osama bin Laden, be best understood as a narcissistic personality disorder? Antisocial personality disorder? Paranoid personality disorder? Delusional psychotic? Some hybrid of each? Or is he, perhaps more crucially in this context, like bin Laden before him,what I would call a fanatically religious cult leader with a major messiah complex? (See Part 3)

————————

Commentary

I have not conducted an empirical at-a-distance- psychological assessment of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi; however, based on my informal observations, Baghdadi’s psychological profile resembles Ayman al-Zawahiri (fundamentalist “abrasive negativist”) more closely than Osama Bin Laden (nonfundamentalist “unprincipled narcissist”).


Related reports on this site

Ayman al-Zawahiri Psychological Profile (May 3, 2011)

Full research report

“Bin Laden’s Brain”: The Abrasively Negativistic Personality of Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri

Paper presented at the 26th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Boston, July 6–9, 2003

Osama bin Laden Psychological Profile (May 2, 2011)

Full research report

The Personality Profile of al-Qaida Leader Osama bin Laden

Paper presented at the 25th Annual Scientific Meeting of the International Society of Political Psychology, Berlin, July 16–19, 2002



During the War of 1812, attorney Francis Scott Key witnessed the 25-hour bombardment of Fort McHenry from a British troopship anchored some four miles away. He had boarded the ship to negotiate the release of an American civilian imprisoned by the British, and had been detained aboard as the bombardment began. On September 14, 1814, as the dawn’s early light revealed the U.S. flag flying over the fort, Key exultantly began scribbling on the back of a letter the initial verse of “The Star-Spangled Banner,” which would become the American national anthem.

Key’s Manuscript

The U.S. National Anthem in a word-by-word visual score performed by OneRepublic.

Interpretation of The Star-Spangled Banner by OneRepublic

O say can you see,
O = tire / say = finger point / can = pop / you = Uncle Sam / see = face
by the dawn’s early light,
dawn = jogger / early = alarm clock / light = bulb
What so proudly we hail’d
proudly = baby / we = family, barn, Jeep / hail’d = cab
at the twilight’s last gleaming,
twilight’s = desert sunset / last = cookie / gleaming = Jeep hood
Whose broad stripes and bright stars
broad = Broadway street sign / stripes = referee / and = & / bright = blinding light / stars = Marilyn Monroe
through the perilous fight
through = snow / perilous = rocks / fight = pillow
O’er the ramparts we watch’d
ramparts = obstacle course / we watch’d = spectators
were so gallantly streaming?
gallantly = astronaut, firefighter / streaming = video
And the rocket’s red glare
rocket’s = boy, space shuttle / red = sneaker, skateboard / glare = reflecting lake
the bombs bursting in air,
bombs bursting = kids touching hands / in air = Jeep parachute airdrop
Gave proof through the night
Gave = father car keys son / proof = driver’s license / through = tunnel / night = Jeep, tent
that our flag was still there,
our flag = views of Old Glory / was = George Washington Bridge / still = barn in winter / there = Iwo Jima
O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O = dust circle / say = Scrabble / does = graffiti / that = man / star-spangled = sparks / banner = football Wildcats / wave = driver, surfer
O’er the land of the free
land = desert landscape / free = skydive freefall
and the home of the brave?
home = baseball homerun / brave = law enforcement officers, military veteran



Former Vice President Joe Biden, Sen. Bernie Sanders, and Sen. Kamala Harris at the first Democratic presidential debate, Miami, Florida, June 27, 2019. (Photo: Drew Angerer / Getty Images)

Research conducted at the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics under the direction of Aubrey Immelman, Ph.D., is projecting the winner of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.

The Personal Electability Index (PEI) developed at the unit projects that none of the seven Democratic contenders assessed by the USPP will be able to defeat Donald Trump.

This election-outcome forecast is at variance with a contemporaneous ABC News/Washington Post poll, conducted June 28-July 1, 2019, that shows Trump losing against or statistically tied with the five Democratic front-runners:

Among all adults …, Joe Biden leads Trump by 14 points. But that narrows among the other four Democrats tested against Trump in this poll – an 8-point lead for Kamala Harris, a slight 7 points for Elizabeth Warren, 6 for Bernie Sanders and 4 for Pete Buttigieg. The latter two don’t reach statistical significance.

Among registered voters, moreover, Biden still leads, by 10 points, but the other races all tighten to virtual or actual dead heats – Trump a non-significant -2 points against Harris, -1 against Sanders and exactly tied with Warren and Buttigieg.

The PEI (derived from Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria scale scores) has accurately predicted, before Super Tuesday, the outcome of every presidential election since 1996.

The PEI heuristic model employs candidate personality traits, as publicly perceived, to predict which contender will resonate most favorably with independent and unaffiliated voters who base their voting choice primarily on the candidate’s personal qualities as publicly displayed rather than on party-political affiliation or allegiance.

The PEI model’s predictive utility in recent presidential election cycles appears to derive from the practically even division of the nation into reliably Republican and Democratic voting blocks, essentially yielding the balance of power to politically independent and unaffiliated voters comprising as much as one-third of the electorate.

Research on the psychology of politics conducted at the USPP reveals that voters respond favorably to candidates who are outgoing (extraverted), self-confident (productively narcissistic), and dominant; and negatively to candidates who are introverted and overly conscientious.

First, extraversion (Scale 3: Outgoing) conveys energy, drive, and charisma; the candidate passes the so-called “beer test.”

Second, self-confident, adaptive narcissism (Scale 2: Ambitious) is publicly perceived as leadership competency; legitimately or not, confidence conveys competence.

Third, social dominance (Scale 1A: Dominant) is publicly perceived as signifying strong leadership; governing requires cooperation and compromise, but campaigns reward fighters.

Fourth, introversion (Scale 8: Retiring) conveys low energy, a lack of drive, and the absence of charisma; the candidate fails the “beer test.”

Fifth, although associated with positive traits such as honesty, trustworthiness, integrity, morality, prudence, and competence, conscientiousness (Scale 6: Conscientious) at elevated levels is negatively perceived as being overly programmed, moralistic, officious, and high-handed, which doesn’t play well in retail politics.

As conceptualized by the PEI forecasting model, candidates studied in the 2020 presidential election cycle rank as follows in terms of predicted political impact as a general election candidate:

Donald Trump

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 65-77 (71 ±6); dysfunctionality adjusted = 45

 

Joe Biden

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 16-29 (22.5 ±6.5) / Revised Dec. 2019: 22-33 (27.5 ±5.5)

 

Hillary Clinton (Undeclared)

Presidential Electability Index

Score: 27; dysfunctionality adjusted = 12

 

Kamala Harris

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 13-27 (20 ±7)

 

Bernie Sanders

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 16-23 (19.5 ±3.5)

 

Amy Klobuchar

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 13-23 (18 ±5)

 

Beto O’Rourke

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 11-23 (17 ±6)

 

Pete Buttigieg

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 10-18 (14 ±4)

 

Elizabeth Warren

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 6-8 (7 ±1)

 

(Scroll down to “Detailed Personal Electability Index scores” for full data analytics)

The Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics’s PEI projection is congruent with the ABC News/Washington Post poll’s finding that, among the Democratic primary front-runners, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, and Kamala Harris would pose the strongest challenge to Donald Trump in a hypothetical general election matchup.

However, as is evident in the CNN screen shot above, the PEI projection that none of the Democratic presidential candidates will be able to defeat Trump in a general election matchup is incongruent with current polling data. Similarly, a recent Fox News poll showed Trump trailing Democratic frontrunners Biden, Sanders, Warren, Harris, and Buttigieg.

The PEI projection is also inconsistent with Trump’s own internal polling, which shows him losing states he won in 2016 to Biden if the election were held today, including North Carolina, Iowa, Georgia, and Ohio.

 


Update: Fox News poll shows Trump down by 10 points to Biden (July 27, 2019)

 


Update: Trump maintains advantage in Electoral College (Nov. 4, 2019)

One year from election, Trump trails Biden but leads Warren in battlegrounds (Nate Cohn, The Upshot, New York Times, Nov. 4, 2019) — Despite low national approval ratings and the specter of impeachment, President Trump remains highly competitive in the battleground states likeliest to decide his re-election, according to a set of new surveys from The New York Times Upshot and Siena College. Across the six closest states that went Republican in 2016, he trails Joe Biden by an average of two points among registered voters but stays within the margin of error. Mr. Trump leads Elizabeth Warren by two points among registered voters, the same margin as his win over Hillary Clinton in these states three years ago. … The Times/Siena results and other data suggest that the president’s advantage in the Electoral College relative to the nation as a whole remains intact or has even grown since 2016, raising the possibility that the Republicans could — for the third time in the past six elections — win the presidency while losing the popular vote. …

 


Update: Will Democrats pick the right candidate? (Dec. 25, 2019)

The five questions that will decide 2020 election (Julian Zelizer, CNN, Dec. 25, 2019) — Former Vice President Joe Biden…. has argued to Democrats that … he is the only one who can defeat the president in November. … And so far, he has shown that he has considerable appeal. … Biden’s numbers have remained solid despite all the attacks and smears from the administration. Skeptics … must admit he has done better than expected. … Progressives argue that it’s time for a change. The best bet, they say, is someone who can mobilize and inspire voters. …

Comment

Joe Biden has the highest PEI score among the seven Democratic contenders studied this election cycle, suggesting he is the most viable general election candidate in a matchup against Donald Trump; however, his PEI score predicts he is unlikely to defeat President Trump.

 


 

Update: CNN poll: Bernie Sanders surges to join Biden atop Democratic presidential pack (Jan. 22, 2020)

Sanders apologizes to Biden for supporter's op-ed accusing him of a 'big corruption problem'

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders has improved his standing in the national Democratic race for president, joining former Vice President Joe Biden in a two-person top tier above the rest of the field, according to a new CNN poll conducted by SSRS. …

Overall, 27% of registered voters who are Democrats or Democratic-leaning independents back Sanders, while 24% favor Biden. Both … are significantly ahead of the rest of the field, including Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren at 14% and former South Bend, Indiana, Mayor Pete Buttigieg at 11%. Former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg lands at 5% in the poll, while Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar and businessman Andrew Yang each hold 4% support. Businessman Tom Steyer has 2%. No other candidate reaches 1% support. …

Comment

The CNN poll is consistent with a contemporaneous SurveyUSA poll, which shows Bernie Sanders marginally outperforming Joe Biden in a head-to-head matchup against Donald Trump if the election were held today:

The poll found that 52 percent of voters would choose Sanders and 43 percent Trump, giving the veteran senator a nine-point lead. Next was former vice president Joe Biden at 50 percent to Trump’s 43 percent, a seven-point lead.

Michael Bloomberg, the media and financial data billionaire, also led Trump by seven points at 49 percent to 42 percent. Democratic Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren leads Trump 48 percent to 45 percent, a three-point advantage.

Pete Buttigieg, the former mayor of South Bend, Indiana, is also ahead of Trump by three points, at 47 percent to 44 percent. The tech entrepreneur Andrew Yang is ahead of Trump by two points, at 46 percent to 44 percent.

The billionaire hedge fund manager Tom Steyer is tied with Trump at 44 percent apiece, Democratic Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar loses to Trump by two points at 43 percent to 45 percent.

The CNN and SurveyUSA polls are both at variance with the USPP’s PEI-based election-outcome forecast issued July 8, 2019, which projects Trump will defeat any and all of the seven Democratic contenders studied this election cycle, including Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Elizabeth Warren, Pete Buttigieg, and Amy Klobuchar.

 


 

Detailed Personal Electability Index scores

Following are the scores of candidates studied in the 2020 presidential election cycle on the Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria-based Personal Electability Index, which has accurately predicted the outcome of every presidential election since 1996.

Donald Trump: PEI = 65-77 (71 ±6); dysfunctionality adjusted = 45*

Scale: 1A 1B 2 3 4 5A 5B 6 7 8
Lower bound: 17 9 24 24 0 0 4 0 0 0
Upper bound: 20 14 30 27 1 0 9 3 0 1
Adjusted: 15 9 15 15 0 0 4 0 0 0

Lower bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 17] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 24] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 17] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 0] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = 0] = 65 – 0 = 65

Upper bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 27] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 30] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 20] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 0] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (3 – 3) = 0] = 77 – 0 = 77

Dysfunctionality adjusted PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = (24 – 9) = 15] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = (24 – 9) = 15] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = (17 – 2) = 15] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 0] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = 0] = 45 – 0 = 45

* The dysfunctionality adjusted score limits positive points for scales 1A, 2, and 3 to 15, based on the assumption that scale elevations above 15 may be dysfunctional in some respects. (Note also that the PEI heuristic specifies that negative scores for scale 6 are assigned for scale elevations above 4 only.)

Joe Biden: PEI = 16-29 (22.5 ±6.5)

Scale: 1A 1B 2 3 4 5A 5B 6 7 8
Lower bound: 3 2 4 9 5 0 1 1 0 0
Upper bound: 6 4 10 13 5 0 1 4 0 0

Lower bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 9] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 4] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 3] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 0] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (1 – 1) = 0] = 16 – 0 = 16

Upper bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 13] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 10] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 6] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 0] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (4 – 4) = 0] = 29 – 0 = 29

Joe Biden (updated Dec. 31, 2019): PEI = 22-33 (27.5 ±5.5)

Scale: 1A 1B 2 3 4 5A 5B 6 7 8
Lower bound: 4 3 5 13 5 0 0 0 0 0
Upper bound: 6 4 11 16 5 0 1 3 0 0

Lower bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 13] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 5] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 4] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 0] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (0 – 0) = 0] = 22 – 0 = 22

Upper bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 16] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 11] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 6] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 0] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (3 – 3) = 0] = 33 – 0 = 33

Hillary Clinton: PEI = 27; dysfunctionality adjusted = 12*

Scale: 1A 1B 2 3 4 5A 5B 6 7 8
Score: 21 2 24 0 0 0 3 15 1 7

Scale: 1A = 21; 2 = 24; 3 = 0; 6 = 15; 8 = 7

PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 0] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 24] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 21] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 7] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (15 – 4) = 11] = 45 – 18 = 27

Dysfunctionality adjusted PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 0] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = (24 – 9) = 15] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = (21 – 6) = 15] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 7] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (15 – 4) = 11] = 30 – 18 = 12

Kamala Harris: PEI = 13-27 (20 ±7)

Scale: 1A 1B 2 3 4 5A 5B 6 7 8
Lower bound: 4 2 4 5 3 1 1 3 0 0
Upper bound: 8 4 6 13 4 1 2 4 1 0

Lower bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 5] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 4] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 4] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 0] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (1-1) = 0] = 13 – 0 = 13

Upper bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 13] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 6] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 8] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 0] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (4 – 4) = 0] = 27 – 0 = 27

Bernie Sanders: PEI = 16-23 (19.5 ±3.5)

Scale: 1A 1B 2 3 4 5A 5B 6 7 8
Lower bound: 9 5 5 3 2 0 4 3 0 1
Upper bound: 13 11 9 4 5 1 12 5 0 2

Lower bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 3] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 5] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 9] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 1] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (3 – 3) = 0] = 17 – 1 = 16

Upper bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 4] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 9] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 13] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 2] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (5 – 4) = 1] = 26 – 3 = 23

Amy Klobuchar: PEI = 13-23 (18 ±5)

Scale: 1A 1B 2 3 4 5A 5B 6 7 8
Lower bound: 11 3 7 4 5 0 1 13 0 0
Upper bound: 20 3 11 6 5 0 3 17 0 1

Lower bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 4] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 7] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 11] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 0] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (13 – 4) = 9] = 22 – 9 = 13

Upper bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 6] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 11] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 20] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 1] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (17 – 4) = 13] = 37 – 14 = 23

Beto O’Rourke: PEI = 11-23 (17 ±6)

Scale: 1A 1B 2 3 4 5A 5B 6 7 8
Lower bound: 1 5 4 6 5 1 1 1 0 0
Upper bound: 3 13 6 14 7 3 3 2 3 0

Lower bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 6] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 4] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 1] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 0] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (1 – 1) = 0] = 11 – 0 = 11

Upper bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 14] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 6] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 3] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 0] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (2 – 2) = 0] = 23 – 0 = 23

Pete Buttigieg: PEI = 10-18 (14 ±4)

Scale: 1A 1B 2 3 4 5A 5B 6 7 8
Lower bound: 2 2 4 4 5 1 0 3 2 0
Upper bound: 3 4 9 8 7 2 1 5 4 1

Lower bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 4] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 4] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 2] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 0] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (3 – 3) = 0] = 10 – 0 = 10

Upper bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 8] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 9] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 3] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 1] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (5 – 4) = 1] = 20 – 2 = 18

Elizabeth Warren: PEI = 11-15 (13 ±2)

Scale: 1A 1B 2 3 4 5A 5B 6 7 8
Lower bound: 9 2 4 3 1 0 2 4 3 1
Upper bound: 11 3 8 4 4 3 3 12 7 4

Lower bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 3] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 4] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 9] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 1] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (4 – 4) = 0] = 16 – 1 = 15

Upper bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 4] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 8] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 11] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 4] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (12 – 4) = 8] = 23 – 12 = 11

Elizabeth Warren (updated Sept. 25, 2019): PEI = 6-8 (7 ±1)

Scale: 1A 1B 2 3 4 5A 5B 6 7 8
Lower bound: 8 0 4 1 0 1 2 9 2 2
Upper bound: 11 2 6 2 1 1 3 12 4 3

Lower bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 1] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 4] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 8] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 2] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (9 – 4) = 5] = 13 – 7 = 6

Upper bound PEI = [Extraversion (scale 3) = 2] + [Narcissism (scale 2) = 6] + [Dominance (scale 1A) = 11] – [Introversion (scale 8) = 3] – [Conscientiousness (scale 6) = (12 – 4) = 8] = 19 – 11 = 8

 


PEI Scores for Democratic and Republican Nominees, 1996-2016

For historical context, here are the personality-based electability scores for all major-party nominees since 1996, published before Super Tuesday in presidential election years, with the successful candidate listed first:


 

Related report

Projecting the Winner of the 2016 Presidential Election: The Personal Electability Index (Feb. 29, 2016)



CNN’s “The Point with Chris Cillizza” reports:

The entrance of former VP Joe Biden into the 2020 field has altered the race’s dynamics in lots of ways but none more notable than this: Electability is now front and center.

Biden’s entire candidacy is based on the idea that (a) beating Donald Trump is all that matters and (b) he is by far best positioned to do so.

(Recent CNN polling suggests former Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke is actually the strongest general election candidate against Trump right now. O’Rourke led Trump by 10 while Biden held a 6-point edge in a head-to-head match up with Trump.) …

USPP analysis

In contrast to the above analysis by CNN’s “The Point,” the Unit for the Study of Personality’s Presidential Electability Index (PEI), which has accurately predicted — before Super Tuesday — the outcome of every presidential election since 1996, suggests that Joe Biden will be a stronger candidate than Beto O’Rourke in a general election matchup with Donald Trump.

The PEI heuristic model employs candidate personality traits, as publicly perceived, to predict which contender will resonate most favorably with independent and unaffiliated voters who base their voting choice primarily on a candidate’s personal qualities as publicly displayed rather than on party-political affiliation or allegiance.

Below are the PEI scores for Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Beto O’Rourke, based on studies conducted at the USPP.

Donald Trump

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 37-45

 

Joe Biden

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 16-29

 

Beto O’Rourke

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 11-23

 


 

Update: June 27, 2019

With the notable exceptions of Elizabeth Warren and Pete Buttigieg, a Monmouth University poll of likely 2020 New Hampshire Democratic primary voters, conducted May 2-7, 2019, lines up well with ratings of leading Democratic contenders on the Unit for the Study of Personality’s Presidential Electability Index (PEI), which has accurately predicted — before Super Tuesday — the outcome of every presidential election since 1996. (Warren’s PEI score ranks lowest among the seven candidates assessed by USPP investigators, while Buttigieg ranks slightly higher, coming in at sixth.)

Image (truncated) credit: Monmouth University Polling Institute

Below, ranked in descending order of general election electability, are the PEI ratings for the seven Democratic primary contenders studied at the USPP this election cycle, namely, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Beto O’Rourke, Pete Buttigieg, and Elizabeth Warren.

Joe Biden (Monmouth net favorability: +65)

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 16-29 (22.5 ±6.5)

 

Kamala Harris (Monmouth net favorability: +50)

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 13-27 (20 ±7)

 

Bernie Sanders (Monmouth net favorability: +54)

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 16-23 (19.5 ±3.5)

 

Amy Klobuchar (Monmouth net favorability: +33)

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 13-23 (18 ±5)

 

Beto O’Rourke (Monmouth net favorability: +29)

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 11-23 (17 ±6)

 

Pete Buttigieg (Monmouth net favorability: +47)

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 10-18 (14 ±4)

 

Elizabeth Warren (Monmouth net favorability: +39)

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 11-15 (13 ±2)

 


 

Update: December 31, 2019

The Political Personality of Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden. Working paper, Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics, St. John’s University/College of St. Benedict, December 2019. Abstract and link for full-text (21 pages; PDF) download at Digital Commons: http://digitalcommons.csbsju.edu/psychology_pubs/122/

 


Related link: 2020 Presidential Candidates



Student Research Collaborators Present Findings at Scholarship Day

Paige Steinberg, Madison Sharp, Skya Jandt, Christian Giminez, and Sarah Lommel present their poster, “The Personality Profile of U.S. Vice President Joe Biden,” at Scholarship Day, College of St. Benedict, St. Joseph, MN, April 25, 2019. (Click on photo for full-size image)

ST. JOSEPH, Minn. (April 25, 2019) — Psychological profiles of selected Democratic presidential candidates in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, and of China’s President Xi Jinping, were presented at “Celebrating Scholarship and Creativity Day,” an annual event to recognize students, faculty, and staff who have undertaken significant research, scholarship, or creative works during the current academic year at St. John’s University and the College of St. Benedict.

Undergraduate students in a Personality Psychology course at the colleges conducted their research under the auspices of the Unit for the Study of Personality in Politics, directed by Aubrey Immelman, Ph.D., associate professor of psychology.

Biographical and life history data concerning the the designated political leaders were collected from media reports and synthesized into personality profiles using the third edition of the Millon Inventory of Diagnostic Criteria (MIDC), which yields 34 normal and maladaptive personality classifications congruent with DSM-III-R, DSM-IV, and DSM–5.

 

The Personality Profile of Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden

By Sarah Lommel, Madison Sharp, Christian Gimenez, Paige Steinberg, and Skya Jandt


Click on image for larger view

Abstract: Joe Biden’s primary personality patterns were found to be Outgoing/congenial and Accommodating/cooperative, complemented by secondary Ambitious/confident and Dominant/asserting features. In summary, Biden may be characterized as a conciliatory extravert.

Presidential Electability Index range: 16-29

Updates » The Personality Profile of Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden

Joe Biden

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 16-29 (22.5 ±6.5)

 
 

The Personality Profile of U.S. Senator Kamala Harris

By Josie Thelen, Amber Lauer, Lauren Redmond, Kailee Gallagher, and Courtney Conlin

Josie Thelen, Amber Lauer, Courtney Conlin, Lauren Redmond, and Kailee Gallagher present their poster, “The Personality Profile of 2020 U.S. Presidential Contender Kamala Harris,” at Scholarship Day, College of St. Benedict, St. Joseph, MN, April 25, 2019. (Click on photo for full-size image)


Click on image for larger view

Abstract: Kamala Harris’s primary personality patterns were found to be Outgoing/congenial, Dominant/asserting, and Ambitious/confident, complemented by secondary Accommodating/cooperative and Conscientious/respectful features. In summary, Harris may be characterized as a dominant extravert.

Presidential Electability Index range: 13-27

Updates » The Personality Profile of U.S. Senator Kamala Harris

Kamala Harris

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 13-27 (20 ±7)

 
 

The Personality Profile of U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar

By Rachel Nelson, Justine Revermann, Madeline Koebnick, Emily Eng, Krystal Her, and Jason Omann

Jason Omann, Rachel Nelson, and Krystal Her present their poster, “The Personality Profile of 2020 U.S. Presidential Contender Amy Klobuchar,” at Scholarship Day, College of St. Benedict, St. Joseph, MN, April 25, 2019. (Click on photo for full-size image)


Click on image for larger view

Abstract: Amy Klobuchar’s primary personality patterns were found to be Conscientious/dutiful and Dominant/controlling, complemented by secondary Ambitious/confident and Accommodating/cooperative features. In summary, Klobuchar may be characterized as a conscientious enforcer.

Presidential Electability Index range: 13-23

Updates » The Personality Profile of U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar

Amy Klobuchar

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 13-23 (18 ±5)

 
 

The Personality Profile of Former U.S. Representative Beto O’Rourke

By Jada Gilbert, Grace Ekstrom, Nicole Praska, Jack Her, and Meghan Ortizcazarin

Jada Gilbert, Jack Her, and Grace Ekstrom present their poster, “The Personality Profile of 2020 U.S. Presidential Contender Beto O’Rourke,” at Scholarship Day, College of St. Benedict, St. Joseph, MN, April 25, 2019. (Click on photo for full-size image)


Click on image for larger view

Abstract: Beto O’Rourke’s primary personality patterns were found to be Outgoing/congenial and Dauntless/adventurous, complemented by secondary Accommodating/cooperative and Ambitious/confident features. In summary, O’Rourke may be characterized as an adventurous extravert.

Presidential Electability Index range: 11-23

Updates » The Personality Profile of U.S. Representative Beto O’Rourke

Beto O’Rourke

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 11-23 (17 ±6)

 
 

The Personality Profile of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders

By Andrew Saunders, Thomas Lenard, Erik Balder, and Isaias Guzman

Erik Balder and Aaron Montpetit present their poster, “The Personality Profile of 2020 U.S. Presidential Contender Bernie Sanders,” at Scholarship Day, College of St. Benedict, St. Joseph, MN, April 25, 2019. (Click on photo for full-size image)


Click on image for larger view

Abstract: Bernie Sanders’s primary personality patterns were found to be Dominant/asserting and Dauntless/adventurous, complemented by secondary Ambitious/confident and Contentious/resolute features. In summary, Sanders may be characterized as a deliberative nonconformist.

Presidential Electability Index range: 16-23

Updates » The Personality Profile of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 16-23 (19.5 ±3.5)

 
 

The Personality Profile of China’s President Xi Jinping

By Nathaniel Lutmer, Anna Faerber, and Mariah Ogden-Kellington

Mariah Ogden-Kellington, Nate Lutmer, and Anna Faerber present their poster, “The Personality Profile of China’s President Xi Jinping,” at Scholarship Day, College of St. Benedict, St. Joseph, MN, April 25, 2019. (Click on photo for full-size image)

习近平


Click on image for larger view

Abstract: Xi Jinping’s primary personality patterns were found to be Ambitious/confident and Dominant/asserting, complemented by secondary Outgoing/congenial and Accommodating/cooperative features. In summary, Xi may be characterized as a confident, high-dominance extravert.

 


 

Related reports

The Personality Profile of South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg

By Suntina Spehar, Austen Luetmer, Annie Griebie, and Cassidy Smith


Click on image for larger view

Abstract: Pete Buttigieg’s primary personality patterns were found to be Accommodating/cooperative, Ambitious/confident, and Outgoing/congenial, complemented by secondary Conscientious/respectful and Reticent/circumspect features. In summary, Buttigieg may be characterized as an ambitious conciliator.

Presidential Electability Index range: 10-18

Updates » The Personality Profile of South Bend Mayor Pete Buttigieg

Pete Buttigieg

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 10-18 (14 ±4)

 
 
The Personality Profile of U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren

By Annie Griebie, Cassidy Smith, and Suntina Spehar


Click on image for larger view

Abstract: Elizabeth Warren’s primary personality patterns are Conscientious/dutiful and Dominant/controlling, complemented by secondary Ambitious/confident features and minor Reticent/circumspect, Retiring/reserved, and Contentious/resolute tendencies. In summary, Warren may be characterized as a dominant doctrinaire – highly assertive, strong-willed, outspoken, detail-oriented, organized, and ideological, buttressed by confidence in her policy positions and motivated for public service both by a sense of duty and personal ambition.

Presidential Electability Index range: 6-8

Updates » The Personality Profile of U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren

Presidential Electability Index

Range: 6-8 (7 ±1)

 
 

2020 Presidential Candidates


Photo composite: The New York Times

 


 

Related reports on this site

Psychological Profiles of 2016 Republican Presidential Candidates (April 24, 2015)

Psychological Profiles of Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un Presented at Scholarship Day (April 27, 2018)

Donald Trump poster (S&CD 2018)