Beer question

The beer question, often utilized in opinion polling, asks respondents a simple question, generally along the lines of "With which candidate would you rather have a beer?"[1] The question is generally thought to provide information on how voters perceive some combination of likability and authenticity in politicians,[2][3] with Erica J. Seifert describing it in her book The Politics of Authenticity in Presidential Campaigns, 1976-2008 as "[combining] a battery of character and personality questions typically asked by academic and professional polling organizations".[4]

While an op-ed in The Washington Post argues that the beer question is a "shorthand" for likability,[5] Seth Stevenson with Slate claims that the question better measures authenticity, citing Donald Trump as an example of someone who would be authentic, and desirable to have a beer with, but not likable.[2]

Writing for The Atlantic, Megan Garber examined the beer question through the lens of American television political drama The West Wing, focusing particularly on a season four episode titled "Game On".[11] Garber argues that while the episode may be only peripherally related to beer, "Game On" does take on the beer question in how it addresses political authenticity and folksiness. In "Game On", the conflict between Josiah Bartlet, the incumbent Democratic president, and Robert Ritchie, his Republican challenger, comes to a head. Ritchie, a governor from Florida, is portrayed as folksy, likable, and down-to-earth, while protagonist Bartlet is portrayed as intelligent, but arrogant and aloof. Garber criticized how The West Wing chose to portray Ritchie as stupid, unempathetic, and "a walking (well, dais-grasping) straw man, standing in for a great many of the stereotypes within which progressives are fond of packaging conservatives."[11] However, she more broadly agreed with her interpretation of the episode's message, which was one that argued against the idea that politicians should be selected based on their ability to connect with everyday Americans:

The Beer Question, after all, is the wrong question to ask. Do we really want a leader who is on our level—or is it better, actually, to have a leader who is demonstrably above us? My money's on the latter. And so is The West Wing's. You can read "Game On" as a lot of things—smarmy, strawmanny, overly convinced of a single debate's ability to sway the electorate's affections—but it also makes a pretty good argument for choosing leaders according to their skills and their knowledge, rather than their charm.[11]

Leonard Steinhorn, writing for The Hill, also criticized the beer question for similar reasons. He argued that press coverage of a candidate as "unlikable" creates a cycle of polling and analysis through that lens that can be hard to escape, and prevent a candidate from gaining traction.[6] Steinhorn further emphasizes the idea that likability generally has little impact on leadership skill, concluding his article by writing "shame on us if we let likability override consequence. And yes, let's have a beer on that."[6]

Seth Stevenson, writing for Slate, argued that the question was improperly masculine, invoking a scene that puts the participants "Shoulder to shoulder. Eyes on the football game. Insecurities swallowed."[2] Stevenson commented that "it's telling that we don't ask which candidate you'd most want to be in your book club."[2]

• Pub test – Standard in Australian politics

• Seifert, Erica J. (2014). The Politics of Authenticity in Presidential Campaigns, 1976-2008. United States: McFarland Publishing. ISBN 9780786491094.