What reasoning fallacy is present in stating that just because one experienced politician is charismatic, they will automatically succeed?

The reasoning fallacy present in asserting that a charismatic experienced politician will automatically succeed is known as a non sequitur. This fallacy occurs when there is a lack of logical connection between the premises and the conclusion drawn from them. In this case, while charisma can indeed contribute to a politician's appeal and may have positive effects on their campaign, it does not logically guarantee their success. Success in politics is influenced by a multitude of factors, including public opinion, policies, circumstances, and the political environment, none of which are necessarily tied to charisma alone. Thus, concluding that charisma will lead to success fails to recognize other essential elements and is an example of reasoning that doesn’t follow logically from the evidence presented.