The question has been discussed as far back as the 2000 United States presidential election, as well as in the context of fictional political works such as The West Wing.
"[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".
[7] A Samuel Adams/Roper Starch poll in the run-up to the 2000 United States presidential election—described sarcastically as "very scientific" by Seifert in her book—found that respondents would generally prefer to have a beer with George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, rather than with his Democratic opponent Al Gore.
[1] A Zogby/Williams poll conducted in 2004 found that 57 percent of swing voters would rather have a drink with Bush than with his opponent in the 2004 United States presidential election, John Kerry.
In Slate, Seth Stevenson hypothesized that Trump scored the highest in that poll due to his unpredictability, writing "What other candidate calls his opponent a 'pussy' on camera and then just owns it?
[2][5] A June 2016 poll from Rasmussen Reports found that 45 percent of respondents would rather have a beer with Donald Trump than his opponent, Hillary Clinton.
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".
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.
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.