11-21-2017, 03:13 PM
(This post was last modified: 11-21-2017, 03:15 PM by Eric the Green.)
Good comments.
I'm thinking the next president may well have been born in the 1950s. And gray champions are supposed to be late-born prophets or prophet/nomad hybrids. I don't think Charles Manson could have stopped this cycle. Many people born in the 1950s had good experiences with the counter-culture, and young people continued to be influenced by it in a liberating and creative way during the 1970s and beyond, although this was increasingly true only in blue and especially coastal states.
I am predicting that Terry McAuliffe (11-2 horoscope score) has a good chance in 2020, and possibly Mitch Landrieu (15-2)-- especially if he wins higher office before 2020; and perhaps later on. These two guys were born in the late 1950s. I am saying the Democrats will need to nominate someone with a good horoscope score, or at least someone who otherwise gives evidence that (s)he can communicate empathically and theatrically, who is articulate, and gives people confidence in their leadership ability, relatability, optimism, positive or self-confident attitude, and stable strength of will and courage, even if this turns out to be illusory.
Candidates who have some of this kind of charisma win, while those who don't give evidence of these qualities, do not.
When Democrats nominate dull, wonkish, egghead intellectuals, they lose. Such candidates may appeal to Democrats, or Democrats may not care whether they don't have the other qualities, as long as they seem smart and competent. But the American people don't vote for them.
Democratic losers, with their horoscope scores, were all dull, wonkish intellectuals: Adlai Stevenson (5-21) (the original "egghead"), George McGovern (9-10), Walter Mondale (12-12), Michael Dukakis (2-10), Al Gore (10-9), John Kerry (8-12), Hillary R. Clinton (9-11).
Democratic winners had charisma enough to at least win once, or win a close election: FDR (21-4), Harry Truman (14-0), JFK (13-6), LBJ (8-6), Jimmy Carter (12-4), Bill Clinton (21-3), Barack Obama (19-2). Hubert Humphrey (9-5) barely lost.
Republican winners had folksy, all-American appeal and self-confidence, and were articulate, good debaters: Eisenhower (17-8), Nixon (18-7), Reagan (21-6), Bush 1 (14-6), George W. Bush (17-2), Donald Trump (9-4).
Republican losers were mean, dull or cold, even if they sometimes had a positive score: Hoover (11-11), Landon (10-16), Wilkie (8-9), Dewey (8-6), Goldwater (20-11), Ford (12-8), Dole (12-19). McCain (15-13), Romney (4-10).
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html
I'm thinking the next president may well have been born in the 1950s. And gray champions are supposed to be late-born prophets or prophet/nomad hybrids. I don't think Charles Manson could have stopped this cycle. Many people born in the 1950s had good experiences with the counter-culture, and young people continued to be influenced by it in a liberating and creative way during the 1970s and beyond, although this was increasingly true only in blue and especially coastal states.
I am predicting that Terry McAuliffe (11-2 horoscope score) has a good chance in 2020, and possibly Mitch Landrieu (15-2)-- especially if he wins higher office before 2020; and perhaps later on. These two guys were born in the late 1950s. I am saying the Democrats will need to nominate someone with a good horoscope score, or at least someone who otherwise gives evidence that (s)he can communicate empathically and theatrically, who is articulate, and gives people confidence in their leadership ability, relatability, optimism, positive or self-confident attitude, and stable strength of will and courage, even if this turns out to be illusory.
Candidates who have some of this kind of charisma win, while those who don't give evidence of these qualities, do not.
When Democrats nominate dull, wonkish, egghead intellectuals, they lose. Such candidates may appeal to Democrats, or Democrats may not care whether they don't have the other qualities, as long as they seem smart and competent. But the American people don't vote for them.
Democratic losers, with their horoscope scores, were all dull, wonkish intellectuals: Adlai Stevenson (5-21) (the original "egghead"), George McGovern (9-10), Walter Mondale (12-12), Michael Dukakis (2-10), Al Gore (10-9), John Kerry (8-12), Hillary R. Clinton (9-11).
Democratic winners had charisma enough to at least win once, or win a close election: FDR (21-4), Harry Truman (14-0), JFK (13-6), LBJ (8-6), Jimmy Carter (12-4), Bill Clinton (21-3), Barack Obama (19-2). Hubert Humphrey (9-5) barely lost.
Republican winners had folksy, all-American appeal and self-confidence, and were articulate, good debaters: Eisenhower (17-8), Nixon (18-7), Reagan (21-6), Bush 1 (14-6), George W. Bush (17-2), Donald Trump (9-4).
Republican losers were mean, dull or cold, even if they sometimes had a positive score: Hoover (11-11), Landon (10-16), Wilkie (8-9), Dewey (8-6), Goldwater (20-11), Ford (12-8), Dole (12-19). McCain (15-13), Romney (4-10).
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html