12-17-2018, 08:40 PM
(12-17-2018, 10:14 AM)David Horn Wrote:(12-17-2018, 12:05 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:(12-16-2018, 08:39 AM)David Horn Wrote:(12-16-2018, 07:14 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: The Des Moines Register has a poll of Democrats on their preferences in the primary. At this point, I will leave ot to you to sort out who has any advantage as a Democratic front-runner.
What Democrats want:
90% -- someone who will restore good relations with longtime US allies
90% -- someone with a strong moral compass
87% -- someone who understands policy and politics
89% -- someone who will unite the country
90% -- someone who respects decorum
93% -- someone who will tell the truth even if I don't agree
81% -- someone who represents the future of the Democratic party
1% -- don't know
Iowa Democrats clearly want someone as different from Donald Trump on substantive issues and personal character as is possible.
I understand the motivation to pursue the ideal anti-Trump, but really? The last person we need leading the country is Plaster Saint 3.0. Jimmy Carter is a wonderful human being. He set a great moral standard, but he was a terrible president. BHO had zero scandals. He didn't get much done either. We need a dynamic visionary and charismatic leader who can set goals and get the people behind them. I have no idea who that might be: maybe Beto O'Rourke. But one thing's for sure, saints and crank-turners need not apply. I think we've had plenty of each, and neither type cancels-out scumbags, of which we have also had our fill.
Only skilled candidates EVER get elected USA president. That's a fact. According to the horoscope scores, which reveal inherent tendencies in people according to the maxim "as above, so below," as it relates to compatibility with what Americans want in a president, Beto O' Rourke will prove unworthy. The best choices are Mitch Landrieu and Terry McAuliffe to meet these goals reported in this post. There is some momentum for Sherrod Brown; he might have a decent chance. Biden and Sanders, I wouldn't bet on them; they might win if Trump runs again even though his popularity has plummeted well below what it is now. As of now, a 43% approval rating would be good enough base for Trump, with his superior persuasive powers, to barely seal another election in his favor-- unless Landrieu, Mc Auliffe or Brown are nominated.
Yes, it takes a person skilled at RUNNING for President to be ELECTED President. That said, the real skill set needed is BEING President, and getting the job is not the same as doing it, as Trump has shown in spades. I don't see any of the names on your preferred list being the one, though Mitch Landrieu is probably the best of those listed. What we really need is a Winston Churchill or FDR, and leaders of that caliber are always in short supply. At the moment, I don't see any. Beto O'Rourke may be one, but he's too untested for us to evaluate him, and Amy Klobuchar seems to have the chops but may be unelectable.
Well, you said before that McAuliffe had been a competent governor of your state, and that is certainly true. I don't think any of the potential candidates can be known for sure to be a potential Churchill or FDR. Any of them would have to grow into the role, it appears. My scoring method is not too reliable about who has the best skills at BEING president, because the number of examples to look at is small, and people disagree about who should be counted among them. I can guess, according to the astrological traditions, but that would not be the empirical method that seems to work very consistently. There could be an indicator of who each person thinks would be a best president, according to the list of presidents (s)he draws up. As for what is needed in a nominee, the Iowa poll confirmed that the people want someone who can beat Trump. That was confirmed on the PBS Newshour tonight.
As you know, I recommend the system I have developed as a good indicator of just who that is. Mostly that can be confirmed by any good observer of the candidates, but Beto O'Rourke seems so far to appear to us as much better than his score indicates. That score says he would go down in flames, even against a crippled Trump. Some are now wondering about him, since he ran as a progressive but his record is less than that. So how consistent, courageous and honest is he, really? Does he have the level of strength needed, and does he give the impression of powerful leadership qualities that Americans vote for, as well as just some charm, idealism, youth, good looks and smooth talk? As you say, he is untested. They say he's like Bobby Kennedy, but RFK's score also suggests that he actually might not have been elected had he lived. Even Humphrey had a better score than RFK too. And there's probably an element of destiny at work as to who actually gets elected. They say character is destiny, but who knows, sometimes larger forces are at work.