10-04-2016, 12:34 PM
(10-04-2016, 03:49 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(10-04-2016, 12:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: Michelle Cottle of The Atlantic seems to agree with me: Ivanka is a woman to watch. Could she be a factor in future presidential campaigns?
It seems increasingly likely that The Donald is going to crash and burn big time, perhaps to the point of tainting his entire family. Still, he made a big enough splash that someone or other will try to copy his approach. I'm not sure how easy it would be to copy. A lot of what Trump does is based on his rather exotic media skills and persona. Copying that seems tricky to me at best.
But Trump has driven a huge wedge between the establishment pro Robber Baron wing of the Republicans and the haters of all things Washington DC. I'm not seeing this divide going away soon. It also seems real, not a media showtime charisma based carnival side show, as so much of Trump's act seems to be. It seems possible that a sane seeming less off the wall candidate with fewer self destructive tendencies might be able to exploit the split between establishment Washington DC Republicans and the rural base.
Ivanka? She has the looks, name recognition, connections and apparently skills to become a pro politician. She seems to have the discipline to create the impression of competence. Like her father, she has no experience in government. If she starts running for office with a stop in the US Senate or a governor's chair she might position herself for a serious presidential run. For most potential presidential candidates this would mean a decade or three of paying dues and learning ropes. If she works on picking up experience, she could apprentice herself into becoming a potentially competent office holder.
Being who she is, she might be able to short cut that somewhat. How long did Hillary and Obama work in government before they started being viewed as potential presidents? Ivanka might not have to invest that much time before making a run, but I think she'd be better off if she did.
But if she doesn't position herself as a sane driver of her father's Wedge, I suspect somebody else will.
That's all correct.
Just taking my astrological system, for example (believe in it or not, as you will), it's clear that a high score does not guarantee election or nomination. As I say in my article
http://philosopherswheel.com/presidentialelections.html
a candidate has to get him or herself into a position to be known, and usually needs to be in a major party and compatible with that party, before the score can come into play. But it does indicate potential talent as a candidate, one that might appeal to Americans, according to the empirical research I have done.
Two candidates had higher scores than Donald Trump who ran in the Republican primary. George Pataki (13-3) did not do much to get support or get much within his party in any case, and did not actually run in any primaries. If he had made a more dedicated effort, and gotten enough credible exposure, he might have made a good run; but he was still too liberal for his party to vote for him. Carly Fiorina, who had a modestly positive score in my old system, does better in my updated one: 16-6. She showed her talent and appeal at the debates, but she never had the celebrity status that Trump had, nor the credibility of having held political office. So although she graduated herself from the minor card group to the major one, she didn't catch fire.
Meanwhile Ted Cruz and John Kasich ran determined campaigns and stayed in until Trump won Indiana. They had the credibility of elected public office and good exposure, but they had the lowest scores of any of the candidates, except perhaps Lindsay Graham. Cruz had the advantage of 3 rising planets, but his score otherwise is only 3-12, and Kasich is even worse, 2-14. Kasich only won his home state. Those two had no real appeal or likability beyond their core supporters, and could never have been elected. Rubio had a pretty good score, 13-7, but Trump's score of 8-4 was proportionally better. Originally, on my older system, Trump had a 15-4 rating.
Bernie Sanders (14-5 on new system, 10-0 on the old) had a higher score than Hillary (12-9), although Hillary has Jupiter rising, which so far has been invincible for any candidate with a positive score. But although I think I know Bernie's full horoscope, I can't compare most other current or historical primary candidates in regard to rising planets, although I know most of the presidents and party nominees in that regard. So I don't include Jupiter rising in the official scores.
So perhaps Ivanka, 14-1, might become a celebrity, and she would do well to run for office first if she decides to be a politician and run for president. It's a long-term indication, not one that she could run and win anytime soon.