Jump to content
270soft Forum
admin_270

Marianne Williamson now has 65,000 unique donors

Recommended Posts

Wow. Never realized Yang qualified for the debates. Long shot favorite Dem.

Can't wait to get that $1000 check in the month that I can blow on premium cigars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

I had heard of her in passing for a few months but I wasn't truly introduced to her candidacy until the May 1st publication of the 538 piece on her:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-marianne-williamson-could-win-the-2020-democratic-primary/

Hadn't read that one - thanks for that. From the article

"she is undeniably charismatic."

This was my conclusion as well, which is why she has a 6 for Charisma in the game. She is one of only two female candidates who are currently running with Charisma above average in the game right now.

The only other female candidate with above average Charisma for Democrats in the game currently is Gabbard (also a 6).

Since I believe Charisma is the most important single attribute in a Presidential candidate, I believe that puts her above Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Hadn't read that one - thanks for that. From the article

"she is undeniably charismatic."

This was my conclusion as well, which is why she has a 6 for Charisma in the game. She is one of only two female candidates who are currently running with Charisma above average in the game right now.

The only other female candidate with above average Charisma for Democrats in the game currently is Gabbard (also a 6).

Since I believe Charisma is the most important single attribute in a Presidential candidate, I believe that puts her above Harris, Warren, Gillibrand, and Klobuchar.

Yeah, the four you list below aren’t very exciting outside of their platforms. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the gist of my thinking re Williamson beyond her unique skill-set.

Get rid of the candidates who are too young to be President of the most powerful country in the world (in my opinion, < 45). Get rid of the candidates who are too old (in my opinion, > 75). Between 45 and 75 is the 'sweet spot' for people who would actually be capable of leading and running the largest country in the world, in my opinion, due to accumulated experience. (Note that no one has been elected President for the first time outside of that age range, except Teddy Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age . Both, not incidentally, were very high charisma).

Then, get rid of the candidates who don't have above-average charisma.

Who's left on the Democratic side? Despite the number of candidates running, there are only 4 who fit those qualifications.

O'Rourke, Castro, Messam, and Williamson.

However, all other 3 are marginally above 45 when they would take office - Messam is currently 44, Castro 44, O'Rourke 46.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Here's the gist of my thinking re Williamson beyond her unique skill-set.

Get rid of the candidates who are too young to be President of the most powerful country in the world (in my opinion, < 45). Get rid of the candidates who are too old (in my opinion, > 75). Between 45 and 75 is the 'sweet spot' for people who would actually be capable of leading and running the largest country in the world, in my opinion, due to accumulated experience. (Note that no one has been elected President for the first time outside of that age range, except Teddy Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age . Both, not incidentally, were very high charisma).

Then, get rid of the candidates who don't have above-average charisma.

Who's left on the Democratic side? Despite the number of candidates running, there are only 4 who fit those qualifications.

O'Rourke, Castro, Messam, and Williamson.

However, all other 3 are marginally above 45 when they would take office - Messam is currently 44, Castro 44, O'Rourke 46.

 

O'Rourke, Castro, Messam, and Williamson.  You know what else they all have in common?  Not a single one has ever won so much as a state-wide election.  Hell, of the four, I think O'Rourke is the only one who has even tried.

Is age important?  Yes.  Charisma too, for sure.

But surely there's SOMETHING to be said about experience.  Sure, Trump doesn't have any.  But look at how incompetently his administration has been run as a result.  Even if you happen to like the insane things he wants to do, he's managed to accomplish almost none of them because he doesn't have the experience to pull it off.

I'm not suggesting experience alone can elect someone.  Hillary disproved that theory.  But "has never done anything even remotely close to the job they're applying for" is a weakness, not a strength.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 3:16 PM, admin_270 said:

Title says it. Williamson is my long shot favourite (if I were to bet a small amount of $ for a large potential payoff if they won, she would be my choice) for the Dem nominee, as she has a unique skill set which differentiates her from the rest of the field. In many ways, she's the opposite of Trump, despite both of them not having political experience before running for President. This adds another person for the debates.

This might be off topic, but currently CNN and Fox News have been hosting hour long town halls for the candidates. Will something similar be added to the game, or would it still be considered an interview event in the current game?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2019 at 7:22 PM, Actinguy said:

But surely there's SOMETHING to be said about experience

Yes, I think experience is important. However, I think being a Senator (leading a small office of employees) or being a Representative (even less) isn't much of experience compared to POTUS. What someone like Williamson has done (non-profits and entrepreneur) or Yang (same) or Messam (running a city) is probably more demanding in terms of relevant experience.

In my ideal world, every eventual nominee would have experience like, say, Eisenhower. 5-Star General, Supreme Allied Commander, Governor of part of Germany, President of Columbia, Supreme Commander of NATO. Alas, that isn't the world we live in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Yes, I think experience is important. However, I think being a Senator (leading a small office of employees) or being a Representative (even less) isn't much of experience compared to POTUS. What someone like Williamson has done (non-profits and entrepreneur) or Yang (same) or Messam (running a city) is probably more demanding in terms of relevant experience.

In my ideal world, every eventual nominee would have experience like, say, Eisenhower. 5-Star General, Supreme Allied Commander, Governor of part of Germany, President of Columbia, Supreme Commander of NATO. Alas, that isn't the world we live in.

I must say I don't regard a high-ranking military general (or admiral), in and of itself, to be considered reliable "experience" by label. The Cold War Third World is full of MANY examples of why this is. Basically, as career officer may not regard civilian bureaucracy or civilian politics in the same way a civilian politician does - and not necessarily in a good difference. The two roles lead to different mindsets, quite often. Plus, Eisenhower leaned on, and heavily delegated to, his Cabinet, and often took their advise and other experts' advice. This isn't at all a universal attitude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Patine @admin_270

i think the right kind of experience is important, but I think the right temperament is even more important. I see Trump as pretty much the complete opposite of that temperament. Self awareness, curiosity, adaptability, humility, empathy,  courage, incisive intelligence, worldliness, significant experience as a citizen of the middle class, a mindset for service for the  majority, and good people skills. I’d add a few more traits to this list, but this is the kind of temperament I look for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, admin_270 said:

Yes, I think experience is important. However, I think being a Senator (leading a small office of employees) or being a Representative (even less) isn't much of experience compared to POTUS. What someone like Williamson has done (non-profits and entrepreneur) or Yang (same) or Messam (running a city) is probably more demanding in terms of relevant experience.

In my ideal world, every eventual nominee would have experience like, say, Eisenhower. 5-Star General, Supreme Allied Commander, Governor of part of Germany, President of Columbia, Supreme Commander of NATO. Alas, that isn't the world we live in.

Government is radically different than the private sector in both methods and goals.  Having experience in the nuts & bolts of governing is experience that cannot be gained from the outside.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Self awareness, curiosity, adaptability, humility, empathy,  courage, incisive intelligence, worldliness, significant experience as a citizen of the middle class, a mindset for service for the  majority, and good people skills.

I would consider Trump to have most of these.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, pilight said:

Having experience in the nuts & bolts of governing is experience that cannot be gained from the outside.

The skills required have cross-over with all sorts of activities. Military can give you some, business some, non-profit some, legislative can give you some, mayoral some, gubernatorial some. Ultimately, I don't think anyone is adequately prepared for a job like POTUS, but there are degrees of unpreparedness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

I don't regard a high-ranking military general (or admiral), in and of itself, to be considered reliable "experience" by label

In and of itself it doesn't mean anything - it could mean the government is corrupt and that person is a toady of the establishment.

In this case, Eisenhower demonstrated competent leadership, however. It was obvious from his pedigree that he had significant leadership traits and skills that had been developed over a lifetime, and many of those could be translated in varying degrees to the office of POTUS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/11/2019 at 8:04 PM, Sunnymentoaddict said:

CNN and Fox News have been hosting hour long town halls for the candidates

Town halls are a good idea - we'll see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Patine said:

I must say I don't regard a high-ranking military general (or admiral), in and of itself, to be considered reliable "experience" by label. The Cold War Third World is full of MANY examples of why this is. Basically, as career officer may not regard civilian bureaucracy or civilian politics in the same way a civilian politician does - and not necessarily in a good difference. The two roles lead to different mindsets, quite often. Plus, Eisenhower leaned on, and heavily delegated to, his Cabinet, and often took their advise and other experts' advice. This isn't at all a universal attitude.

 

1 hour ago, vcczar said:

@Patine @admin_270

i think the right kind of experience is important, but I think the right temperament is even more important. I see Trump as pretty much the complete opposite of that temperament. Self awareness, curiosity, adaptability, humility, empathy,  courage, incisive intelligence, worldliness, significant experience as a citizen of the middle class, a mindset for service for the  majority, and good people skills. I’d add a few more traits to this list, but this is the kind of temperament I look for.

 

53 minutes ago, pilight said:

Government is radically different than the private sector in both methods and goals.  Having experience in the nuts & bolts of governing is experience that cannot be gained from the outside.

Agree with all three of you.

To be President in a world of Checks and Balances requires getting buy-in and persuading people that you're right.  This is the experience that Senators and Governors bring to the table.

  In both business and military, leaders give orders and those who don't follow get fired.  Maybe the order is good, maybe the order is bad -- if it's a particularly bad order, then the leader will be fired as well...as soon as they're done firing the worker bees who refused to follow the bad order.

I say this as a Veteran myself -- the military does not prepare you for non-military leadership.  Being President is not a world of "Yes Sir"s.  It's a world of "Fuck you"s.

Eisenhower I agree is a great example of a military man who made a successful transition to the Presidency because he was an accomplished problem solver.  He was able to adapt from solving military problems to solving civilian problems smoothly.  But most military leaders are not problem solvers.  They reach their rank by being extremely good at following -- not by innovating.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I would consider Trump to have most of these.

WHAT.

Self awareness...maybe.  Only to the extent that he's actually voiced awareness that having ridiculous hair is part of his brand.  And maaaaybe saying that he "could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and (he) wouldn’t lose voters."  Though I'd argue that's more an awareness of the lack of consequences that he's faced over the course of his entire life.

Curiosity.  I can't think of a single time he's acknowledged that he should learn more on a topic.  When asked during the campaign who he is consulting with when he spouts nonsense about foreign policy, his actual response was that he consults with himself because he has "a really good brain."

Adaptability.  Maybe?  I mean, he obviously learned how to use Twitter late in life, but he doesn't appear to have adapted to the Presidency at ALL.  

Humility.  I think he would be sincerely insulted to hear that someone had called him humble.

Empathy.  Maybe, provided that you look and act and think like he does.  He seems to think that he really is doing good for the American people by constructing a wall, for example, though he turns a blind eye to the fact that children are being stolen and kept in cages.  

Courage.  I guess I could see where someone would say this...but I'd say it's connected to the fact that he's never faced an actual consequence in his entire life.  What does he have to be afraid of?  If you were literally bullet proof, would you be afraid to go to war?  If you were literally fireproof, would it be brave of you to rush into a burning building?  Trump's entire life has told him that there is a 0% chance of something going wrong for him.  Sure, everyone around him may be destroyed his actions, but not him.  That, in my mind, is not courage.

Incisive intelligence.  I take this to mean analytical thinking.  Again, I'd say this is entirely missing from Trump's portfolio.

Worldliness.  Sure, he's been to other countries.  But has he been to a single one without completely embarrassing himself?  

Significant experience as a citizen of the middle class - Trump himself would deny this outrageous accusation.

A mindset for service for the majority:  Trump exclusively serves Trump.  

Good people skills - This one I will grant...it's just that he's only good with the absolute worst kind of people.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I would consider Trump to have most of these.

I could see an argument for Trump having maybe 3 of them, but I don’t think he really has much of any of these. Some of this might be based on how we define these things. I think he’s too surface level on any of these to really qualify for any of them. I think Obama had all of them but courage. I don’t think we’ve really had a courageous president since Bush 1 or Reagan. Trump certainly hasn’t courage, but his reactionary behavior and stubbornness might be misread for courage by people that idolize him. It might be the test for that idolization. I think he’s overwhelmingly a weak individual that’s centralized only on his self, which might explain how he’s survived through a gauntlet of failures. His greatest trait is survival instincts. I wouldn’t call that courage. 

If I had to pick 3 traits from my list that Trump conceivably has it is adaptability, worldliness, and good people skills. He’s too stubborn and fixed in his own opinion to really be curious. So that one is out. However this same stubbornness might also limit his adaptability. He isn’t very bipartisan and doesn’t seem to work well with others, outside of yes men. That kind of limits adaptivity. He may have some people skill but perhaps he has early onset dementia because it seems like his administration is in constant turmoil. People skills require likability, even among opponents.  For instance, Republicans like Biden on a personal level. Democrats can like GW Bush on a personal level. Trump seems to have lost his people skills in taking a job that he still hasn’t mastered. He lashes out too much and has too much turn over. 

This leaves worldliness  I get the idea that his knowledge and tolerance of other cultures is more limited than most Ivy League grads. However, by virtue of experience working with people overseas, he’s probably acquired some worldliness. However, to truly qualify for this, I think one can’t really have a nativist approach with foreign leaders. Worldliness requires some awareness that this is a shared planet. I know it isn’t the case, but he almost comes off as someone that’s never left a town of more than 200 people—all undereducated white people aged 65 and older  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Actinguy

I would agree with you in that I think Trump doesn't have much humility.

Some of these assessments come down to evaluations of Trump and his success.

Did Vcczar mean 'going to other countries' by 'worldliness'? If so, you're right - but worldliness means being devoted to this world and its pursuits.

3 hours ago, Actinguy said:

A mindset for service for the majority:  Trump exclusively serves Trump.

I think this is the big one. It seems to me Trump knew running for President would be very difficult, and that it would lead to all sorts of attacks on himself and his family. The only explanation I can find for Trump running, and staying in like he did, was that he genuinely wanted to help his country, and in particular the lower- and middle-class people (hence his populism). You might think his proposed solutions to the country's problems aren't very good, but that's different from not having a mindset of service for the majority (almost the definition of populism).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@vcczar

A lot of this is difficult to argue about, because it comes from different judgment calls. What is clear, though, repeatedly, is he will get out in front on an issue, taking massive incoming, and yet stick to it and move forward. Seems like courage - maybe he's just a total dolt who doesn't realize what's going on. But this latter explanation makes his string of successes difficult to explain. If he's an insensate fool, he's the luckiest insensate fool (so far) alive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

@Actinguy

I would agree with you in that I think Trump doesn't have much humility.

Some of these assessments come down to evaluations of Trump and his success.

Did Vcczar mean 'going to other countries' by 'worldliness'? If so, you're right - but worldliness means being devoted to this world and its pursuits.

I think this is the big one. It seems to me Trump knew running for President would be very difficult, and that it would lead to all sorts of attacks on himself and his family. The only explanation I can find for Trump running, and staying in like he did, was that he genuinely wanted to help his country, and in particular the lower- and middle-class people (hence his populism). You might think his proposed solutions to the countries problems aren't very good, but that's different from not having a mindset of service for the majority (almost the definition of populism).

I'd say Trump joined the election because people told him he should, and that played to Trump's ego.  

I do not expect that those people...or Trump himself...ever expected that Trump would actually win.  I fully believed that Trump would complain that the fix was in and claim he was too smart for the job and take his ball and go home.  Or, more likely, that he'd declare third party just to destroy the Republicans for not stroking his ego.

Unexpectedly for all involved, the Republicans actually DID stroke his ego, and he ended up in a job that he didn't actually want.  Why is there ALWAYS an earlier tweet from Trump criticizing Obama for doing something that Trump later did himself?  Because he never imagined that he'd actually have to do the job too.  He thought he could just keep casting stones from the sidelines without consequence -- applauded by his followers and ignored by his detractors.  

So he runs as the ego boost without expecting (or planning) to win, and then everything is fucked from there on out.  What can he do?  Admit that he is bad at this and resign?  That would destroy his ego-centric brand.  Admit that he doesn't know what he's doing and ask for help/change course?  Again, not in keeping with that Trump brand. 

So instead he just has to keep denying the existence of reality and charge forward, assured that no matter how badly he fucks this up, he will never be held accountable for his actions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

So he runs as the ego boost without expecting (or planning) to win

Ya, this is the 'Trump never expected or intended to win' theory. It seems pretty weak to me. We know Trump was planning a serious run as early as 2014 - read Gingrich's book Understanding Trump, where he details a meeting in that year where Trump asked him far-reaching and detailed questions about Gingrich's own 2012 run. Consider that Trump *launched* his campaign with a highly incendiary speech, which elicited probably the largest firestorm of media attention ever, and then refusing to back down - not what someone who wants to cultivate his brand would do, but it is something someone who had decided on an electoral strategy which had as a central component taking a hard line on immigration would do and was serious about winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I'd say Trump joined the election because people told him he should, and that played to Trump's ego.

Which people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, admin_270 said:

Ya, this is the 'Trump never expected or intended to win' theory. It seems pretty weak to me. We know Trump was planning a serious run as early as 2014 - read Gingrich's book Understanding Trump, where he details a meeting in that year where Trump asked him far-reaching and detailed questions about Gingrich's own 2012 run. Consider that Trump *launched* his campaign with a highly incendiary speech, which elicited probably the largest firestorm of media attention ever, and then refusing to back down - not what someone who wants to cultivate his brand would do, but it is something someone who had decided on an electoral strategy which had as a central component taking a hard line on immigration would do and was serious about winning.

You're taking the "Trump is a rational person who acts rationally" theory, which doesn't appear to be grounded in reality.

"If Trump was just expanding his brand, he would have backed down" is ignoring the reality that "Trump is always right" IS Trump's brand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Which people?

Hard to say.  Surely some of his employees, who say what he wants to hear to keep him happy and keep themselves paid.

But more importantly, I expect many people on Twitter who don't know what they're talking about also encouraged him to run thanks to his constant criticism of Obama.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Usually I jump in to make my own rebuttals but @Actinguy is pretty much saying everything I want to say but in more concise terms. Also I don’t gave reliable internet right now. I concur with Actinguy in response to @admin_270

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...