Picking the Best Candidate: The Flaw in the Plan
3rd Article in a Series
By KipParent on 11-11-2007
Every Sunday and Thursday
If nominated, Artisans always win in November. Why, then, don't they always (or even often) win their own party's nomination?
The simple answer is that different attributes win a party nomination than win a general election.
To win a party's nomination, the candidates must appeal most strongly to the party's base of voters, that is, the folks who vote in the party primary elections. These are the folks that, once the nominee is selected, will generally rally around the candidate and vote for him (or her) in the national election. In other words, they must capture their party’s most committed voters. These voters are largely won over by the candidate’s ability to persuade them that s/he will lead the country forward according to the beliefs and desires of the base.
In the national election, the nominees must appeal to a wider audience, as neither party's 
base can deliver the percentage of votes to win on its own. In other words, they must capture the country's least committed voters. In 2004, this "swing" vote, those not committed to either candidate following the conventions, amounted to 11% of voters. How do these voters choose?
Based on the outcome of the numerous elections, the answer is pretty clear: These voters vote for the candidate they personally like the best. And because Artisans are more personally appealing, or "charismatic", than the other 3 temperaments, people like them better.
In 1980, these voters liked artisan performer Ronald Reagan more than they liked the incumbent guardian president, Jimmy Carter. 1992, again these least committed voters liked another artisan performer, Bill Clinton, more than they liked the incumbent guardian president, George H.W. Bush. Artisan promoter George W. Bush has defeated a rational, Al Gore, and an Idealist, John Kerry. The Bush – Gore contest is especially illustrative. Many swing voters didn't vote for Gore, because they felt they couldn't “connect” with him – not because they felt that George W. Bush was a superior candidate. Bush was simply more "likeable" than the "wooden" rational Gore.
So, what does this mean for the Democrats and Republicans in the upcoming 2008 election? (Easy quick answer: nominate an Artisan if they want to win). In my next entry, I'll start looking at the leading candidates with eye toward potential matchups come November 2008.
[Index to all articles in this series]
 |
 |
 |
 |
Posted by RandyParent on Nov 13, 2007
But, Al Gore beat W. AG won the popular vote. He also won the electoral college vote except for cheating in Florida and the decision of a supreme court with member's who had been nominated by W's dad. If your theory is correct, W should have been able to beat AG without cheating. |
| |
|
Posted by KipParent on Nov 14, 2007
Randy: On one hand your point has validity. However, on the overall question of "How do you guarantee a win in November?", you completely reinforce my premise. The Artisan is president. I have never made a claim that they always win fair and square - I think Nixon (even in his grave) is still sulking over Kennedy's Chicago vote shenanigans to take the 1960 election. |
 |
|
Posted by TennisGuru on Nov 15, 2007
Hey, are you saying that Artisans are cheaters? ;) |
 |
|
Posted by DavidMKeirsey on Nov 19, 2007
Kennedy did not "cheat" technically -- but he was realistic and savvy enough to know that political machines -- Richard Daly's one of the "last" and biggest would do their magic. Also, I think Nixon, for all his "brillance" -- Greenspan said Nixon was very smart -- but Nixon was not tactically bright. Kennedy would not have been as stupid to debate Nixon if he was known better than Nixon, Kennedy used any edge that he could get. Nixon's arrogance of considering himself a great debater (he was a good lawyer) -- before age of television -- thought his "duty" to debate Kennedy. Kennedy would not have won, if there was no debate. |
 |
 |
Posted by pzpeggy on Nov 29, 2007
Focusing on the current candidates, who are the candidates minus the smoke in mirrors who are capable, true leaders? In essence, I am asking what president has the best most effective track record of leadership? Guardians? Artisans? Idealists? Rationals? If we take Kennedy, Clinton and Reagan into consideration it appears that Artisans not only razzle, dazzle us they also get things done. Of course Bush W failure is clearly the exception. |
I wonder if Gulliani knows how to play an instrument? He sure doesn't know how to dress as a woman. As for Hillary, well....It's certain she doesn't know how to play the flute. We need an artisan thats "rocks" and is independent.