The Race For 2028

[Elixir]

I don't head out on election day hoping to find a new drinking buddy. And if you do, I should warn you to expect disappointment.

That’s s harsh. I’m sure some of those guys would want to drink with Tigers!

 

[WAB]

Personally? I'm thinking he could be the biggest thing in the way and not wanting to go that route. And charisma, he doesn't have it. Kind of falls into the 'would be a great President, but not a great leader' sort of thing. Think the opposite of Reagan.

*sigh*

I hate politics in this country.

My mother always told me charisma is a pathetic substitute for intellect and character. Have seen nothing to say she was incorrect.

But that doesn't mean that charisma doesn't matter (see Ronald Reagan). It's arguably the most important factor, especially in a national election.

Would need to have a good definition of charisma 1st.

I thought and still think that Hillary might've been the most qualified person to ever run for office given her background/experience, but on a scale of 1-10 her charisma was a 5 at best. Had she been more charismatic I don't think that election is ever close. Good on the Dems for running the most qualified candidate, but about half of Americans are, let's face it, about as deep as a dinner plate when it comes to even knowing whether someone is qualified for office.

Been well qualified can lead to arrogance and pomposity. Some one with a realistic view of their limitations and willing to avail themselves of help from others.

I'll never forget "He's someone I could sit down and have a beer with" with respect to Dubbya.

In Australia we call that the pub test. Not a perfect scale by any means but a reasonable way of the 1st cut.

The Dems don't need to run the most qualified person to win the POTUS election. They need the most charismatic.

Get someone who is reasonable, reliable, willing to listen, does not take themselves too seriously. Not being greedy would help.
In other words not a prick.

You yanks have an amazing ability to find pricks in all shapes, sizes & colours. Probably all that money involved gets in the way.

Well, you Aussies aren't exactly impoverished.

https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/1-10-aussies-are-millionaires-median-wealth-soars-ubs

 

[Tigers!]

I don't head out on election day hoping to find a new drinking buddy. And if you do, I should warn you to expect disappointment.

That’s s harsh. I’m sure some of those guys would want to drink with Tigers!

If you are shouting then yes. Though I drink coke or juice rather than alcohol

 

[Tigers!]

Personally? I'm thinking he could be the biggest thing in the way and not wanting to go that route. And charisma, he doesn't have it. Kind of falls into the 'would be a great President, but not a great leader' sort of thing. Think the opposite of Reagan.

*sigh*

I hate politics in this country.

My mother always told me charisma is a pathetic substitute for intellect and character. Have seen nothing to say she was incorrect.

But that doesn't mean that charisma doesn't matter (see Ronald Reagan). It's arguably the most important factor, especially in a national election.

Would need to have a good definition of charisma 1st.

I thought and still think that Hillary might've been the most qualified person to ever run for office given her background/experience, but on a scale of 1-10 her charisma was a 5 at best. Had she been more charismatic I don't think that election is ever close. Good on the Dems for running the most qualified candidate, but about half of Americans are, let's face it, about as deep as a dinner plate when it comes to even knowing whether someone is qualified for office.

Been well qualified can lead to arrogance and pomposity. Some one with a realistic view of their limitations and willing to avail themselves of help from others.

I'll never forget "He's someone I could sit down and have a beer with" with respect to Dubbya.

In Australia we call that the pub test. Not a perfect scale by any means but a reasonable way of the 1st cut.

The Dems don't need to run the most qualified person to win the POTUS election. They need the most charismatic.

Get someone who is reasonable, reliable, willing to listen, does not take themselves too seriously. Not being greedy would help.
In other words not a prick.

You yanks have an amazing ability to find pricks in all shapes, sizes & colours. Probably all that money involved gets in the way.

Well, you Aussies aren't exactly impoverished.

https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/1-10-aussies-are-millionaires-median-wealth-soars-ubs

We are trying on occasions to keep as much money as possible out of politics but it is hard. The fungibility of money is impressive.

 

[bilby]

Personally? I'm thinking he could be the biggest thing in the way and not wanting to go that route. And charisma, he doesn't have it. Kind of falls into the 'would be a great President, but not a great leader' sort of thing. Think the opposite of Reagan.

*sigh*

I hate politics in this country.

My mother always told me charisma is a pathetic substitute for intellect and character. Have seen nothing to say she was incorrect.

But that doesn't mean that charisma doesn't matter (see Ronald Reagan). It's arguably the most important factor, especially in a national election.

Would need to have a good definition of charisma 1st.

I thought and still think that Hillary might've been the most qualified person to ever run for office given her background/experience, but on a scale of 1-10 her charisma was a 5 at best. Had she been more charismatic I don't think that election is ever close. Good on the Dems for running the most qualified candidate, but about half of Americans are, let's face it, about as deep as a dinner plate when it comes to even knowing whether someone is qualified for office.

Been well qualified can lead to arrogance and pomposity. Some one with a realistic view of their limitations and willing to avail themselves of help from others.

I'll never forget "He's someone I could sit down and have a beer with" with respect to Dubbya.

In Australia we call that the pub test. Not a perfect scale by any means but a reasonable way of the 1st cut.

The Dems don't need to run the most qualified person to win the POTUS election. They need the most charismatic.

Get someone who is reasonable, reliable, willing to listen, does not take themselves too seriously. Not being greedy would help.
In other words not a prick.

You yanks have an amazing ability to find pricks in all shapes, sizes & colours. Probably all that money involved gets in the way.

Well, you Aussies aren't exactly impoverished.

https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/1-10-aussies-are-millionaires-median-wealth-soars-ubs

It's all smoke and mirrors. Most of the wealth they look at in that article is the value of our real estate.

My house has quadrupled in value since I bought it, but this does nothing to my standard of living - I can access that increased "wealth" only as an expensive loan (which just means more expense for me as I have to make higher repayments from my unchanged income); or by selling my house, which means buying another because I still need a roof over my head - and all the other houses have also massively increased in price, so it's a wash.

I am not more wealthy as a result of the stupid housing price inflation, but the methodology used in that article says I am, so I guess:

 

[laughing dog]

Personally? I'm thinking he could be the biggest thing in the way and not wanting to go that route. And charisma, he doesn't have it. Kind of falls into the 'would be a great President, but not a great leader' sort of thing. Think the opposite of Reagan.

*sigh*

I hate politics in this country.

My mother always told me charisma is a pathetic substitute for intellect and character. Have seen nothing to say she was incorrect.

But that doesn't mean that charisma doesn't matter (see Ronald Reagan). It's arguably the most important factor, especially in a national election.

Would need to have a good definition of charisma 1st.

I thought and still think that Hillary might've been the most qualified person to ever run for office given her background/experience, but on a scale of 1-10 her charisma was a 5 at best. Had she been more charismatic I don't think that election is ever close. Good on the Dems for running the most qualified candidate, but about half of Americans are, let's face it, about as deep as a dinner plate when it comes to even knowing whether someone is qualified for office.

Been well qualified can lead to arrogance and pomposity. Some one with a realistic view of their limitations and willing to avail themselves of help from others.

I'll never forget "He's someone I could sit down and have a beer with" with respect to Dubbya.

In Australia we call that the pub test. Not a perfect scale by any means but a reasonable way of the 1st cut.

The Dems don't need to run the most qualified person to win the POTUS election. They need the most charismatic.

Get someone who is reasonable, reliable, willing to listen, does not take themselves too seriously. Not being greedy would help.
In other words not a prick.

You yanks have an amazing ability to find pricks in all shapes, sizes & colours. Probably all that money involved gets in the way.

Well, you Aussies aren't exactly impoverished.

https://www.moneymanagement.com.au/1-10-aussies-are-millionaires-median-wealth-soars-ubs

It's all smoke and mirrors. Most of the wealth they look at in that article is the value of our real estate.

My house has quadrupled in value since I bought it, but this does nothing to my standard of living - I can access that increased "wealth" only as an expensive loan (which just means more expense for me as I have to make higher repayments from my unchanged income); or by selling my house, which means buying another because I still need a roof over my head - and all the other houses have also massively increased in price, so it's a wash.

I don't know about the content of the article, but the basic theory is that when people become wealthier in illiquid assets (like a house), they may start saving less out of their income and spend more. There are some studies that support that theory as a rule, but at the individual level, results may vary dramatically.