Il Douché and His Discontents: The 2016 Primary Voting Thread, Part 4

does cruz seem really intelligent in a broad sense? he strikes me as someone who has a very finely honed skill at certain narrow things (pulling out facts and figures, identifying counterarguments and weaknesses) who doesn't seem to grasp some larger concepts. he also seems to lack considerable social intelligence.

it is indeed rare to have a genuine intellectual in the white house, though as morbius would probably be quick to point out, it's not as if that means a ton, in terms of practical political ramifications.

My point is not Sanders specific, btw, I'm just saying that if you spend large portions of your day on here, odds are you are not smarter than people who have ascended to the point of running for president of the United States.

I would kinda say the opposite, given most of these fuckers! Not Rick Perry, though. He wears glasses. Granted, there are very few ilxors I would actually want to have as President, and I suspect Ned is the only nominee we could all agree upon, but idk a lot of people here are pretty smart.

dershowitz called cruz "off the charts brilliant" and while you may be inclined to dismiss that bc u don't like the dersh he has seen a ton of students so he probably has some good examples to measure him against. imo from what i've seen + read cruz does seem legitimately brilliant in addition to being evil + disgusting.

wonkish /= intelligence

I don't know if that's what Mordy meant. If not, I apologize.

(I also despise the word "wonkish"; it's Beltway contempt for someone who actually reads)

there are very few ilxors I would actually want to have as President, and I suspect Ned is the only nominee we could all agree upon,

nah I'd primary him

i meant wonkish as "someone who actually reads" lol - but that's getting pretty close to what i mean by an 'intellectual'

re: the '76 convention:

Back-to-back-eruptions greeted the candidates’ wives. One of the Ford children allegedly dumped trash on the delegates from Texas. A Ford delegate who broke her leg in the chaos was kept from the hospital for fear that her replacement would vote for Reagan; she suffered in a brace made from convention programs until the voting was over. Meanwhile, in a back room, Henry Kissinger was “raising hell” over a change to the platform, threatening to resign and demanding a roll call of delegates who were drunk as they deliberated.

man this is gonna be a hoot

yes that was an amazing read thanks for sharing -- esp kissinger as the too moderate secretary the conservatives hated!

I think someone being "off the charts brilliant" as a law student might very well line up with what amateurist is saying though - like the things that would register to a professor as brilliance in this context might totally leave out social intelligence, grasping larger concepts, etc. Like the equivalent of a chess prodigy, or lots of other fields where a certain kind of brilliance is absolutely a thing (I always think of things like music, computer programming, and architecture, which I've tried my hand at and know enough to recognize that I don't have the x factor that gives other people the ability to produce really elegant, well-formed solutions to problems). I've certainly had students that I've thought of as brilliant, even as I would not for a second vouch for their 'intelligence' in any situation beyond the participation in, and production of work for, the classes I was teaching. Or I'll have students that are kinda underperforming in my classes (architectural history) but I know from other instructors or from seeing their work pinned up that they are absolute gangbusters as designers. Etc. etc.

Basically, everything about Cruz radiates the sense of a guy who indeed would be very, very good at a certain world of formal debate, lawyering, beating you down with supporting facts that he has at the ready. Dunno if that means he's a smart guy though.

nah I'd primary him

career-ending move imo. this is the season of "hill you choose to die on" as a construction i'm seeing everywhere all of a sudden, and alfred, this is a curious hill indeed. i mean it's probably good for the party to have an open debate and air the issues and so on but come on. it's ned's turn.

ok well i don't think we're in disagreement. i was trying to disentangle the term "smart" from the term "intellectual" or calling someone an "intellect" which i think is more aligned with some of the quick grasp / deep memory / innovative thinking you're talking about. but which we're all in agreement does not qualify anyone to be head of state (tho it sure is nice to have along w/ other more important things). xp

"intellectual" is a tricky one too cause I basically think of it meaning what you describe, but there's a side of it also that indicates maybe a lifestyle, set of interests, etc., which one could have without actually having the kind of mental acuity under discussion. But that type seems really unlikely to succeed in politics - "I have no talent for debates, policy, or winning people over to my point of view, but as a matter of principle I favor jazz and the theater over the tastes of the common sheeple."

yeah but can Cruz does read Montesquieu

would alfred run to ned's left or right? or would he run below him?

or maybe it'd be more like speed-walking

take the opportunity to be strong - run over him! (politically speaking of course)

maureen dowd would devote every other column to you

I'll just chime in that I think Ted Cruz could probably make seven figures as a scumbag corporate lawyer none of us have ever heard of, but he seems to find being a scumbag Senator from Texas who has alienated ALL of his colleagues to be a much more exciting career. If that equates to "off the charts brilliance", then he certainly qualifies.

For comparison, Nixon was reputed to be extremely brilliant when talking foreign policy and Nixon was clearly a more talented politician than Cruz. At this early point in Cruz's career, it is hard to say which is the greater scumbag though. Nixon is pretty lofty competition.

how many innocent civilians has Cruz murdered by giving orders in a drunken rage

Nixon's foreign policy chops vastly overrated imo

I've never seen Nixon's foreign policy bonafides. Cambodians and Chileans sure are grateful though!

he was even wrong about Yeltsin!

xps How many? None, afaik. Why else do you think Cruz chafes at the limitations of the Senate and longs for executive power?

I've never seen Nixon's foreign policy bonafides. Cambodians and Chileans sure are grateful though!

^^^ every time some talking head starts prattling on as if Nixon's foreign policy skills are beyond dispute it's rmde time. Vietnam was a disaster, his China visit was 0 for 3 of its stated goals, etc.

straining to think of a single foreign policy crisis that he successfully resolved

i think people just like delivering some kind of counter-conventional wisdom when it comes to nixon, makes them feel wonkish, as it were.

kind of like rock critics rehabilitating the osmonds

they would be better served by citing his successful domestic policies

If cruz is so brilliant, why does he believe so many stupid things?

SALT?

(Nixon was horrible)

If cruz is so brilliant, why does he believe so many stupid things?

= zen koan least likely to result in enlightenment

why smart people believe stupid things is the second most important theological query after why bad things happen to good ppl

with the possible exception of johnson, nixon was prob the single worst foreign policy prez of the cold war era

Bad things happen everybody. It's only worth further thought when they happen to good ppl.

not even then. but then again, i'm not much for theology!

Smart ppl believe stupid things because u gotta have a mental comfort blanket in a crul world where bad things happen to good ppl (and to bad ppl but as covered wgaf)

What's the third big one I got two mins

And yet, both Cruz and Nixon have/had reputations for brilliance. This probably says quite a bit about the general quality of judgment among very powerful people. I expect there is a presumption that acquiring great power and wielding great power automatically impresses those who value power.

they would be better served by citing his successful domestic policies

― Οὖτις, Tuesday, April 5, 2016

"Soldier of Love" was a big American hit.

(I also despise the word "wonkish"; it's Beltway contempt for someone who actually reads)

Since 'wonk' is 'know' backwards, I've always assumed the term started as a compliment.

The nature of brilliance is worthy of a big thread, gut feeling is that you prob need to be very brilliant indeed to perform even reasonably well at even reasonably low levels of political complexity, which is why predictability, ability to navigate the structures and tendency to avoid landmines trump brilliance ten times out of ten

what does trump have to do with it?

have to do with it

Ted Turner

The nature of brilliance is worthy of a big thread, gut feeling is that you prob need to be very brilliant indeed to perform even reasonably well at even reasonably low levels of political complexity,

i.e. Reagan was Metternich?

Can never manage to remember Reagan's position on the Napoleonic exile, remind me again

7,300+ posts. Post-Wisconsin would be a good time for Part 5.

It is a new month after all

frederick was right that the podcast had no really brilliant take on the enthusiasm numbers. however harry entin (i think) had a really interesting point - he said that some studies are showing that trump is doing really poorly in places w/ strong social cohesion / sense of community and really well in places where ppl feel alienated / alone. i'd like to find what he was referring to but that tracks w/ my gut about trump's appeal and also would literally make him the divisive candidate.

new thread could just be called "feel the nedmentum"

trump below 50% for the nom on predictwise for the first time since iowa