More people think Bernie Sanders has these key leadership traits than any top candidate

[Attorney in Texas]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Omaha Steve (a host of the Latest Breaking News forum).

Source: Washington Post

New research from Gallup, released Friday, asked 7,500 members of the public to rate Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump and Ted Cruz on their perceptions of 12 leadership traits for each candidate. Though Gallup tweaked the wording slightly, they are the same dozen attributes the research and consulting firm has found to most predict leadership success in the more than 200 organizations it has studied.... As one might guess, Donald Trump does particularly well on being competitive (84 percent of respondents gave him a "4" or "5" rating on a 1 to 5 scale), and two to three times more respondents said Bernie Sanders cares about individuals than they did about the other candidates. Also unsurprising: Because Gallup was asking about political candidates, about whom people tend to have strong and bifurcated opinions, most of the candidates don't score above 60 percent on a majority of the traits. .... One candidate did stand out: Average the percentage of respondents who gave the candidate a "4" or a "5" on the four key traits outlined above, and Sanders comes out far and above the other candidates, with an average of 54 percent. Clinton and Trump, meanwhile, tie with an average of 29 percent across the ratings for these four attributes, and Cruz comes in last with an average of 25 percent.



...Clinton gets better ratings than any candidate on being prepared and analytical,the Gallup report states, which contributes to a public image that "is clearly on the hardworking, 'wonkish' side of the ledger.' She ties with Cruz, meanwhile, as the lowest on being visionary.

Sanders' image is most distinctive from the others, winning on more of the traits than any other candidate, particularly when it comes to being consistent or caring about individuals, winning on the " 'softer' dimensions of leadership," the Gallup report notes. Trump, meanwhile, sees ratings at the extremes, earning both the lowest marks of any candidate for any trait (caring about individuals, for which just 19 percent of respondents score him well) and the highest of any candidate for any trait (competitiveness, for which he gets an 84 percent rating).


Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2016/05/02/more-people-think-bernie-sanders-has-these-key-leadership-traits-than-any-top-candidate/

[tk2kewl]

1. "Cares about individuals"

Says it all.

[katmondoo]

2. I do not think so

[tk2kewl]

3. what if I told you corporations are people?

[Doctor_J]

7. Yes, why would we want a president who cares about people?

[anigbrowl]

8. Sometimes people don't see the forest for the trees

And as a lawyer, Clinton is trained (and probably naturally inclined) to look for the general underlying priciple that would yield the best result across a whole population rather than focusing on individual cases. There's a saying in legal circles that 'hard cases make bad law' - people's desire to empathize with or condemn especially sympathetic or egregious persons in court cases can lead to the establishment of precedents that turn out to be quite unsustainable in practice. I don't consider it that valuable a leadership characteristic although it's a useful political skill, as exemplified by none other than Bill Clinton.

[JDPriestly]

17. A president has to be able to show a great deal of empathy and care for the people of

the United States.
Hillary's inability to project caring about others is why she will probably lose the November election. She seems very cold, and there is no other emotion that is appealing to voters that she projects and that will substitute for caring.

In order to win an election, a candidate has to be able to establish some kind of emotional bond with voters. That is something Hillary generally cannot do. That is something that Bernie does very well. It is the reason that he has won so many elections.

Read his book, Outsider in the White House and you will learn how this works.

Of course, a lot of lawyers have no idea how this works at all. Really great courtroom litigators make that connection. Most other lawyers don't. I'm overgeneralizing, but I think you will know what I am talking about.

[anigbrowl]

23. As I said it's a useful political skill

Some people are better at it than others. I'm quite good at it but don't enjoy it, and what I empathize with and what I show empathy with are often two different things, because showing empathy for the wrong people is as big a political faux-pas as failing to demonstrate enough for the right people. Hillary is a bit cold but then Obama is a bit of a Vulcan and that has worked out OK for him. George W Bush scored high on empathy traits and he was a total disaster as President. Trump and Cruz, meanwhile, project about as much empathy as a box of rusty razor blades.

Read his book, Outsider in the White House and you will learn how this works.

I am so tired of people on DU equating disagreement with ignorance. How big of an ego do you need to have to think that your opinion is the only one someone could possibly hold if they had access to the same information you do? It's like people literally cannot imagine that others might be equally well informed yet come to different conclusions.

[JDPriestly]

24. Obama a Vulcan???? Quite to the contrary.

One of the reasons he was elected is that he projects a quiet compassion, quiet but very deep.

Hillary projects a haughty coldness and almost no compassion. It probably is not true that she really is that cold, but that is the signal she sends out. She may lack self-confidence and an easy expression of herself when she is with others.

Good Heavens!

Obama projects a lot of caring and kindness even when he really isn't feeling it. That is what got him elected.

I think the mess in Syria is to a great extent Hillary's fault. She follows Kissinger's theories about foreign policy and that had gotten her into trouble.

[anigbrowl]

25. Well enjoy your personal opinions

I'm sure if you talk about them enough they'll come to seem factual and measurable, but that isn't going to convince me to share them.

Incidentally Hillary hasn't been Secretary of State for ~3.5 years now so I'm not inclined to attribute blame to her for everything that has happened in Syria since she left office, nor do I understand what you think her policy about Syria when she was SoS in the early phase of their civil war has to do with her default level of empathy, although I'm sure it somehow connects up for you.

[RiverNoord]

26. I'm a lawyer. And I know a lot of narcissitic jerks

who are successful lawyers. They usually end up with broken marriages, estranged children, and alcohol/drug problems. And I've seen a few who only, finally, go bust after being suspended by the state bar for something really terrible.

The thing about being a lawyer, and being successful as a lawyer, that's relevant to your post, is that you don't have to consider the well-being of anyone but your client(s). And, then, only the legal well-being of your clients.

You assert that lawyers are trained to 'underlying pri(n)ciple that would yield the best result across a whole population.' Um... Nope. Lawyers don't get training in that. Lawyers get 'training' in legal research, reading judges, making the best arguments on behalf of clients regardless of their personal opinion of them, and hunting(or inventing new) loopholes.

The phrase 'hard cases make bad law' doesn't mean what you seem to think it does. It means that sometimes there are circumstances in which plain application of the law would result in a bizarre injustice. And, then, judges have to get very creative to bring about an outcome that they would not consider to be unjust. If a judge has to issue a written basis for such an outcome, that judge usually starts very early with a statement that the case is very unusual, thereby implying that it should not be considered in any way precedent.

Finding yourself highly sympathetic to the problems of a client can be a problem. Usually, far more of a problem than dealing with an 'egregious person' as a client. If you really dislike a client, you can usually walk away (unless you're a public defender, but that's an entirely different matter.) Or you can proceed with the case, and not being bound by worry about how the outcome might affect your client can be quite liberating.

But here's the thing. A lawyer with a client only has to be concerned, professionally, with the legal well-being of the client. The well-being of the rest of the world isn't your business. A President of the United States has well over 300 million clients, with conflicting legal, personal and financial interests. A career of picking sides in other people's fights for a living is lousy experience for a job in which you must constantly consider many aspects of the well-being of millions, and make decisions that should result in the 'greatest good for the greatest number.' And, of course, a lawyer who has been successful at winning battles for people who pay her/him for doing so gets used to the concept. Corruption can be very comfortable, familiar territory, in which to carve out your position.

The 'forest for the trees,' as you say, isn't that lawyers are trained to seek legal outcomes that benefit many. It's the utter opposite. They're trained to focus on the legal interests of their clients. I don't know where you got the alternative picture - maybe a law school with a major emphasis on collaborative law? - but it's not the way things are...

[anigbrowl]

34. An interesting point of view

I didn't pick this up from law school but from years of reading judicial opinions and jurisprudence, which was always vastly more interesting to me than the advocacy end of it. Granted. Clinton is no judge and never has been, but I think the intellectual habit f thinking about the precedential ramifications of a decision is something that is fundamental to legalistic thinking notwithstanding the commercial impetus for zealous advocacy. Really, one of the things that has bugged me about the Sanders campaign is the senator's habit of giving pat answers to extremely complex problems in the full awareness that most of his listeners can't tell the difference.

Nevertheless you make some excellent points and while I am not in agreement with you about Clinton's motivations or character in this context I greatly appreciate your taking the time and effort to offer an eloquent and considered reply. Clearly there is nothing for it but pistols at dawn.

[Rebkeh]

30. Her being a lawyer is not a plus, imo nt

[anigbrowl]

31. I much prefer someone who understands how Washington DC works

I don't think Sanders has been entirely honest with his supporters about he President's ability to just do whatever. Clinton is cautious to the point of being boring but her policy positions display a deep understanding of how the US government actually functions that makes it much more likely she can accomplish what's on her agenda.

I'm pretty nerdy about administrative law and I recognize that this is deadly dull to most other people, but I much prefer the candidate who knows what to do versus the one who gives speeches about how things should be (but aren't). There are a lot of things I'd like to see changed about how DC operates but until they are changed then many of Sanders plans are doomed to immediate failure because they take no account of legal issues like the scope of executive authority.

For example Sanders says he'd like to break up the big banks but he doesn't bother to tell his supporters that attempting to do so unilaterally would quite correctly run into a wall of litigation. Clinton doesn't offer such a delightful-sounding magic bullet solution, but the changes she wants to make to the way regulatory agencies are funded and run are much more achievable and much more likely to have a positive long-term effect. If Sanders became President he'd leave office 4 years later with a long speech about how the special interests were stacked against him from the beginning. You've hear it already, it's the same speech he always gives when he loses.

[Rebkeh]

38. That's exactly the problem, she does know how DC works because that's who she is

It's more than just understanding it, it's being it. She embodies everything we hate about Washington DC and then she brags about it. (?) It's not something to be proud of! The wonks and pundits think it's a plus to be a manipulative, disingenuous, snarky elitist. Having a brilliant legal mind is a plus in those circles, the rest of us are trying to tell you all - it is not a plus. It triggers disgust and contempt. I cannot emphasize it enough ... it makes people hate her. A lot. Like gag reflex disgust. We hate it equally in men.

It's also her personality, like the woman card thing, I just .... Really, Hillary? Come on. Be the adult in the room. She's doing exactly the wrong thing, people don't want bitchy women and asshole men for president, they want leaders. When you rely on bitchiness to appear as a strong woman, you don't look like a leader. You don't appear to be in command, it shakes our confidence. As a woman myself I was thoroughly disgusted by it.

Now, it's always great to have an ally like that when you have to rumble, it's why you hire the most hateful, but brilliant, lawyer or agent. Hell, she hired Brock. We get it, that's what you do, I get it. Here's the problem:

She's not on our side. She's just not, it is blindingly obvious. She's not an ally. She's invested in keeping things the way they are, and why shouldn't she? She's brilliant at it. Think about that - she's the best at the worst game.

Her plans may be achievable, but they'd never get done. I do not believe she has any intention of actually doing them. Okay maybe one or two social issues, but nothing fundamental because she doesn't acknowledge the fundamental problems even exist.

Also, you have to trust your allies and she already blew that one up with the dirty tricks months ago.

It's one thing to know DC, it's quite another to be DC.

One more thing, I don't want to punish the republicans, we have more important things to do. Schadenfreude is not necessary, it's a distraction. I think a lot of people my age remember the 80's-90's and want to see the red team finally get the beat down they deserve. I don't, I'd rather focus on solutions to climate change, for example.

She's the scorpion and we're the frog.

Bernie may not be mean enough for some, but he does know DC quite well and we trust him.

[Baobab]

40. wasn't she disbarred?

or was it Bill?

[Kip Humphrey]

4. Bernie leads in: Courage, Inspiration, Consistency, Caring, Vision, and Focus

Bernie leads in: Courage, Inspiration, Consistency, Caring, Vision, and Focus

Hillary leads in: being Prepared and being Analytical


Based on this survey, my choice is Bernie Sanders. What is yours?

[Lucky Luciano]

10. ...and she barely leads in prepared/analytical. nt

[Baobab]

41. Hillary was only pretending to be helping with healthcare

She was actually hiding a scheme to make affordable health care impossible for good all around the world.

Seriously. Intent may be up to the individual to judge but the existence of this tra d e based scheme is not disputable, its fact.

[AlbertCat]

11. being Prepared and being Analytical

Things her advisers do for her.

Who else would tell her the Reagans were great on gays and AIDS?

She's so prepared!

[SammyWinstonJack]

13. Hillary leads in bullshitting 101. My choice is Bernie Sanders.

[Kip Humphrey]

14. That would be well prepared, analytical bullshit, per the survey.

[FailureToCommunicate]

15. Always had it, always will.

[COLGATE4]

5. They seem to have left the most important characteristic off:

"I'd like to have a beer with him/her".

[Doctor_J]

6. 28% think Clinton is consistent?

[SammyWinstonJack]

19. Definitely WTF!

[nilram]

9. Bernie scored 50% or higher in seven traits, three more than any of the others

[SmittynMo]

12. Is anyone surprised by "Courageous, Consistent, Focused"

as the top 3. Not me. Gee, do you think he'll get anything done?

I'm guessing a resounding YES!!!!!

So the numbers don't lie, right? This alone should make it quite clear what the people really want.

[JDPriestly]

18. Excellent post. Thanks.

[pmorlan1]

20. The People Recognize It

and the powers that be recognize it that's why they don't want him in.

[redstateblues]

37. No- not enough of the people do

Bernie is running in third place in the popular vote behind Clinton and Trump

[SoapBox]

16. The 99% will take Bernie...

The Elites and 1% can have the rest.

[Adrahil]

28. Except, they don't seem to be actually electing him. NT

[Babel_17]

21. Worth a look

Thanks for the link!

[stopbush]

22. Doesn't matter, Clinton and Trump are the nominees.

A meaningless poll at this point in the race because it changes nothing.

If people felt so great about Sanders they should have got out and voted for him, especially in the states where voters could cross party lines. They didn't. End of story and the race.

[RiverNoord]

33. If you really think information like this is meaningless, you've got

total tunnel vision. Whether Bernie Sanders does or does not become the Democratic nominee isn't the point.

Here's the point. If a lot of Democratic voters get buyer's remorse and kick themselves for failing to nominate the candidate they feel, in retrospect, would have been a much better choice, Democratic general election turnout is going to suffer.

If poll results like that are coming in 6 months from the general election, there's a very serious problem. The greater the disparity between the favorability of the candidate 'we didn't pick' and the one we did, the greater the apathy for the chosen candidate.

That's the problem that everyone who wants to see Hillary Clinton as the President had better face right now, because if they stay blind to this sort of thing, they won't be ready for to challenge the resulting apathy.

Both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are widely disliked. And when people who are widely disliked get into a fight, many people will enjoy watching them tear each other apart. Treat it as entertainment, with the person providing the best entertainment winning the crowd's favor. If lots of Democratic voters develop a sense that they really should have went with the other candidate, the less they'll care about the fate of the one they did pick. Trump, on the other hand, is an entertainer. A perverse, twisted kind of entertainer, but an entertainer nonetheless.

If the Clinton campaign isn't paying close attention to this sort of information, information that you just casually dismissed as irrelevant, they're going to be in serious trouble.

[stopbush]

35. There's so much nonsense in that post that it's not worth the effort it would take

to rebut it all.

Your first clue, however, is that you believe being "widely disliked" disqualifies people from being able to hold office, or be elected to an office. That just doesn't matter...at all. That information has no relevance to anything. Period.

"Joe's a nice guy for an auto mechanic, but I don't think I want him operating on my brain."

"Our drill sarge is a real SOB, but what I learned from that SOB saved my life."

Nice guy = so what?

Most people want the most-qualified person for the job, like 'em, or not. Like Sarge. Not like Joe.

When it comes to who should be president, that's Hillary.

Get used to it or it's going to be a long 8 years.

[Kingofalldems]

27. So I guess Clinton and her supporters should just quit now

and let Bernie take over.

Of course when the media starts calling him a communist you realize these ratings will go right into the tank. And Fox will have a field day with his visit to the USSR---they'll turn him into Stalin's brother.

[Adrahil]

29. How have your predictions over the last few weeks worked out? NT

[Android3.14]

32. There it is.

Another reason I distrust her supporters on this site.

[KittyWampus]

36. Nearly One Third Of Americans Can't Name Vice President. Sanders Ad Buys Paid Off

Snake oil sells well when it's got enough ad buys behind it.

[reACTIONary]

39. The one thing that Clinton DOES have over Sanders is....

..... actual votes. Clinton now has well over 3 million more votes than Sanders.

http://wapo.st/26KEFNe

[stupidicus]

42. that's unsurprising

and there's NOTHING in HC's record that overcomes the leadership qualities he brings to the table

I've argued that one from the day he announced.

[Omaha Steve]

43. Locking after a review by forum hosts

Statement of Purpose

Post the latest news from reputable mainstream news websites and blogs. Important news of national interest only. No analysis or opinion pieces. No duplicates. News stories must have been published within the last 12 hours. Use the published title of the story as the title of the discussion thread.