and wouldn't necessarily be valid for other people. An attribute I consider to be negative might not be negative to someone else, and vice-versa.

Yes, I will shout it. He is not a Democrat, never been a Democrat, has actively campaigned against Democratic candidates - why are many still support him?

Last week Peggy Noonan opined that he been elected, a Republican Congress would have put breaks on his "socialist" agenda. And, of course, we would have been spared pugnacious Trump.

I suppose I should regret my vote and support of Hillary.

which were intended only as an illustration of how one might do it. You are, of course, free to list your own pros and cons.

combined with the abilities of the candidate and his/her campaign to turn them into victory.

My spreadsheet would have that column highlighted and all the rest to remind me why and to keep them straight in my mind. Too many to remember just the names as it is. Except for a very few, inevitable duds, lucky us.

Speaking of, this is so different from 2016, when virtually no one could name even one of the 9 candidates the press didn't bother to cover before the DNC disqualified them from the debates. A couple of obvious duds just looking at the pictures there, but there must have been some good people, as now.

You give "attractive" to Beto and not Bernie?

So subjective! Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that.

"looks," "charisma," "says what I want to hear," "despises or likes Democrats," "sounds reassuringly or frighteningly authoritarian," "doesn't bore me by making me to listen to understand," "my personal friends like/don't like," "I heard something bad about him or her," "I never developed beyond adolescence and my parents do/don't like him"; in addition, of course, to objective factors like avowed positions and does/does not accept support from hostile foreign states?



According to political scientists, that first one is the first big cut for all candidates, everything else not mattering if that's definitive. So someone identifying with a fringe group with one candidate talking to them would only need one name and one column to check.

This could be very useful, though, for everyone identifying with the very large Democratic mainstream who wants to make sense of the almost too many choices to look at right now. I'm lazy and will read about all of them but mostly just wait until inevitable attrition takes a bunch of them out, or identifies who will be.

Right now, though, Georgia hasn't chosen a date for the primary vote, currently presumed to be with a big bloc of others on March 3. So there could conceivably be enough possibilities still in contention that I'll be doing just this.

Speaking of, here's the current states' primary vote schedule, subject to various changes between now and then though.

http://frontloading.blogspot.com/p/2020-presidential-primary-calendar.html

No word on his position on many issues.

Another pro: He's a Democrat.

an off-the-top-of-my-head example of how one might make a candidate attribute spreadsheet. I wasn't intending to list all of everybody's pros or cons, nor was I intending to either promote or criticize any particular candidate.

For those who are, are have been, in the Senate or House, they voting record would help, and where they got their money.

'oh WOW' effect on a particular candidate? I think it happens when it happens and that's that. You can't measure it, etc., it just happens, kind of like when you run into that significant other that you been looking for all your life and then 'BAM!', the fireworks happen and you are in love for the rest of your life. An unique moment that can never be captured or analyzed, it just happens.

on enough other voters to win an election. What might be a "wow" for you might not be enough for someone else unless that candidate also has some specific qualities, experience and policies that persuade them to vote for him/her. I gave up on falling in love with candidates a long time ago - most of the ones that wowed me didn't win. Now I'm looking for objective attributes that I believe will convince enough people to actually win.

No matter how comprehensive you make it.

Polls are an objective measure, but they won’t tell you who will win. Share of media coverage is interesting, too, but it won’t matter much to know unless you’re in charge of publicity for a campaign.

It may be a helpful tool for you, though.

and maybe you can better distinguish provable facts and rational observations vs. rumors, social media trolling and media bias.

I'm all about Pros this cycle.

Something that the League of Women voters would/could put out which has their stance on issues. Do not want someone telling me about their charisma, electability, etc. - just the issues and positions they are taking and have taken (where relevant). I will handle their ability to implement their agenda (experience), any and all empathy and emotional appeal they may have.

L-

It’s not something I would see as helpful, but others might.

Media skills, including mastery of twitter; and strategic vision.

Whichever candidate does these two things best gets my vote. So far, that's Buttigieg.

I don't care what anyone's cons are because no matter how many they have, they will be exploited to the max. If they have no cons, Trump will invent some.