Political candidates spend huge amounts of money through a long and grueling primary process to appeal to the voters of their party and win the right to run for President in November. They hire pollsters, they craft policy statements, and they spend time cramming for debates. In this scenario, it would seem each party would pick its best candidate - that is, the candidate that has the best chance of winning the general election in November.
This process does not work. The candidate with the most articulate policies, better resume, or even heroic war record often loses the general election. There is a far more reliable method by which either the Democrats or the Republicans can choose a November winner in July. This method is so reliable, in fact, that it can be used to defeat a sitting president of the other party, and has a 100% success rate since at least 1900, the election with which we began our research.
What is the most reliable predictor of the November winner?
It all comes down to the candidates’ personalities. That is, based on the personality theory developed by Dr. David W. Keirsey, and observing the candidates’ behavior, we can make a very educated prediction of the outcome of the possible November head-to-head matchups.
It's guaranteed. More than a century of presidential elections prove it.
So, what’s the secret? Here’s a clue: Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush have it. Alton Parker, Herbert Hoover, Alf Landon, Wendell Wilkie, Thomas Dewey, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, George HW Bush, Bob Dole, Al Gore, and John Kerry don't.
You might consider it an unfair advantage some candidates possess - in fact, it might well be the true "litmus test" of electability. Using our knowledge of this fact and Keirsey Temperament Theory, we were able to call the past 2 winners well ahead of the election (and the Supreme Court).
Since the beginning of the televised election cycle and the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, 5 of 8 elected presidents had this "unfair" advantage, and won every time. And it's getting more lopsided. Since the advent of cable news and 24x7 coverage of the candidates, 6 of our last 7 elections have been won by... the Artisan candidate - even when, in 1980 and 1992, the Artisan candidate had to defeat an incumbent president. In fact, going back to 1900, where we began our research, an Artisan Democrat or Republican has never lost in the general election.
Elections Since 1960 |
Year |
Winner |
Temperament |
Loser |
Temperament |
1960 |
Kennedy |
Artisan Promoter |
Nixon |
Guardian |
1964 |
Johnson |
Artisan Promoter |
Goldwater |
Rational |
1968 |
Nixon |
Guardian Supervisor |
Humphrey |
Idealist |
1972 |
Nixon |
Guardian Supervisor |
McGovern |
Guardian |
1976 |
Carter |
Guardian Supervisor |
Ford |
Guardian |
1980 |
Reagan |
Artisan Performer |
Carter |
Guardian |
1984 |
Reagan |
Artisan Performer |
Mondale |
Guardian |
1988 |
Bush-41 |
Guardian Protector |
Dukakis |
Guardian |
1992 |
Clinton |
Artisan Performer |
Bush-41 |
Guardian |
1996 |
Clinton |
Artisan Performer |
Dole |
Guardian |
2000 |
Bush-43 |
Artisan Promoter |
Gore |
Rational |
2004 |
Bush-43 |
Artisan Promoter |
Kerry |
Idealist |
So how does this affect the 2008 election outcome?
Here are the analyses of the candidates straight from Dr. David M. Keirsey and Keirsey.com (written over the course of the primary campaign season). These analyses are based on observation of the candidates over time, as well as in depth reading of both biographies written by others, and the candidates’ own writings and autobiographies:
