Candidate Risk Assessment
Candidate Risk Assessment
October 31, 2016
Imagine you lived in a world in which no one except one senior citizen ever drank alcoholic beverages. Would you think it is a good idea to choose this one person – the only drinker in the world – to be in charge of the nuclear arsenal?
No, that would be crazy. We know alcohol impairs judgment. And a president is on-call for emergencies 24-hours a day. Alcohol plus life-and-death decisions is a dangerous combination.
The only reason social drinking (or worse) is not automatically disqualifying for the Commander-in-Chief job is because … wait for it … many of us also drink alcohol. Or most of us do – at least enough to consider it normal behavior and socially acceptable.
We Moist Robots like to judge the world through filters that assume we are the standard for normal and sensible behavior. And because many of us drink – as do most of our role models – we figure it must be okay for a President to drink.
Because of nuclear codes and terror attacks and whatnot.
In most presidential elections, voters have a choice of one social drinker or the other social drinker. Risk-wise, that’s a tie. But this election features a candidate who is known to like her alcohol versus a candidate who has reportedly never had a drink, an illegal drug, or a cigarette. And that means alcohol can be considered in the risk assessment.
I would argue that alcohol consumption is the biggest risk differential in this election. We’re just blind to that risk because alcohol is socially acceptable. But even in your own life, you see alcohol being the force behind unwanted pregnancies, drunk driving, bar fights, domestic abuse, sexual abuse, and just about every bad decision you’ve ever made. If we humans were even a little bit objective we would never select a leader who is likely to be impaired by alcohol several hours per week, including the workday. (Allegedly.)
Here’s a quick summary of the other risks, organized by candidate. I’ll rank them from 1-10 with 10 being “drinks alcohol.”
1. No political experience in office (4)
2. Might say something insulting to another leader (3)
3. Might go nuts for the first time in his 70-year life. (2)
4. Aggressive negotiating stance might cause trouble (5)
5. Might institute some racist/sexist/homophobic policies (0)
6. Doesn’t do his homework on the issues (3)
7. Health problems (5)
8. Budget deficit expands to deadly proportions (6)
9. Might cause a race war (3)
1. Perpetual scandals and investigations. (5)
2. Health problems for Hillary Clinton (7)
3. Health problems for Bill Clinton that become distractions. (7)
4. Scandals for Bill that distract (8)
5. Big donors to Clinton Foundation rely on wars to make money (9)
6. Clintons are relatively easy to blackmail. (8)
7. Budget deficit expands to deadly proportions (8)
8. Immigration policies are more likely to allow in terrorists (9)
9. Drinks alcohol (10)
I didn’t include Climate change in the risk assessment because neither candidate is likely to do much about it.
You can do your own risk assessment and play with the estimates. This is subjective stuff. My only point is that the consumption of alcohol is the biggest risk variable.
Video of Clinton allegedly drunk in the morning.
Video of Clinton allegedly drunk while wondering why she isn’t 50-points ahead.
Wikileak email about trying to sober-up Clinton at 4:30 PM.
Video of Clinton allegedly passing out drunk at 911 ceremony.
Images of Clinton drinking socially.
You might enjoy reading my book because of social proof. And by that I mean other people like it.