[ALawPoker]

David, do you have any thoughts on my first reply here? I think you're missing an important concept of how democratic governance works (though, it's sort of separate from the point you're trying to make).

Imagine the NFL did not keep score, and for whatever reasons it was near impossible for casual fans to keep score themselves. It was just play after play, and a fan's approval of the team's performance was dependent only on his own interpretation of what he saw in front of him. Do you think Bill Belichick would be the success he is now?

Probably someone like Parcells (or other hard nose, old fashioned types) would be a more "successful" coach (unless of course, Belichick changed his style to be regarded as a good coach). Do you see my point? Clearly being analytically smart still might help a President achieve this "subjective success," but it isn't critical, and morons who honestly believe in what they're doing may accidentally be perfect for the role.

But you are of course right that analytical intelligence would help, if the President's motivation was actually to make things objectively best. The people arguing that point are very wrong, and would probably agree if anyone but you had posted this.