#idealist vs loyalist primary

[mysticalenthusiastvoid]

”So you forgot about us -“

“No-“

“You moved on with your life- “

Allison stopped in her tracks and turned. For a moment, Katie could see her as not just a mother or a scientist or as someone she could never live up to, but as a person, as someone who just for a moment was a traumatized child.

“Where the hell were you?” she asked. “Where were you for over twenty years when I didn’t know what had happened or didn’t remember how I even got there?”

“It wasn’t on purpose,” Ilia said. “I was trying to save your life.”

“I was left drugged in a field,” Allison said. “Whose fault is that?”

Ilia flinched. “Yes, I did drug you, but you weren’t you at the time,” she said. “I didn’t have a choice.”

Allison pointed a finger at her sister. “That,” :she said. “Right there. I didn’t have a choice.”

“You could have looked for me,” Ilia said. “You should have realized I didn’t mean to leave you.”

“How was I supposed to know that?” Allison asked. “I was a child. I had no money, no documents, no home, no one with me. What the fuck was I supposed to do?”

[neonscandal]

I know this been asked before, but can I ask again? So if you sort your top fav characters or fav ships from to Hogwarts houses, which houses will they be (in your opinion)? Why?

I'm excited to know your answer like for eruri, asheiji, matchablossom, destiel, horimiya, sasamiya, etc.....

Sorry if I ask too much, thx if you want to answer.....

P.s

I asked because just found your post about JJK & BNHA character if they were in Hogwarts houses.....(And I love it)

I'm gonna be honest, I love these - little character head canons, asks in general, all of it. So don't apologize for asking! I hope you always feel comfortable to do so. I also hope all my anons woke up today with clear skin and found money in an old jacket or something. ✨

Same disclaimer applies as before. Without further ado, to the Sorting Hat!

Starting with the low hanging fruit 🥁

Kojiro "Joe" Nanjo (SK8 the Infinity) - All brawn, questionable brains but unquestionable talent that makes him a big name around "S". This himbo would of course plinko his way into Hufflepuff but, if we take starting S into consideration and how that translates into the wizarding world, I'd say Gryffindor with Hufflepuff underpinnings.

Kaoru "Cherry" Sakurayashiki (SK* the Infinity) - I am conflicted. Cherry, disciplined calligrapher, renowned skater and member of the S founding fathers is very obviously a Ravenclaw. I'm really just having trouble reconciling his superiority and condescension against what I imagine would be more in line with Slytherin. Also supports the notion of every Hufflepuff having a Slytherin bestie haha but, truly, that's adult Kaoru. Teenage Kaoru was rebellious and genuinely awe inspired by greatness (but still whip smart). Gryffindor with Ravenclaw underpinnings. Bonus: Ainosuke would round the trio out as the Slytherin primary, obviously. May have started out sweet like our dear Sirius but live long enough in a family like that and I suppose it'll get you twisted.

Levi Ackerman (Attack on Titan) - Levi Ackerman is no stranger to Knockturn Alley. He was raised from the darkness, plucked from its depths to attend school and seemed a bit bothered by the whole to do when he had a perfectly decent operation going, small time stuff of course. A loyalist to those he suffered with, Hogwarts gave him purpose beyond what he could imagine and the Sorting Hat was the first... thing(?) to see his potential. Legacy Slytherin, largely unbeknownst to him, but sorted into Gryffindor assured he'd do great things there.

Erwin Smith (Attack on Titan) - Whew. I know the deciding factor for Cherry was young Kaoru vs. adult Kaoru but Erwin Smith is a Ravenclaw. An idealist, but a bit too cavalier with lives of the canon fodder that made up his command. Incredibly intelligent and dedicated which would make you think Gryffindor but Erwin is an "any means necessary" type of leader. Come to think of it, Dumbledore was a Gryffindor so perhaps there's hope there but I defer to your opinion.

Ash Lynx (Banana Fish) - Self taught genius? Ravenclaw. He had Dino's tutor's for a time, sure but uh... I doubt they taught him how to hack computers. He's a self motivated intellectual frequenting the library for a sense of peace. May the halls of Hogwarts provide that to him in the way the city of New York could not. Does not negate how lethal of a threat he can be, if anything, now this kid is strapped all the time, wand at the ready. I can appreciate if someone thinks he should be in Slytherin but I'm sticking to my initial assumption.

Eiji Okumura (Banana Fish) - This 👏🏾 is 👏🏾 a 👏🏾 Hufflepuff 👏🏾. Brazenly lacks fear in the face of gangsters and recognizes, instead, their inherent humanity and that they can need nurturing and help, perhaps more so than others? Oblivious Hufflepuff energy.

Kyouko Hori (Horimiya) - I feel like Hori is a pretty textbook Ravenclaw but I'd consider Gryffindor with a Ravenclaw primary a la Hermione. Part of me is like... Hori would never be as deep in the shit as Hermione got but let's be for real. She'd follow Miyamura into hell if she wasn't already dragging him there.

Izumi Miyamura (Horimiya) - Considering Miyamura's backstory, I'd understand if you disagree but mans is a Hufflepuff. He had no community, nothing to take hold of. But as its' built around him, he appreciates how precarious it is and holds onto it so dearly, even threatened by Yanagi's immersion into the group. Also, he has so many Hufflepuff moments that are so dear to me. Like memorizing the boys' scents so he can recognize if they've been near Hori despite the fact that it is empirically evident that he's more likely to get stolen away from her by one of the guys. Well meaning simpleton, I love him.

Shuumei Sasaki (Sasaki to Miyano) - SHOUTING Hufflepuff. Don't get me wrong, he's no slouch. Sasaki is straight up fearsome when someone gets a little too close to Miyano but we also know his moral code isn't tied specifically to Miyano. Miyano might have been an indirect impetus to help Kuresawa, but I feel like Hirano validates that Sasaki finds himself in fights regardless of "not being good at them" 👀. Gentle giant and will use his size to the advantage of those in need. I saw a post earlier re: succumbing to Sasaki's rizz and how Miyano is like... god tier for not caving sooner. Imagine if this man had access to love potions 😂 kidding, he wouldn't be the type to use them, even the silly ones from the Weasley's but still. Sasaki + magic would simply be too powerful.

Yoshikazu Miyano (Sasaki to Miyano) - IMAGINE MIYANO PERUSING THE RESTRICTED AREA ON THE HUNT FOR BL. I just cackled aloud at the thought. Then you have hulking Sasaki looming over him drawing attention to the intrusion. Like, "sorry, I'm not seeking out unforgivable curses, just two fictional boys in love." Please. Moving along, Ravenclaw. Easy, and he'd be a Prefect. Sasaki would, of course, frequently be caught using Prefect facilities and trotting along behind Miyano relentlessly. Talk about scary dog privilege.

DESTIEL

I had to break these two away to provide an additional disclaimer to the fact that... these legit stumped me. With 14 seasons of background and the radical character development for both of them, it's hard to pick one house and commit to it for either of them. Especially since they, at different points in their development, are interchangeably fitting into the same houses. I never thought about their development in that way before. Upon my deliberation, please see below. Just know, if you disagree, you're probably right and I probably considered your alternative as well.

Castiel (Supernatural) - Cas spends a great deal of his time locked in his Slytherin era, loyal to an antiquated moral system and acting with impunity which is very much giving Death Eater. But, losing his religion, his direction and beneath the weight of all that presumed obligation is a Hufflepuff. In the absence of a belief system, he begins to consider humanity with an unencumbered curiosity, seeks community with the Winchesters and to help those who are plagued by the Supernatural.

Dean Winchester (Supernatural) - Dean starts out as a Hufflepuff. He's all saving people, hunting things, family business. Intrinsically, does seeking out monsters not meet the immediate criteria of "Finder"? Dean protects family, friends and strangers and, at times, critically balances out Sam's Ravenclaw pragmatism that sends him down weird Slytherin shaped holes (hello, demon blood). This with nothing but an 8th grade education, Baby and a comforting slice of pie. But, as the story progresses, his desperation to protect and keep hold of the people he holds dear pushes him deeper and deeper into Slytherin territory where his individual loyalism can justify jeopardizing the natural order, the fate of the world, anything really as long as he and his brother are both still breathing. Subsequently, his previous impulse to always do the right thing becomes clouded with a bias of the right thing if it doesn't impede protecting Sammy. His willingness to leave Adam to ruin is yet another example of this.

Okay, so I'm noticing a trend here... Do I just like a dynamic of Idiot x Genius (or sometimes nefarious manipulator) or am I just sorting people all wrong? Either way, it feels like I'm revealing wayyyy too much about myself here. What do you think?

[sevilemar]

Hi Sevi, this is that another anon who sends you walls of texts. I saw you've got covid, how are you? Do you have food and entertainment? Covid sucks so just take your time to recover and fuck anyone who would rush you back to office, okay?

Now to get to why I'm here, shc is weird, isn't it. Mostly where does the line fall on sorting vs just human nature theme.

The question if something is relevant for sorting, or just human nature, or something like mental or physical illness, or a differently wired brain, etc. is the main reason why I am not really comfortable sorting anyone at the moment. I can make observations, and sometimes the clues come together like for the tea snake anon. And sometimes, they do not.

But wouldn't I be a hypocrite if I had different standards for myself and the outside? Why would it be different standards, plus I know I'd hate it if someone were valued more or less with different standards in mind, not that I wouldn't be faltered by someone thinking I'm great at something or better. I noticed people don't hold similar sentiments as I do, so I already grew tired of it, but I find it keeps me grounded, and when it falls, everything crumbles. This might have nothing to do with shc btw, it's okay. I don't know what information would be useful, and tried to give anything I could think of.

I did not mean people should use different standards for themselves and for others; in a way, most people do that already. What I have never seen before is that you think you only deserve to love yourself if you meet your standards. It means that if you do not meet your standards, you are not worthy of love, and that feels very dangerous to me. Like it can all crumble and fall down at the drop of a hat, and then what?

Also, how much grace do you allow yourself? Is one failed situation enough to crumble, or two, or three? I just, I don't know. It's your way of living, and I know nothing about your life. It's just different for me, and that's why I don't know what to do with it in terms of shc.

I know when I have some value in mind, it's there, and when I don't, my mind is empty and left wondering where it all comes from.

I think that's a pretty big-picture (idealistic) concern to have? Or maybe a burned one? Because for unburned concrete people (loyalists), our morality is right there in front of us, and there's no doubt about it.

But the worst part is me, not only thinking I know what quiz answer correlates to which sorting, and still doing it time and time again thinking this time something will change, inside or out, but also me somehow corrupting my submissions, either just writing from an emotional standpoint of that a person with a sorting I think I am in that moment would, or being inconsistent or who I am literally and expressing myself differently every time. I try to be honest and myself every time, because then what's the point, but it always seems to be somehow wrong and not me, with something missing from the picture, with me adding something that is not there. I want to believe I'm doing it accidentally, but I'm not sure anymore.

The thing is, no matter how hard you try, it will always be you that's clicking or typing the answers. So no matter what you write, who you are shines through. And depending on how much experience the other person in the conversation has with reading beneath the lines, they can find and decipher these clues regardless.

Take yourself, for example. I don't think you like to think of yourself as an idealist; your first ask to me was if you could consider yourself a snake primary because you like snake primaries. And I'd be completely OK if you just chose snake as your primary and be done with it. But the question is not as easy for you, or you wouldn't be writing to me like this. You want the truth, and you are looking for it outside of yourself. That either means you're a bird, or whatever your primary was is burned, and you would like to build a snake model because it would give you protection from what burned you.

When i started to become an adult, which I don't think that process is over yet, I found out for myself, that I can say just for the spite of it, because someone expects someone like me with the vibe and face that I have to say yes.

Saying no and protecting boundaries is extremely important.

Don't worry, I think I was sorted as every house except badger secondary, so that's a plus right? I feel something familiar looking back at me from both burned badgers, but I'm probably called by a burned house status and feelings of carrying it, rather than the house itself. You'll probably never see me wanting to work on anything hard, and a thought of looking at every person and seeing them as much valuable to you and your world as your family or your friends, being loyal to them and being kind gives me chills somehow. How can you be loyal to what constantly betrays you?

And that's what makes me think burned badger, or idealist whose badger values burned away. You got betrayed by humanity somehow, and snake primary feels safe, because you only have to be loyal to a few people you can vet and choose.

Only family has that privilege, not even friends. Family already trains at least some of us that our boundaries can be crossed, not even friends get this kind of treatment, but it's unhealthy so let's just keep it in the family shall we.

That's deeply sad, nonny. It feels like your family destroyed something vital in you, and I hope you can reclaim whatever it is. If thinking of yourself as a snake helps, then you're a snake, and very welcome in the snake pit. We'll get you your starter kit right away, and somewhere around there's always milk and cookies. If thinking through this some more, and figuring out if you really are a burned badger or burned idealist will help, and then how to unburn, the shc community is helpful there, too. There's no wrong choice here, nonny.

Yeah, snakes are nice and cool, hands down. I'm probably some kind of idealist and it sucks a little bit. Excuse me for all of the curse words I used.

They're not so bad. Three of my people are idealists, probably four, two are badgers, and only my mum is a snake. We as persons and the world in general needs both, big-picture and small-scale thinking, abstract and concrete moralities. And the best part for idealists is that they can adopt any belief, so they can also look and feel like snakes if they want to.

I hope your cup of chamomile tea is still warm or just about to be made. Get well soon, okay?

Doing my best. That reminds me, need to make another pot. Thanks, nonny <3

[wisteria-lodge]

Shc is a wonderful system but what I can't get behind is the idea you always have to either enforce or build ideals or be loyal to groups. You basically can't be completely free. For me it reads not as Idealists VS Loyalists but as Idealists VS Idealists since loyalism itself is a form of idealism. Snakes in shc are actually so...duty bound? Even if it's a duty before themselves. I don't remember ever gathering information Bird way. And while I can lie, I never took my lies far enough in ambition Snake way. It would just tire me out. And idea of serving groups Badger way is simply laughable to me. But fighting for ideals every day Lion way is also not something I can or want to do. I just live life on my own terms, following my direct needs and not particularly skillfully (as Snake would be) but neither judging others for living differently. What am I?

'Being completely free' IS an ideal. That's what's going on with Jack Sparrow and Elizabeth Swann, and what makes them Lion primaries in the end, like I suspect you are.

(Also snake ≠ ambition, that's the parent system. 'Ambition' is just way too big, and can come from too many places, to link it to just one primary. Also also, 'Snake ≠ skill.' I'm rating you on what you do, what you like to do, and what you want to do, not how objectively well you actually do it.)

[reds-burrow]

One of my college roommates would read the news and always get fired up about the politics (to the point that it became a running joke in our household). I would let her vent to me because our other two roommates didn't stay up to date with the news or didn't care. So, I got the earful and the usual question, "How can they believe that?" And my usual answer would be something along the lines of "They're scared/angry." She was never satisfied with that type of answer. Looking back, I'm pretty sure she was a Bird primary looking for someone to test her system against, hoping that I could actually explain the logic behind these people's beliefs. As a Badger primary, I didn't get this and kept trying to answer her by trying to humanize whoever she was ranting about. The conversation would usually end when I finally got around to saying that I agreed with her standpoint. Probably could've saved both of our time if I had understood what she was really asking...

[magpie-of-a-birb]

which idealist primary would you say might be most worried about being overly credulous? i can see it for lion integrity vs the bird search for truth. for sure i’m not a loyalist but i haven’t yet figured out where my ideas come from. it’s just a huge pet peeve of mine when things are taken without question/at face value, and i really value finding things out for yourself.

My first instinct is to say bird, since when it comes to the morality side of things, what is picked up could have a more direct impact on the bird's compass than if they were a lion, so making sure the data isn't faulty would be important. However, due to this post that umai made, I'm not so sure. For the most part, I think it could go either way, but depends on whether or not the bird or lion has something in their system that makes double-checking information to be important

That being said, the way that you value finding things out for yourself makes me think that your secondary may be influencing this, as well, since you're valuing having the "checking" step as a part of your information-aquiring method. The way it's phrased makes me think badger secondary, since it sounds like you take pride in doing the work to find the answer, yourself

TL;DR: checking over newly acquired information leans more towards bird primary, but could be bird or lion primary. However, the secondary may be influencing said value

[repetitionsings]

43, 44, and 58 of the shc ask game?

43. Favourite SHC hero-antagonist dynamic

My favorite hero/antagonist dynamic of all time is "friends turned enemies with Intricate Complex Residual Feelings", and loyalist primaries are good for this. My #1 are Snake Pri-ing at each other even through their gritted teeth and I love it, but a Snake Primary who can't get why the other one doesn't abandon the wider community for them vs a Badger Primary who doesn't understand why the snake won't just stay is also a beautiful thought. The hows don't matter so much to me, generally.

44. Favourite SHC sibling dynamic

MAN I love sibling dynamics too much to pick one so have a couple that I am very fond of: Idealist who's taken their sibling's Loyalist devotion as part of their moral code and/or Loyalist whose first loyalty is to their Idealist sibling and considers their values part of that Bird Sec siblings with very different skill sets (possibly because this is basically me and one of my brothers. XD) Builder Sec siblings with an odd Lion out who occasionally charges across their best-made plans

58. Sorting most likely to be a spy

Probably a Lion Primary? I feel like Idealist spy characters would do better than Loyalists. XD I don't know if it's the singular most likely, but I love the idea of a Bird Primary/Badger Sec spy character.

[intheseautumnhands]

Sorting The Last 5 Years

Hello I’m back with yet more tiny fandom sorting because I have Thoughts and also, Feelings. Let’s talk about The Last 5 Years, which has ranked consistently among my favorite all-time musicals for so very, very long, and has such great characters for dissecting.

First some brief housekeeping: This is based specifically off the script for the stage show, and the cast recording version by Norbert Leo Butz and Sherie Rene Scott in 2002. I have not been lucky enough to see this live. I also promise no consistency with the movie because I just... nope, sorry, don’t like it. I think I remember things being consistent enough that this’d probably be good for both, but I’m not gonna try to include movie-based thoughts.

Second: I am not purposefully getting into the great “who was at fault” debate but I think my thoughts on them as characters makes it clear that I think both of them have flaws, and that while Jamie crossed a lot more lines at the end, neither of them are blameless for the relationship’s issues. SHC is always kinda YMMV, but even moreso than usually, if you’re really biased towards one side or the other, we probably read these characters very differently. Which is cool and I’d love to hear other opinions! But I will not be surprised if we disagree somewhere along the line.

I’m going to do this slightly different than usual -- since we’ve only got two characters to talk about, and I want to discuss how their houses bounce off each other, I’m going to go by house instead of discussing by character. In addition, I’m going to go Secondary first, because I have a lot I want to say about their Primaries.

Secondaries

In his second song of the show, Jamie tells us exactly how he approaches life: 

But I say no, no, whatever I do I barrel on through, and I don’t complain No matter what I try, I’m flying full speed ahead.... Things might get bumpy, but Some people analyze every details Some people stall when they can’t see the trail Some people freeze out of fear that they’ll fail But I keep rolling on

If I had to pull out one singular moment to crystallize how he approaches things, that’d be it. Jamie doesn’t bother to stop and consider or change his approach. He sees what he wants, and he goes for it, and he’s lucky enough that that works out really, really well for him. And even when it’s a response to hardship, that’s still his approach. Just look at I Could Never Rescue You: so we could fight, or we could wait, or I could go. He decides there’s nothing else worth trying, calls someone else to help him leave, and goes.

Even when it’s not the best idea right now, when tempering what he has to say might help him get what he wants (If I Didn’t Believe In You) he doesn’t do it.  Jamie charges, he’s stubborn, he’s set on what he wants -- he’s a pretty intense Lion, in other words.

Cathy tries to go after what she wants, too, but she ends up with several more obstacles in her way. While a lot of that is luck of the draw, she’s also a little more hesitant overall. Look at her running internal monologue throughout Climbing Uphill, second-guessing every decision (why’d I pick these shoes, why’d I pick this song, why’d I pick this career).  In The Schmuel Song Jamie alludes to the same hesitance: maybe it’s just that you’re afraid to go out onto a limb(-o-vitch), maybe your heart’s completely swayed but your head can’t follow through.

She comes off as having that preparedness of a foundational Secondary -- I don’t see any hints of the breathless charge and certainty of a Lion, or the adaptability of a Snake. I honestly think either Bird or Badger would be suitable for her, and could easily be played into in either direction depending on small acting choices.

Absent of other interpretations, I’m going to lean Bird, off that line from Jamie above and some of the little nuances of Sherie’s performances. There’s a lot of frustration that this all isn’t coming more easily that, while it probably has a lot to do with how easily things have come to Jamie, also leans me away from Badger a little bit; but she’s clearly not unwilling to put in the work, and I could absolutely see that interpretation working just as well.

Primaries

Interestingly, Cathy is outright stated as having the traditional Snake-y trait: don’t you think that now’s a good time to be the ambitious freak you are? That’s not why I’m going to say that Cathy’s a Snake Primary, and Jamie’s clearly got ambitions too, but it does make me smile a little.

Loyalist Cathy’s earliest (timeline-wise) songs are so full of Snake wrap-myself-up-in-my-favorite-person sentiments and lines. Goodbye until tomorrow, goodbye until the rest of my life, and I have been waiting, I have been waiting for you. You don’t have to change a thing, just stay with me. I want you and you and nothing but you, miles and piles of you. I don’t mean to put on any pressure, but I know when a thing is right. Once Jamie’s in her life, that’s it, he’s a priority. It is heartbreaking to go back over this show and realize how much more of what Cathy says is directly about Jamie than the other way around.

Even later on, after we get the first tiny signs of tension, it’s still there. In The Next Ten Minutes: I don’t know why people run, I don’t know why things fall through, I don’t know how anybody survives in this life without someone like you. I could protect and preserve, I could say no and good bye -- but why, Jamie, why? In Summer in Ohio: I found my guiding light, I tell the stars each night, look at me, look at him -- son of a bitch, I guess I’m doing something right.

It’s not even the first time she’s done this. In I Can Do Better Than That, she talks about a previous relationship in the same terms: I gave up my life for the better part of a year. When Cathy gets serious about someone, she makes them her priority,

And that’s what she gets, until that’s all she has, and she lashes out with the exact same thing she wanted at the beginning: you and you, and nothing but you, miles and piles of you. And I don’t think it’s because she didn’t actually want it. It’s because she thought it would be less one-sided.

Because idealist Jamie does put her high in his priorities, but he doesn’t put her first in the same, fixated way. Jamie’s instinctual and set-on-his-decisions Lion Primary chafes against Cathy’s expectation that he’ll put her above what he wants, fed into by that charging, bold instinct from his Secondary.

Which is not to say that Cathy isn’t important to Jamie. But the downfall in their relationship is that what that looks like is so different between the two of them, and they never figure out how to meet middle ground. They’re both unreliable, biased narrators in this story, and neither of them see what the other needs.

A while back, I talked about how different Primaries love. Jamie and Cathy could be case studies in what I said there, and especially in how that love can go bad.

Lion Jamie sees that they both have big dreams, and encourages Cathy to push her way forward on her dreams: Shouldn’t I want the world to see the brilliant girl who inspired me?... Stop temping, and go and be happy! He uses the thing that is most important to him -- his writing -- to encourage her, show her that he sees her hesitance and he believes in her. And when they’re having problems, he puts the blame on how her dreams are going first: Is it just that you’re disappointed to be touring again for the summer? Did you think this would all be much easier than it’s turned out to be?

And that’s where we get, I think, one of the biggest highlights of how they misunderstand each other: If I’m cheering on your side, Cathy, why can’t you support mine? Cathy feels unsupported, Cathy feels like everything has become all about Jamie -- but Jamie feels the same way. The kind of support they need is different, and neither of them see it.

(Even at the height of their love story, the one moment they’re at the same page, The Next Ten Minutes, it says so much to me that Jamie keeps getting these lines about a bigger picture that he and Cathy are just part of: there are so many dreams I need to see with you -- not dreams about them, dreams they can see come true together. I will never change the world, until, I do.)

And Jamie withdraws, and takes her more and more for granted, and steamrolls over her both accidentally -- A Part of That, and Cathy’s fierce declaration of I will not be the girl who gets asked how it feels to be trotting along at the genius’ heels getting disproven in front of her eyes -- and then purposefully, when he decides it’s time to stop trying.

Meanwhile, Snake Cathy sees that as the betrayal. She puts him first, makes him the priority, and when she doesn’t get that in return, she sees it as everything being about Jamie instead of the balance being equal. Fed into by her own ambitions going unfulfilled despite her own best efforts, she clings tighter, until he feels suffocated by it: all that I ask for is one little corner, one private room at the back of my heart, tell her I found one, she sends out battalions to claim it and blow it apart.

Until Jamie leaves, and Cathy is left bitter by it: Jamie is probably feeling just fine. Jamie decides it’s his right to decide. Run away, like it’s simple, like it’s right. Because to her steady, solid foundational Secondary and person-focused Snake, Jamie’s impulsive choice and quick action is cowardice at best, proof he doesn’t care as much at worst.

In summary:

Cathy Hiatt is a Snake Primary/foundational Secondary, either works with the text, but based on OCR, likely Bird.

Jamie Wellerstein is a Double Lion.

And Cathy’s person-first version of support VS Jamie’s dreams-first version of support, and their lack of understanding what each other is trying to provide and needs to recieve, is the entire crux of why their relationship fails, with some help from their uneven amounts of luck in their dream careers.

[starry-sky-stuff]

Historical Sortings

I've done a lot of reading about royalty in the 19th century and I decided to have some fun and try my hand at sorting historical figures.

I wonder if you can tell who my favs and unfavs are from my sortings.

Cut for length.

British Royals:

Queen Victoria: Snake/Lion. An unhealthy Snake Primary who expected that level of unhealthy devotion from everyone around her. Probably burned a bit after Albert died. Also an unhealthy Lion Secondary who strong-armed, controlled, and domineered others, particularly her children.

I don't know too much about her husband, but I think Albert might've been an Idealist.

Edward VII, aka Bertie: Lion/Badger. His charm strikes me as more of a Badger than a Snake. He seems to me to be the ‘I know a person’ guy. Just the vibes I get. He also really liked routine and wasn’t a particularly good conversationalist, just genuinely interested in others. Not too sure about his primary, but I didn't get Loyalist vibes so I went with Lion.

Alexandra of Denmark {wife of Bertie}: Snake/Badger. She usually gets characterised as the long-suffering wife so it’s not surprising she’s the love interest sorting. She was loyal to her husband despite all his infidelities, and her interests were confined to her children and pets

Princess Alice {daughter of Queen Victoria}: Bird/Badger. Experienced a crisis of faith in middle age which I interpret as a Fallen Bird trying to reconfigure their system. Her dedication to helping others makes me think Badger Secondary. Also, she died after contracting diphtheria from giving her sick son comfort which seems like a very tragic Badger.

Prince Alfred {son of Queen Victoria}: Lion/Lion. He was wilful and abrasive, and had a no-nonsense attitude, so probably Lion Secondary. I can’t really get a read on his primary but maybe also a Lion. That would mean he and his wife houseshare, which might’ve contributed to the breakdown of the marriage.

Grand Duchess Maria Alexandrovna {wife of Alfred}: Lion/Lion. Very caustic and abrasive, I definitely wouldn’t want to be around her in real life but I admire her no-nonsense attitude and no tolerance for BS. Her marrying off her daughters young because she thought it was right makes me think Lion Primary.

Princess Beatrice {daughter of Queen Victoria}: Snake/Badger. She subjugated her entire life to fulfilling her mother’s needs and the only major conflict they had was over her wanting to get married (Snake on Snake loyalty conflict maybe). Very much a background character who worked behind the scenes, so Badger Secondary.

I don't know enough about Queen Victoria's other children to sort them.

George V: Badger/Badger. Dull, dutiful and dependable is how he tends to be described, which always makes my mind go to Badger (I swear, I love Badgers, they’re great but they’re not very flashy). Considering he refused to give sanctuary to his cousin Nicholas II because he was afraid he might threaten his own country and throne, I’m going with Badger Primary who put the good of his group over individual loyalty.

Mary of Teck {wife of George}: Badger/Badger. Duty and dignity defined her, so I think she was a Double Badger who was loyal to the institution of the British Monarchy and her family (above any individual member). Her and her husband houseshare, which might explain some of their parenting issues since neither could compensate for the other’s shortcomings.

Marie of Edinburgh, aka Missy {daughter of Alfred}: Snake/Snake. Charismatic and flamboyant, she started out as a young bride in a foreign country with no support and she ended her life as a beloved figure and the most popular member of the royal family. Part of this was her finding meaning in her life by working for the benefit of Romania, which makes me think she was a Snake whose loyalty came to include all of Romania. Also, she was disgusted with her son’s selfishness and his (initial) abdication of his rights.

Victoria Melita of Edinburgh, aka Ducky {daughter of Alfred}: Lion/Lion. Strong-willed, temperamental, and uncompromisingly honest, Ducky unabashedly followed her own course in life. She divorced her first husband despite family and social pressure, married her second husband despite protests from his family, and was no-one’s fool.

German Royals:

Victoria, Princess Royal, aka Vicky {daughter of Queen Victoria}: Lion/Lion. I read in her biography that someone was quoted as saying she was “always clever, never wise”, which I think just fits this sorting. You’ve really got to admire her steadfast belief in liberalism in the face of Prussian conservatism, but sometimes reading about her aggravates me because I’m like, can’t you chill for just a second. Like, stop doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome.

Frederick III, aka Fritz {husband of Vicky}: Lion/Badger. He and Vicky were really united in their shared Lion Primary and belief in liberalism, from which they never wavered. His indecision and constantly subjugating his beliefs to family loyalty make me think he of an unhappy Badger Secondary loyal to a group that doesn’t value him.

Wilhelm II {son of Vicky & Fritz}: Lion/Lion. Considering his fraught relationship with his mother I find him and Vicky having the same sorting to be kinda funny. But he was such a Glory Hound Lion, a total egomaniac, bombastic, and a bully. A deeply unhealthy Double Lion.

Augusta Victoria of Schleswig-Holstein {wife of Wilhelm}: Badger/Badger. Definitely an unhealthy Badger Primary, she exalted anything that was German and was prejudiced against anything that wasn’t. Probably a Badger Secondary too, who dedicated herself to her husband, children, and throne.

Otto von Bismarck: Lion/Snake. Also a Glory Hound Lion judging by his visceral reaction to the implication anyone but him was responsible for German unification. The ultimate politician and opportunist, his Snake Secondary allowed him to stay in power for decades and outmanoeuvre pretty much everyone until the system he created failed him. The irony of that is hilarious to me (Bismarck’s a figure I find interesting but utterly despicable)

Russian Royals:

Nicholas I: Badger/Lion. I’m going with Badger just on his dehumanisation of ethnic minorities, liberals, and anyone who opposed him. And he was known as the Iron Tsar, so definitely a Lion Secondary who crushed any dissent both large and small. Very ironic that he’s the Protagonist sorting, since he was someone who really wanted to do what was right for his country, but what he believed was right was the worst and he's generally considered one of the worst tsars.

Alexandra Feodorovna {wife of Nicholas I}: Snake/Badger. Similar to Alexandra of Denmark, she was defined as being the perfect wife, loyal to her husband and overlooking his infidelities, with few interests outside of her family.

Alexander II {son of Nicholas I}: Lion/Snake. Definitely not a Loyalist based on the way he treated his wife. Loyalists can commit adultery too, but if he’s a loyalist than he’s not one who valued his wife or their children. And he definitely gives me immature Lion Primary vibes, doing what makes him happy to the detriment of others, his family, and his country. He was known for his charm and congeniality, but his way of dealing with his ministers was to play each of them off each other which makes me think Snake.

Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich {son of Nicholas I}: Lion/Lion. A total firebrand and idealist, he pursued his goals relentlessly and often tactlessly. Burned later in his life after his brother took a conservative bent and then Konstantin was basically removed from power after his brother’s death, so he retreated to life with his mistress and second family.

Alexander III {son of Alexander II}: Badger/Lion. Very similar to his grandfather, Nicholas I. Dutiful and hardworking, but also a lot of dehumanisation and running roughshod over others. Treated his family better than his father, and family was very important to him which could also be Snake.

Maria Feodorovna {wife of Alexander III}: Lion/Badger. She was vivacious and friendly and flourished in court life, which makes me think either Courtier Badger or Snake. I think Badger because she really understood the institutional power of the role of empress and was also really suspicious of anyone outside of the family. Nothing about her suggests Loyalist to me, but she was very firm in believing in the correctness of her own opinions. Her conflict with her daughter-in-law definitely makes sense when viewed through the lens of a Lion/Badger vs Lion/Lion

Nicholas II {son of Alexander III}: Badger/Badger. He garnered a reputation for duplicity because, since he hated conflict, he would agree with a minister during a meeting and then fire them via note the next day, so definitely not a Lion. Probably a Badger since he was obsessive over doing every single aspect of his job, including even sending letters and he refused a secretary. His attachment to autocracy derived at least partly from duty and he was very attached to his family, so maybe Badger Primary. He was also very close to his cousin George V and they houseshare.

Alexandra Feodorovna {wife of Nicholas II}: Lion/Lion. A deeply unhealthy Lion, she was obstinate, imperious, and completely inflexible. Wholeheartedly believed that she was entirely correct in her opinions, often based on little evidence, and objectivity was completely beyond her.

[painted-crow]

Submission time #22

I was hopping between Burned Badger and Burned Snake but now I retook the quiz and it opened up the possibility of a Gryffindor Primary and I really don't know. Whatever primary I am it's probably burned if I'm this lost.

As for my secondary, I'm pretty positive I'm a Courtier Badger. I was confused before about how Badger-like my secondary seemed except for the matching people which seemed very Slytherin but Courtier Badger fits that.

Okay, let's get started then!

Anyways,

PRIMARY

Would you lie to an acquaintance to save their peace of mind? Would it make you feel grimy to do it?

No. They need to know the truth so that they can make the next choice. It would be immoral of me to withhold the choice from them - essentially to think I know better than them what is good or right for them. If I didn’t care much about them and lying made my life easier I’d do it, though. It depends on the question, I guess.

Sounds like you really care about letting people make their own choices. This "you need to know the truth so you can decide" is interesting; it reads as Bird, actually. Which doesn't help much if you're stuck between the Loyalist Houses, huh? xD

The most important things in my world and my life are the people I love.

I don’t know. I can’t protect them, and if I can’t do that how can I say that they’re the most important thing to me. Of course I’d save them over a stranger if I had to make that choice but that's in extreme circumstances and in the day to day that isn’t (and I’m glad it isn’t) relevant.

*whistles* okay, this reads burned Snake. Sometimes Snakes Burn because they feel they're not capable of living up to the responsibility of being Snakes.

Bean in Ender's Shadow is my pet example of this: he has a whole lot of guilt over failing to protect the people he cares about, so he spends a lot of the book trying to be a Bird instead, and rationalizing himself in circles when his slowly unburning Snake wants to attach to people and prioritize them.

Does someone being part of your community or world mean you owe them something?

I don’t know that I owe them, but the people of the world deserve kindness and compassion and when they’ve acted in a way that doesn’t deserve that they still deserve fairness.

This has a really Idealist ring to it. Not just because you're like "owe? uhhh no?" but because you're answering this question, which is focused on personal obligation to others, with principles (ideals) about the way the world Should work and what people deserve. That's a very Idealist lens you're using here.

At the end of the day, some things are right and some things are wrong. You don't turn your back on the people you love.

This question is supposed to suss out Loyalists vs Idealists, but it's very possible to have loyalty coded as Right into Lion intuition or a Bird system.

If you get a chance to make the world a better place, you have to pursue it-- even at the expense of your happiness and personal relationships. Do you think this is a true statement?

I don’t think it’s possible to make the world a better place when you’re making it worse for you and your loved ones.

Fair. I'm not sure what House this reads. Seems like a logical reaction, though.

I'm not going to really go into the secondary cause like I said I'm pretty positive I'm a Courtier Badger; I just want to say something about shortcuts: I find them useful and they can make things fun if things are too difficult (though the opposite can also be true because things that are too easy aren't fun either), but I tend not to notice them. I'll often find myself banging at a wall until someone points out that I can go around. 

Hmm, okay! Valid. I'd say maybe double check Snake just in case? but it really is up to you.

So, this has me kinda stumped, I'll admit. My guess is that you're a burned Snake with a loud Bird model you're running on in its place.

I think you give off more Snake than Badger, and more Bird than burned Lion (which I also briefly considered for your model).

It doesn't seem like you feel obligation to communities or humanity as a whole. You have principles about how people should be treated, but your morality doesn't seem to revolve around others the way a Badger's would.

You do have a tired Loyalist streak to you, and if you're unsatisfied with just Bird--if you feel the need to have important people at the center of your life, but don't trust yourself to live up to the responsibility of having them--that's a form of burned Snake.

You seem to have a pretty solid Bird model though. I wonder sometimes if I oversort into Bird, but it's not uncommon even for healthy Snakes to pick up a Bird model for decisions where their people aren't directly relevant.

Thing is, Birds often have a sound, like a rhythm to their thoughts that comes out in their writing. It's like a written accent. It's hard to describe, but there's this desire for completeness and self examination, and this particular structure, like a time signature... and then there's our tendency to ramble, especially if we think we haven't been clear enough xD

I get some of that from you, a little, but it doesn’t seem hard-wired the way full Birds are. You’re used to thinking this way, but it's not your native language.

The longer I write, the more certain I am of my guess. I'm having a hard time picking up burned Badger from you. Burned Snake fits, I think. It's up to you, of course, but that's what I've got for you.

[mysticalenthusiastvoid]

"You forgot about us -"

"No -"

"You forgot your own flesh and blood, your family, and you moved on with your life."

"That's rich coming from you since you're the one who left me."

"I didn't mean to. I thought you were dead."

"I was twelve," Allana said. "I was a child with nothing but the clothes on my back. What would you have me do?"

"You could have told someone," Ilia said. "You could have gotten help."

"I did get help. I was found and taken in by good people who loved me."

"And why didn't you tell them where you were from?"

"I couldn't."

"You couldn't or you wouldn't?"

Allana stared at Ilia. "You don't know, do you?"

"Know what?"

"Father put a compulsion on me," Allana said.

"He did what?"

"He mind controlled me to not talk about the Shadows or anything related to them. He blocked the memory and tied it to my anxiety. The PTSD just solidified it."

"I'm sure Father did what he thought was best -"

"You're defending him for his shitty choice and yet you're criticizing me for the choices I've made?"

"You know that family means everything to us."

"Yes and I made a new one. I wasn't going to wait twenty four years for you."

[sevilemar]

I got curious, if you're comfortable talking about it could you tell us about the point your friend made about shc?

They made several:

- They referred to this post, and said that nonny was right, and that loyalty is, of course, also an ideal, so our classification of idealist vs. loyalist doesn't work because one is essentially a more narrow subset of the other. After a bit of discussion we agreed on calling them abstract/big-picture (lion, bird) and concrete/small-scale (badger, snake) primaries instead.

- Also, they pointed out that I have not really defined what selfishness means to me, and that I maybe confuse it with self-care, and attribute it to snake primary when it's indeed just a human thing and has nothing to do with sorting at all. And that I do this because I might still be in survival mode myself, and need an excuse for basic human self-care.

- And branching off of this, they showed me that selfishness is indeed a value my society holds, but only for certain groups that use selfishness to shit on marginalised people. And how my arguments for selfishness/self-care would look from the outside when we switch from fandom to political discourse. It's why I deleted the post in question because fuck that.

- That's one of the biggest scepticisms they have for any kind of personality sorting, actually, that we take basic human things and only attribute it to a quarter of the population instead. And I have come upon that problem a lot in my shc posts. It's the reason why I do not feel confident in sorting anyone at the moment.

For me, shc is more art than anything else, a nifty little tool to use for getting to know myself a bit better and heal a bit. It's not scientific, it's not based on facts, it's a vibe thing. It's always in flux, nothing is ever set in stone, and I'm only using it as long as it's helpful. But I think sometimes I need the limitations of the system pointed out to me so I don't do more harm than good to myself and others in the community.

- They also called me out on something I've been waiting to be called on ever since I mentioned it, and that's my assumption that playfulness = snake secondary. Turns out I mean a certain kind of playfulness, and I was curious from the beginning if this was a sorting thing, a me thing, or a human thing that has nothing to do with secondaries and more with what kind of humour you prefer.

[wisteria-lodge]

Hey there! I'm a little confused about the idealist versus loyalist aspect of primaries. I 100% think I'm a loyalist, probably more Snake than Badger, but something still doesn't feel right. It's mostly that one question in the quiz that goes "would you love someone less if you disagreed on something important". I've definitely felt that many times. I don't really give a damn for most things, but questions like queerphobia, racism, etc., that's a major deal breaker. In cases where it felt like they could easily change their minds and it was just about not knowing or an idea being very new to them, it felt a bit disappointing but it didn't affect my love for them, because I felt confident it wouldn't last. But in cases where the Bad Thing felt too engrained in them, I could definitely feel my love for them diminish, even in relationships that were important to me. I would feel bad about it because it feels wrong to let my love for someone go knowingly, but I wouldn't feel bad about it specifically in regards to the person, because those feelings would be gone already, if that makes any sense.

I think that's more an idealist thing, but that's really the only trait I relate to. Prioritizing ideals over individuals still feels incompatible with my worldview. I also have a history of disregarding principles when it comes to people I care about and not feeling bad about it one bit, which is one of the things that strongly pointed me towards Snake. Is this because the example in question is too extreme? Could it be because of a model? This question has been bothering me for a while, but I'm not sure I'm explaining it right. Anyway, I'd appreciate any bit of help you might give. 🙏🏼 Have a good day!

You sound like a Loyalist to me. Probably all that's happened is you've got caught up in using extreme examples. "Would I love my Person less if I realized they were Jack the Ripper." That kind of thing. The problem of using examples like that is ... if the behavior and the beliefs are bad enough that they're affecting other people, that's going to come back around and ping some other part of the Loyalist's system. A Badger primary who realizes the beliefs of one member of the community are hurting another member of the community? Ouch. Or a Snake who realizes that the beliefs of one of their People are hurting another one of their People (or even just hurting their own reputation or social standing?) I had an interesting conversation with a Snake primary, who said that if she realized a good friend of hers was homophobic, she wouldn't *cut them off* but she wouldn't want to be tagged in the same photos as them anymore. And if that person made a long homophobic video, or started donating to homophobic organizations... then continuing to associate with them is going to be way more trouble than it's worth. Sakes are practical, remember, and good at taking care of themselves. Like this bit right here is very loyalist:

In cases where it felt like they could easily change their minds and it was just about not knowing or an idea being very new to them, it felt a bit disappointing but it didn't affect my love for them, because I felt confident it wouldn't last.

Maybe it's cold, but the Idealist perspective (my perspective) is - I'm here if you want to talk, but. Figure yourself out, come back when you've changed your mind.

[reds-burrow]

How would you sort your family ?

Good question! I have a tight-knit immediate family because we live across country from any extended family. That closeness shows in our sortings.

Mom: Badger/Badger + Bird model

Dad: Lion/Bird

Sister: Lion/Badger

Me: Badger/Snake + Badger and Bird models

My sister and I are a pretty good blend of our parents. While my sister gets her primary from our dad and her secondary from our mom, I get my primary from our mom and my secondary models from each of our parents (my Bird model looks more like my dad's Bird than my mom's). The only real question is where my Snake secondary came from. I suspect it's from my mom because every now and again I'll catch some Snake behavior from her. She might have a Snake model she developed to survive being the youngest of four strong-willed sisters, but the behavior is so rare I hesitate to call it a full model. More often, I see her going Rapid-Fire Bird which may have helped inspire my Snake's improvisational instincts.

Climbing further up the family tree, my dad's side of the family is full of Idealist primaries and Bird secondaries. Whenever we visit them, I know to expect philosophical debates, advice on how to follow their chosen causes, and a dozen interrogations on how my academic career is going. In contrast, my mom's family trends mostly Loyalist. My PoPo (Grandmother) was the sweetest Double Badger you could ever meet, and she imparted some form of Badger secondary to all her daughters. When we visit them, I expect more personal questions, lots of amazing homemade cooking, and the usual visit to the graveyard to honor those who have passed on.

Anyway, I have a lot of little stories about my family's sorting dynamics that I'm sure I'll share at some point, like the differences between my parents' Bird secondary behaviors, or my family's penchant for exploding, or the amusing divide between Lion and Badger primary day-to-day behaviors, etc.

[theliberaltony]

via Politics – FiveThirtyEight

A charismatic, liberal-but-not-super-liberal black man is running for president. He has degrees from two of America’s most prestigious universities. He was a community organizer before serving in elected office. He was touted very early in his career as the potential first black president. He served a stint in local government before becoming one of the very few African-Americans ever elected to the U.S. Senate. And he is running on a message of optimism.1 Cory Booker announced that he is running for president via a video on Friday morning. He and Barack Obama are different people, of course — their resumes and race notwithstanding — but Booker’s most obvious electoral path to the Democratic nomination and the presidency is the same one Obama followed over a decade ago.

In 2008, Obama won the Democratic primary, in part, by running up huge margins among African-Americans and younger voters. His early opposition to the Iraq War gave him credibility with the liberal wing of the party. He pointed to his potential appeal with independents and Republicans to win over more establishment-oriented Democrats who prioritized electability. Obama’s win in Iowa, where the Democratic electorate is overwhelmingly white, was critical. That win helped convince establishment Democrats and, in particular, black voters that he was a viable national candidate, leading Obama to carry states in the South with large black electorates.

I’m not saying Booker can or will replicate that path — in fact, he’ll likely have a tough time with parts of it. But in exploring how the New Jersey senator could win, the Obama road map is a good place to start.

How Booker could win

Let’s use the five key blocs in the Democratic electorate laid out by my colleague Nate Silver: Asian and Hispanic voters, Black voters, The Left, Millennials and Friends, and Party Loyalists. With the 2020 field likely to be so big, we won’t try to predict exactly how these groups will vote, but we can make some educated guesses about which groups Booker could most appeal to.

Being black gives Booker a direct connection to African-American voters. But his potential appeal with black voters comes down to more than his racial identity. Booker served as a city council member then mayor in majority-black Newark, New Jersey. As a senator, Booker was a leading figure in pushing for a criminal justice reform bill that was signed into law in December.

Booker would also make a more than acceptable nominee to Party Loyalists. For one, he’s a sitting senator, firmly enmeshed in the Democratic establishment. Moreover, over the last two years, high-profile Democratic candidates like Georgia’s Stacey Abrams and Alabama’s Doug Jones have brought Booker in to campaign for them, suggesting that other Democrats believe he has appeal. And if this bloc is particularly concerned about finding a candidate they perceive as able to win the general election, Booker’s electability case is obvious: America voted for someone kind of like him in 2008 and 2012. (Though I assume Booker will never actually say this out loud.)

There is no reason to think that Booker will be the candidate for Asian or Hispanic voters in the Democratic primary. But Booker doesn’t have any obvious downsides for those groups either. And he has experience appealing to and serving Asian and Hispanic voters; the population of New Jersey, where Booker won Senate elections in 2013 and 20142 includes a higher percentage of Asian (10 percent) and Latino (20 percent) residents than the nation overall. He also speaks Spanish.

Similarly, it’s not hard to imagine Booker appealing to Millennials. He’s relatively young (49), and if elected he would make history as the first vegan president — not many Americans are vegan, but those who are tend to be young and liberal. But more importantly, I think Booker could follow the model used by Obama and then Bernie Sanders in 2016 of appealing to young voters by running as the candidate of change and, to some extent, idealism. Booker ran against the entrenched political establishment in Newark, losing his first mayoral campaign in 2002 in a contest that was dramatic enough that there is a Netflix documentary about it. As mayor, Booker lived in in a run-down building as a kind of act of solidarity with the city’s low-income residents. He also shoveled the snow out of an elderly man’s driveway after the man’s daughter alerted Booker via Twitter that the resident needed help, and he literally rescued a woman from her burning house. Of late, the senator has talked about how America could you use a “new civic gospel, and a gospel of love.” I could see him running as kind of the idealist-in-chief — and that could appeal to idealistic millennials.

That just leaves The Left, but let’s come back to that group — it’s potentially Booker’s biggest weak spot among the five blocs.

You could imagine Booker’s general optimistic message — I don’t think any politician uses the word “love” more than the New Jersey senator — working in the Iowa caucuses that start off the primary process. Iowa embraced Obama when he ran on a similar message, after all. A strong showing in the caucuses would establish Booker as one of the top candidates as the Democratic contest moved to states in the South, where a high percentage of the voters are black.

Black Democrats in early primary states

Share of Democratic electorate who identified as black according to exit and entrance polls, ordered by tentative 2020 primary date*

State Est. Primary month black voters Iowa Feb. 3%

–

New Hampshire Feb. 2

–

Nevada Feb. 13

–

South Carolina Feb. 61

–

Alabama March 54

–

Massachusetts March 4

–

North Carolina March 32

–

Oklahoma March 14

–

Tenneessee March 32

–

Texas March 19

–

Vermont March 1

–

Virginia March 26

–

Michigan March 21

–

Mississippi March 71

–

Missouri March 21

–

Ohio March 20

–

Florida March 27

–

Illinois March 28

–

Wisconsin April 10

–

Connecticut April 15

–

Maryland April 46

–

Pennsylvania April 19

–

Indiana May 19

–

West Virginia May 3

–

Arkansas May 27

–

Georgia — 51

–

New York — 22

–

Includes only states for which a 2016 exit or entrance poll was available.

* States are ordered by expected primary date according to Frontloading HQ. There is some uncertainty about the primary dates for Georgia and New York, so they are listed at the bottom.

Sources: CNN, Frontloading HQ

If the field was winnowed to something like Booker vs. former Vice President Joe Biden (or another older and more moderate Democrat), Booker could win largely by dominating among black voters and younger Democrats, as Obama did in defeating Clinton in 2008. But I could also see Booker emerging victorious in a contest that came down to him and a candidate of the left (Sanders, say, or Sen. Elizabeth Warren) by winning voters in big cities and among minorities and more moderate Democrats, as Clinton did in defeating Sanders in 2016. Booker has the potential to appeal to a wide range of Democrats because he is moderate in tone (the senator emphasizes that he does not “hate” Trump) but fairly liberal on policy (in 2017-2018, he opposed Trump’s positions more often than all but four other senators).

“I expect Cory to have the resources and infrastructure to compete in all of the early states, and his campaigning on behalf of other Democrats has helped him build relationships in important places,” said Kevin Griffis, who was Obama’s South Carolina communications director in 2008 and then served as an adviser to Booker, both on his Senate campaign in 2013 and on Capitol Hill.

“I expect him to attract broad interest, particularly among African-American voters and young people, and I think he will attract new and disaffected voters who are looking for a positive message and messenger,” added Griffis, who is not working on Booker’s 2020 campaign.

Why Booker might lose

There’s also a pretty strong and clear case against Booker’s electoral chances. Obama carried black voters overwhelmingly in 2008, winning, for example, more than 80 percent of the black vote in several heavily black states. But that was in a race where there was not another major black candidate in the field, and at a time when no African-American had ever been nominated by a major party, let alone elected president. Post-Obama, black voters may not feel like they need to mobilize behind black presidential candidates to make history or as a sign of racial loyalty.

And Booker has two obvious rivals for the African-American vote. Biden, if he runs, could appeal to black voters based on his close relationship with Obama and his more moderate ideology, which echoes the views of many African-Americans. And in Kamala Harris, Booker could face not only another formidable black candidate, but one who has a potential advantage over him in wooing African-American voters: about 60 percent of black Democratic voters are women, and black women may want to make history and elect a black woman.

But I would extend this idea beyond African-American voters: Booker has the potential to be well-liked among several Democratic constituencies without being the favorite of any. You could see, say, Millennials preferring Beto O’Rourke or Sanders; party loyalists siding with Biden or Harris; and The Left opting for Sanders or Warren.

“This field is very different from the one Obama competed in, which makes things much more difficult to predict,” said Griffis.

The Left, in particular, could be a problem for Booker. Liberal activists have deep concerns about the New Jersey Democrat, who took some more centrist stances in earlier stages of his career, such as strongly embracing charter schools and defending Bain Capital; they’ve also objected to the substantial amount of campaign donations he has accepted from people who work on Wall Street and in the financial services sector.3

More generally, Booker could have a message problem that spans constituencies. His message of optimism might sound dissonant to Democrats these days, even if they liked hearing something similar in 2007 and 2008. Democratic activists may not necessarily use the word “hate” to describe Trump, but my reporting over the last two years suggests a widespread and very, very intense … dislike of the president. Booker hasn’t changed; he’s always been the guy talking about everyone coming together and working across party lines — a self-described “prisoner of hope.” But what if politics has gotten so divisive, partisan and zero-sum that Democrats perceive someone like Booker not as unifying and optimistic but as naive and overly high-minded?

I can see Booker winning the nomination and becoming president, but I can also see him not winning a single primary. He has very broad potential appeal, but he may not have a solid core constituency, which is a major problem in a field that could include more than 20 candidates.

[wisteria-lodge]

hello, i have trouble finding out both my primary and secondary bc i think they’re both very burned. for primary, i relate to snake bc yes i will prioritize myself and my people, but i might not always be happy about it. like, if i go over one of my moral principles for my people i might be bummed, but if i dont help my people for my principles, or if they suffered bc i wanted to do the “right” thing idk how i could live with myself. (1/2)

i’ve always constructed a morality system for myself bc if i didn’t, i feel like i would be very selfish (or at least very whimsical and chaotic). the thing is,i really do care about doing the right thing but i second guess and overthink every action before i take it (kind of like chidi in the good place).i just feel so lost and paralyzed and like a bad person who has to try rlly hard to be good. for the secondary, i do whatever works and whatever is needed in situations. 2/2

This *might* be down to writing style, but I think it's kinda funny that you would be "bummed" if you had to go against one of your moral principals, but "couldn't live with yourself" if you had to go against your people.

(I'm thinking you're a Loyalist, just based on that.)

And going off the rest of the ask, you're almost certainly a Snake. You aren't completely comfortable with that, considering that you define Snake as chaotic, whimsical, and (maybe) selfish. Which is a more negative spin.

Like a lot of Snakes, you model something else over the top, and YOU seem to model Exploded Bird, which can't be fun. For whatever good it will do, I don't think people are 'good' or 'bad.' I think they're either growing, or stagnating. And you're here, so you're at least trying to grow.

(But yeah, your secondary does sound Burnt. Sorry about that. It makes things trickier.)