I can see the Dany parallel, but Jon is nowhere near her level of incompetence. Jon fails to build support for his reforms because he fails to grasp just how little political capital he actually has to spend and completely misinterprets his father's warnings against friendship when he sends his friends away, but every decision he makes really is a solid strategic decision towards strengthening the Watch.
Dany outright blunders with her unwillingness to use her dragons, her unwillingness to use necessary force against the Sons of the Harpy, and her decision to let some of those sick with the Pale Mare into the city. Dany attempted to appease the Mereenese when really she and the Mereenese nobility had no common interest to work towards. Jon appeased the Wildlings, and his men hated him for it, but the Wildlings stayed loyal to him because they actually had common interests to pursue. Also, I can't confirm it, because it never came down to it, but I feel like Jon would have used the Wildlings children he had hostage if need be, whereas Dany couldn't pull the trigger on her hostages.
So yeah, I see your point, and there's definitely some Dany in Jon, but I still see him as closer to Tyrion, done in by his own people's preconceived mistrust of him rather than by his failure to adequately deal with his enemies like Dany.
Dany's blunders stick out more, but she was in a much more difficult place in terms of politics. Jon had quite a few friends on the wall (until he sent every last one of them off to the furthest reaches of the wall), while Dany had significantly fewer allies.
Her attempts to appease the nobles were a necessary learning experience for her if she ever hopes to rule on a large scale. As Tywin said to Joffrey, when your enemy kneels before you, you help them up. She didn't always handle the situation in the best way, but she had to try.
Jon's decisions strengthened the watch's numbers, but he also alienated many members of the watch. He was also shown to be pretty stubborn in his own views (far more so than Dany). Basically every conversation between him and Bowen Marsh boils down to:
Jon: I'm going to do this.
Bowen: I'm not sure if that is the best idea.
Jon: I don't care, I'm going to do it anyway. (Proceeds to make no compromises or heed any advice)
Jon would be a fool to let Bowen run things, but he should have at least listened to him some of the time, or at least made some compromises. Even iron hard Stannis understands the importance of making compromises and keeping your advisers happy. If Jon had shown some willingness to work with him, Bowen Marsh and his conspirators likely would have remained in support of him.
Tyrion in a Clash of Kings showed himself to be very capable at heeding advice and changing his plans based on what those around him thought. He listened to what Varys and Jacelyn said, he worked with Littlefinger, and he even made compromises to Cersei at various points to keep her placated. Jon had some great ideas, and certainly contributed a lot to the defense of the realm, but his execution of those ideas was what served to forge the daggers in the dark.
Jon intentionally distanced himself from everyone, not only friends like Pyp, Grenn and Sam, but people like Toad and Satin as well. People who could have given him a head's up. Only Edd was left. He also ignored Melisandre's warnings even though he knew they were probably true. And, Robb-style, he left his direwolf behind.
I think even Edd was sent away later on. He really completely missed the concept of having allies whatsoever.
Sure, but then again, they are in incredibly hard positions. For Dany in particular it's quite possible that there was no single wise course of action. Every alternative sucked as well, like abandoning her freedmen or a wholesale massacre in slaver's bay.
Yeah, certainly. Dany was in a position where there was no really great action. Which is an important theme to the novel in particular. Ruling isn't easy, and there frequently won't be a 'right' option.
