So 23 are running for Presidency and I so wish Al Franken was there too , he would have made a formidable candidate.
Out of all these have never have heard of Marianne Williamson, so just looked up, she seems to be impressive.
But there is only one candidate out of all seems to be the most intelligent , educated , war veteran is the Mayor of South bend Indiana Pete Buttigieg .
He can stand up to donald trump the bully with no previous experience and a draft doggier and now the accidental President.
2
How much political experience does it take to be elected president of the U.S. ? Judging by recent history, apparently none. And it obviously doesn't take any intellect, ethics, morals, values, character, grit, backbone, verisimilitude, charisma, manners, common decency, compassion patriotism, courage, trustworthiness, knowledge, skill or common sense either. It appears to be a position that, just lately, has a very low barrier to entry.
In fact, it would appear that given the choice, about half of American voters would gladly elect a jellyfish to the office.
Thinking back over presidents in my lifetime so far, two in particular stand out - Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson. Both knew the tricks of Congress, where the "bodies were buried" -and they weren't above a few tricks themselves. But each had a vision - a vision to introduce policies that would help the "common man" and be for the "common good". Roosevelt saw the urgency of the programs he put into place because he came in during the dire Great Depression. And Johnson, who grew up poor and from the "wrong side of the tracks", understood in his bones why the Great Society programs were important. Whoever is the candidate with such grounding, who has a fearless vision of what could be as opposed to trying to recapture the past, or to try to hold on to what is - at this time of vast income inequality - stands a good chance to win in 2020.
3
The type of experience that utterly disqualifies a candidate for the Presidency is the rich CEO of a large wholly owned private corporation. Donald Trump comes to mind, but the exclusion should be universal.
Anyone in that position is there to avoid having to compromise, to avoid following rules, to believe that laws are for others and that the legal profession is to help avoid those laws. Even if the intent is not malicious it leaves the particular individual with an utter vacuum in the absolutely most important features of the job.
2
THE ELECTION-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
Fully 15 of the 23 announced candidates have no business running for president.
In any other year, they would not be given any attention or consideration due to their lack of viability or seriousness.
But in the age of the 24-Hour news cycle and Social Media banality, anyone who announces for president is given consideration and attention.
This phenomena began in the Democratic primaries of 2004, was grotesquely obvious in the GOP primaries of 2012, and now has become the absurdity we see this year.
Call it for what it is ... an "Election-Industrial Complex"
Like the Military-Industrial Complex, which is designed to perpetuate war for the purpose of profit.
Like the Prison-Industrial Complex, which is designed to perpetuate crime for the purpose of profit.
The Election-Industrial Complex is a collusion of media/advertising/public-relations/political consulting firms to perpetuate an endless election cycle for the purposes of profit.
Bram Stark for President!
OK, all kidding aside. This looks at government experience only as the last position. Maybe years of government service should also be charted. What about military service (and does combat cound differently than clerical?) Age?
An interesting chart, but not exactly indicative of the sum of experience that voters hopefully take into account. And based on the current President (who lost the popular vote) it would seem to be a fool's errand to use past experience and performance in any employment as a criteria for electability.
What does seem to matter is the ability to leverage emerging media. Kennedy mastered television while Nixon sweated. Reagan took it to the next level with Teleprompters, saturday radio addresses and a mastery of pageantry. Clinton understood the 24-hour news cycle while Bush was baffled by checkout scanners. Obama understood the power of the web and social media. And Trump weaponized Twitter.
Who will master Instagram?
I wish this article had discussed not only "experience," but "service." In principle there is no reason why a person who has shown wisdom and leadership skills only in the private sector should not be president. But should we ever elect as the leader of our nation a person who has no record of public service whatsoever? I think to do so, as happened for the first time ever in 2016, is not only to devalue the virtue of public service, but to diminish the presidency itself.
And that's not to mention the practical value of prior relevant public service. After all, we're electing a person to do not only the most important job in our country, but possibly the most difficult job in the world. Does anyone really think about that before casting their vote? In 2016, enough voters were swayed by other, and I'd argue lesser and faulty, considerations to send Donald Trump to the White House. Our country may never recover, at least in the eyes of the rest of the world, who once thought that the U.S. among all nations was wiser and better than that.
It is embarrassing to see our very unpopular Congressman listed here as a Candidate. He will have a tough time holding onto his Congressional Seat in 2020 after his ridiculous, self-serving attacks on Speaker Pelosi.
These data say more about the degraded state of the American electorate than the qualifications the candidates. Remember when the test was "Would I prefer to have a beer with candidate A than candidate B?"
It can now truly be said that the American people get the government that they deserve. Infrastructure bills to shore up bridges, pave potholed freeways, plant trees and repair traffic lights are all great. But who will repair the crumbling minds of American voters?
Governor Inslee also has 4 terms in the House of Representatives. He has significant legislative and executive experience.
To run our country(or anything else) it takes PERSPECTIVE(more than anything else)
PERSPECTIVE--"The capacity to view things in their true relations or
relative importance" (Merriam Webster)
We're told as children "if you work hard and with honesty, anyone can grow up to be president". Trump gives lie to that adage - because he never grew up. I wouldn't go so far as to require a citizenship compentency test for the office but - no, I take that back. Every candidate should be able to ennumerate the articles of the Constitution, understand the balance of power between the Fed and the States, the levels of the judiciary, etc. Wrestlers and movie action heroes can become governors, B movie actors can become president, anything is possible in America - except, apparently, socio-political parity for our citizens.
2
I would propose a Constitutional amendment adding, as a qualification to be a candidate for president, experience in elected office at state or Federal level.
"How Much Political Experience Does It Take to Be Elected President?"
Well based on our current occupant in the White House: NONE!
I appreciate this piece. People, including on the left, overemphasize ego and "relatability." Cynthia Nixon almost became governor of 20 million people with no experience. JB Pritzker is the governor of 13 million with no experience. Why? Because they had the time and money to plaster their face everywhere and say obvious progressive things.
Experience counts! It's hard to get a job as a server without prior experience. You need someone with decades of experience to properly manage the intricacies of our government. I cite as examples Nancy Pelosi and Mitch McConnell. Say what you will about your feelings toward either of them. There is no denying that they know how to play the game and how to broker deals and put together coalitions in favor of what they need. Like it or not, that is what it takes to lead in the toxic and volatile political realm. You need someone with the credentials to pull it off, not just some telegenic provincial leader who spouts progressive bumper stickers.
Experience is highly important , just take a look at the current President donald J. trump almost 73 and running havoc and all he does is tweet anyone who antagonizes him.
If by "political" you mean "public service" or more specifically "elected public service," I wonder how you can even ask the question, given the experience of our current president.
I don't understand why you didn't list Joe Biden as both VP and Senate. How come?
How much political experience does it take to be elected President? Clearly none!
We must be in America if the most important job in government can be attained w/o prior experience...
Interesting graphic, but I wish it included military experience.
How Much Political Experience Does It Take to Be Elected President?
Not sure
But to represent Queens you need 0 work experience.
You can have a resume with 2 temp jobs that lasted less than 6 months each and win the election, at least you can if you are a Liberal Democrat.
Instead of this rather silly game how about a debate on listing the knowledge, skills and personal attributes most needed in a US president.
As far as setting the bar goes, I hope we never go lower than Trump.
No president in the modern era (FDR to present) has known less or lied more than Trump. No reasonable, objective person could say otherwise. This alone renders him entirely unfit for and unworthy of office.
The bar hasn't changed. Trump is an outlier. He has made a lifetime effort, ambitiously, to appear larger than life to a degree unheard of in American civilization. The effort culminated with an extremely popular t.v. show, The Apprentice. There were many who saw him as completely obnoxious on the show, but, somehow he switched into a more effective gear as a presidential candidate wooing many of those into his camp. It took enormous creativity to find himself in that position. One of the ways that manifested in the election was his exquisite ability to think on his feet and bring more humor into the frequently boring election process. Americans also were impressed with his compelling budgetary skill in managing his election expenses cautiously, a rather unique skill in presidential politics. His methods were so clever they got past the attention of 99.999 per cent of the political pundits. Those who want to defeat Trump in 2020 should perhaps have started their efforts at about 25 years of age as he did. He has been negotiating with individuals and with the American public for years. Those who underestimate those abilities will perhaps end up like James Holzhauer's competitors on another popular t.v. show. I am sure many under-estimators will take their shots here at what I have suggested. I would propose it would behoove them to get past their ill feelings and watch him more carefully.
As this piece opens by citing James Garfield as the last sitting House member elected president it may be worth noting that Garfield was actually elected to the US Senate in 1880 -- but before he took his seat in the senate he was elected president.
Garfield, who was also a Major General in the Civil War (and thus like Eisenhower, Washington, Harrison and Jackson a former military leader as well) was elected to the U.S. Senate by the Ohio legislature in early 1880, then chosen to help broker the 1880 Republican presidential nominating process - which ended up with him chosen after a protracted deadlock among other candidates. He was then elected and sworn in as president instead of taking his senate job.
5
Trump was the interesting outlier. Would have been interesting to see what would have happened with Ross Perot-- had he not dropped out for six weeks.
OTOH Hillary was a relatively easy-to-beat candidate despite the Times etc. proclaiming that she was winning by a large margin in the polls. Having lost the nomination to BHO she should NOT have run or maybe she did do the right thing and made it OK for women at large to run.
Sexism being rampant -- even when people say they are not-- I suspect the Dems this time round will come to Sanders or Biden -- and according to this essay -- more likely than not that either will win -- I would throw in ageism as a factor. OTOH it would be awfully interesting if Oprah decided to run!! in tandem with Warren for whom I hope but whose presidency I cannot see has happening.
Time to concentrate on taking over the Senate... or time for all women to get out their wooden spoons and raise it up as a symbol of rage and determination or a pink pussy hat.
2
How much political experience do it take to be president. Apparently none. And look how the country is suffering from the fumbling and bumbling of a total political novice. Business experience? - my aching rear end.
3
I would argue that Trump has no prior experience at all - other than Scam Artist. Well, OK, successful experience.
2
Isn't this chart a little misrepresentative of Biden's experience, which surely is filled out by his lengthy experience in the Senate, and in Congress in general, before assuming the job title of VP?
3
The chart on the 'front page' is different from the chart in the story (where VP is ranked higher than cabinet member, that is, lower on the chart). Since you bother to explain the ranking system, you might want to keep them consistent. I found it odd that Biden as VP was not at the top (bottom) of the list.
based on the current office holder none.
you get what you pay for not what you deserve.
Biden is listed as only serving at VP? Didn't he work in the Senate for a little while or the House?
He was elected to the Senate when he was twenty-nine and served continuously until his election to the vice-presidency.
Hopefully, in the future it takes no political experience to become President of the United States. One look at that graphic in this story tells it all. What a bunch incompetent people on that list. Not one of them is qualified to become President of the United States. On the positive side, it is good that the average person feels empowered to run for the office of the President.
Didn't Obama come from the House? The graphic reports him with Senate experience.
No, he came from the Senate. He never served in the House.
No. He was the junior senator from Illinois.
It takes no political experience at all to be elected president. It does, however, take political experience, and many other qualities and innate abilities not possessed by the current president, to govern well as president.
Trump got elected through name recognition, bloated claims and outright lies about his abilities, and most of all through naked appeal to the darker instincts of many voters. In short, he got in like any other demagogue, which is what he is.
This episode in our history validates one of Lincoln's most famous quips -- you most surely can fool some of the people all of the time.
1
Well, at least it's NO shock why Trump is literally the worst President EVAR.
NO Experience!
NO Qualifications!
Why exactly did Republicans elect that narcissist anyway?
1
Regardless of where they came from, all prior presidents actually had a deep interest in governance. Therefore we expect that presidents (and candidates) would already be immersed in government and politics at some level.
It ought to be clear to everyone that the current president has little or no interest in government at all. He interest is in self gratification. For him it is the ultimate in ego stroking. He will say anything and do anything for it. Lying, throwing red meat to the base and insulting all opponents is all we get with such a person.
And the party that put him there? Today's GOP simply adores red meat and being in charge. Apparently it does not matter what happens to the country.
10
Judging from the 2016 election zero political experience is necessary to be elected president and we pay the price each and every day trump remains in office. One hopes the electorate has learned it lesson.
1
A new low bar has been set. It's now outrageous, cheesy reality television show persona and experience that resonates with a sizeable portion of Americans. None of the Democratic candidates have reality television experience or demonstrate pathological narcissism, so 2020 is looking bleak for them.
4
Trump has set a low bar. And let this not be a precedent. Experience counts. It matters a lot. Yes, we still have had a Nixon and even a war-mongering, recession producing, George W. who both - one would think - should have been able to govern better. This brings us to the characteristic which must be wedded to experience...that is an ethical code in sync with a strong moral compass. I look at our Democratic candidates; and even though I have my preferences, I will withhold judgement right now. I want to know more about their past accomplishments in the field of leadership, particularly in government. Simultaneously, I want to be reassured that they have no skeletons in the closet, so to speak. Let us allow ourselves the time and thought to listen to the mayors, the cabinet member, vice-president, and House representatives as well as our senators and governors. This election is probably the most important and crucial one in many of our life times, definitely in mine. This nation can not sustain itself another four years under Trumpism. Heavens, our democracy can barely eke by with each passing day.
1
Other comments will exhaustively identify those metrics we should use before we "hire" anyone to represent us. I prefer to reflect on the China/America dilemma we face making the change an immediate imperative.
China practices state capitalism. The gov owns many firms and decides which will receive subsidies, market protection, and low interest loans. But that control doesn't stop with corporations in China. When Shenzhen needed workers, China unilaterally ordered people to relocate. When Shenzhen needed food to feed those workers, China unilaterally expropriated farm output to the cities.
Our democracy does not allow such latitude. Not since FDR and WWII did America make such wholesale shifts in production. But what we can do is prevent inept narcissists with no experience and no interest in the welfare of America from getting elected. What we can do is insure that elected people are not serving their own financial interests versus those of the country.
If we're to compete with China, which we are NOT doing, we need the best and the brightest to lead the nation. As evidenced by Trump enormous failure with tariffs and admitted unwillingness to listen to research, our system needs massive reform.
Thanks to Trump, there is no bar. It is up to the American people to raise the standard for what we expect of our 'leaders'. I hope we are up to the task. If not, we are doomed.
This is totally misleading in saying that 1880 was the last time someone from the House was elected. Among recent presidents with experience in the House of Representatives, John F. Kennedy served in the House before the Senate, Lyndon Baines Johnson served 12 years in the House before the Senate, and George H.W. Bush served in the House as well.
The chart is based on the highest previous position held, not any position. JFK was a Senator when elected President as was LBJ. Bush was VP. Is that meaningful? Probably not. But that's what the chart represents.
To quote the fictional Eli Gold in the Good Wife; "I get along with Republicans, Protestants, Catholics, even a few reporters. But the one thing I hate, is amateurs." ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqoH8ZsVS_w )
In terms of presidential elections, I'd like to see candidates from all parties with at least a few years of experience dealing with national and international governmental issues. Running a business is NOT the same as governing. Some skills and traits are transferable, such as ethical behavior, evidence based decision making, and work ethic. But many others are not.
We as voters need to pay a bit more attention what our future leaders have accomplished in the way of representing us, rather than simply "likability" or that they are a change from the previous occupant.
Hmmm, as the first non-politician to win the Presidency, I wonder if Mr Trump is the first person to actually try to do what was promised?
Interesting, but not useful. I'd rather see a check list of the top requirements for the job and then how the "applicants" stack up. We've seen what happens when someone who has no experience performs. It's not a one-task job. The POTUS should be competent and fluent (experienced) in issues affecting "we the people" first. Show us that. We'll let you know who is most popular at the voting booth.
It should be noted that Julian Castro was not only a member of the Cabinet (as presented in the chart) but was also the successful mayor of one of the largest cities in the U.S.- San Antonio, Texas.
I am not sure how much a sample size of 45, spread over 230+ years in which vast changes have occurred, tells us.
It used to be said, "Anyone can grow up to become president." Trump has shown, "Anyone can be president," and he does not have to grow up. It speaks volumes, which should frighten everyone, that so many voters believed that the one candidate who had no experience whatsoever in working as either an elected or appointed governmental official was, somehow, qualified. God help the Republic if a real crises arises. Trump cannot even maturely handle a barb from Nancy Pelosi.
1
Yes, he proved anyone can become president. What we've learned is that a good president is made, not born.
Pedantry of the day: There seem to be a few yellow dots missing from the second chart.
Main thought: Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln and FDR were probably the most successful US Presidents, One general, one VP, one Congressman and one Governor. So a particular CV is not a predictor of success. But you could make a good argument that no governing or command experience is poor preparation for the job and the incumbent reinforces that argument quite forcibly. Yes, it's a small sample size, but still ...
1
Only 2 of the 23 candidates have any military service (Moulton and Buttigieg).
Considering that one of the biggest responsibilities is to be Commander and Chief of all armed services, I still consider prior military service an important asset in choosing a President that should not be dismissed. While I voted for Obama in 2008 over McCain, I felt that Obama's lack of military experience was a minus. Just as in 2004 when I voted for Kerry over Bush, I felt that Kerry's real life combat military experience was extremely cogent at the time given our predicaments in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I just wish that more candidates for President had frontline military experience.
Experience? Trump's experience was building a Mafia like business empire based on lies and suffering and propping it up by legal circumvention- papering over losses. By this standard EVERYONE is qualified to be President.
But this is not the standard. Genuine success and accomplishment, demonstrated moral and political courage, native intelligence, maturity and a track record demonstrating sound judgement- these are some areas to consider.
In my view, this does not require a career in politics- some would even argue a career in politics and integrity are an oxymoron- but I strongly disagree. Successful foreign policy, legislative and governing experience are important and potentially useful.
I think all of the current Democratic candidates have the aforementioned qualities to varying degrees. It will be up to voters to discern who best can face today's challenges. And quite frankly, based on recent experience- heaven help us.
4
It should not be up to the candidate to determine whether or not she/he is qualified. There should be a set of standards that must be met before being able to get into the primaries.
When I was fresh out of graduate school, I applied for a social work position. The interviewing process and background check were more detailed and extensive than any required for trump.
6
Experience is important...but character is much more important than experience.
Does the candidate have a sense of right and wrong ?
Does the candidate have a relationship with the truth ?
Does the candidate actually care about 330 million Americans ?
Does the candidate care about the rule of law ?
Does the candidate speak passable English ?
Is the candidate an ally of oligarchy or democracy ?
Is the candidate a consumer fraud expert ?
Does the candidate subscribe to trickle-down fraudonomics ?
Does the candidate more closely relate to the struggles of 330 million Americans or 330 oligarchs ?
Our last President had pretty good character and did a good job, albeit imperfect thanks to Republican sabotage, sedition and their own wretched character.
Our current President has the character of Charles Ponzi, Dennis the Menace and a deeply disturbed psychological black hole happy to swallow the country and the world into his narcissistic abyss.
Choose character, America.... not a right-wing dupe appealing to fear, loathing and your frightened amygdala so billionaires can raid the national treasury, infrastructure and future.
22
Buttigieg fits the bill 100%
1
The "Senator" category is a bit deceptive in that Obama only served a few years and basically started running for president almost as soon as he got there (so he didn't really have much experience as a senator). Before that, JFK (1960) was the last senator elected directly from the Senate who had served at least one full term. It seems like the Senate ought to be a good place to run for president but at least in the modern era [last fifty hears or so] it really hasn't been [even more true for the House]. On balance, the electorate tends to favor two things: 1) Executive experience which could be political [governor, vice president] but also military [Eisenhower] or even business [Trump]; 2) A Washington outsider. The Senate (or House) simply doesn't give you executive experience plus it makes you a Washington insider [but the less you're there, like Obama, the less you're tainted]. I feel reasonably confident in saying that none of the Senate or House members running for president will be elected president [though someone might end up on the ticket in the VP slot]. Everything right now points to Biden though I'm sure a progressive alternative will emerge [probably Warren] who will make it competitive for a while, but will fade in the end.
3
I agree with most of this but I would point out that Kennedy started running for President very early as well (he nearly took the vice presidential nomination in 1956).
1
This lists seven presidents whose "highest" previous elected position was the U.S. Senate, but only three of them had no executive office before the presidency : Harding, Kennedy and Obama. All but Lyndon Johnson had previous experience as a governor. That nearly all recent candidates of either party have been and are sitting Members of Congress (including Senate), and not governors hints that in today's American paradigm, The Tenth Amendment's constraint upon Articles I and II of the Constitution is obsolete.
At some point - soon, hopefully - it will become incomprehensible that key positions be awarded to completely inexperienced candidates. Whom among us needing surgery would willingly go under the knife of someone who is not only on the first day of the job, but didn't go to med school? Who says they don't like doctors? Who publicly insults other doctors at the hospital? Who can't read or write?
Preposterous.
7
I love optimism! We will NEVER see the day when positions are NOT "awarded" (and that's the operative verb) to the "completely inexperienced".
An actual experience of mine: I once took by 4-yr-old daughter, dehydrated, no appetite, obviously in severe distress to an ER at a "world renowned" local hospital. The "MD" there, just out of their med school, COULD NOT insert the necessary IV needle. I did it MYSELF. Incompetence is rampant in all areas of our society.
1
Going forward we need to enact a law that MANDATES at least ten years government experience before running for president - could be at the state or national level, AND release 7 years of tax records. Period. Had that been in place, Trump wouldn't have run. Of course no such law can be passed until Dems take the house, senate and WH because good luck getting ANY kind of reform past McConnell's senate. You need experience and training to drive a school bus, but not for the hardest job in the world? C'mon....
1
Does reading the newspaper count as a "Political Experience?"
@Heckler Unfortunately, our current president does not read. Let alone read the newspaper. Sad.
Remember the Marx Brothers movie "Duck Soup" looks down at the paperwork on his desk and says, "Why a four-year-old child could understand this report. Run out and find me a four-year-old child, I can't make head or tail out of it."
That's where we are at right now. Only Trump would end up hiring the four-year old-child and then firing him for not signing a Non-Disclosure Agreement.
7
On the upside it is proof that anyone can do anything. His results have been mixed, but there is now hope for other political outsiders to become president. For those who dislike him or can't get over the fact that he won, remember that many will benefit from the massive disruption to the status quo. It's already enabled some non-politicians to make it into Congress. His winning is also a reminder that California and New York and other parts of the northeast are not representative of all of the US, which is why he won.
2
Nope. After Trump, I'm DONE with "disruptors" and "outsiders". Give me steady and experienced any day. Trump has been a disaster unless one is a member of the 1% and even then, you get more money in your bank account while your country becomes an international laughingstock.
11
Are you unaware, Jim Hayes, that California and NY have liberals, conservatives, independents, progressives, and everything in between? Are you also unaware that California, from 1952-1988, except for 1964, put the R candidate into the WH? One person, one vote should do it. Why do you oppose that?
Is Trump more of a disaster than GW Bush or even Obama? PS maybe it's all about the legislative branch which keeps getting a pass.
I love the close scrutiny of what Trump does. Obama did a lot of damage as you'll learn when you go to manage your own IRA accounts... great friends with all middlemen -- insurance companies and banks. Of course, I did approve of Cuba and his executive orders for the national forests/monuments were great... altho because they were executive orders they could all be overturned.
Can we talk about plastic cups and glasses? (Why is this stuff not incinerated) -- frankly IMO a bigger problem than a lot of this other stuff. I am OTO (of the opinion) that ceramic cups, glass glasses, real plates and flatware should be used at all restaurant chains -- with an extra charge for take-out containers-- bring you own reusable -- I usually do.
Trump follows precedence set by Obama.
Obama was a senator for 4 odd years before becoming President, however he was more or less anointed/ groomed for the job since 2004 when he gave the speech at DNC convention for Kerry. HRC gave a good fight, but he was the chosen one.
My point being, starting with Obama, experience atleast at the Federal level was not a pre-requisite. Trump took it further, with no political experience at any level.
Former President Obama wrote legislation as a Senator for three terms and the last term he ran for Senator he won by a landslide. He was also a brilliant man with a juris doctorate and according to his peers was well versed in Constitutional Law. He won not only the electoral college but the popular vote, twice.
Please explain the real reason that this was that not enough for you.
Obama was a senator and a state senator but for a very short time and had zero accomplishments and really no experience. Trump was at least very financially sophisticated and had actually run a large organization.
1
Trump has proven he was NOT financially experienced; what he was experienced in was a version of Three Card Monty. While he economy has continued to improve on his watch, it has been at thee expense of the environment and banking regulations to name just two things. It was the Republicans who brought us a tax cut, and it is questionable that it has helped anyone not in the top 3%; He brought 2 Court nominees albeit one is tainted (Gorsuch.) He is accepted by those (evangelicals) who should cringe at who he is, because on his watch the way is being paved to reverse Roe v Wade. He has been a disaster at Foreign Policy (so far.) I will grant that he may be bluffing the Chinese, and could possibly win in the long run; but at the cost of the loss of diplomacy elsewhere.
Obama's lack of experience also showed, as he was "wishy-washy" on FP; but domestically he was stonewalled by the Reps for 6 years and despite that we had economic recovery, albeit tepid. If the ACA is a failure, it is as much due to the Reps and the insurance carriers profit seeking, as it is to the flaws in the bill itself.
1
You must be kidding. Have you read anything about the bankruptcies, lawsuits and disaffected former employees? He pays no or little in taxes, as far as we can determine, and yet he has benefitted from tax loopholes, tax credits etc. How about paying a fair share while still taking advantage of what the law allows. Where is his patriotism? We who pay taxes pay his salary. Sorry he may have run a large corporation, but one to which banks no longer will give credit. Sophisticated, perhaps, but well run, I beg to differ
"Very financially sophisticated"? "And had actually run a large organization"? Trump misrepresents both and you believe him. What Trump has accomplished required very little "financial sophistication." Real estate work is relatively straightforward. There is some "sophistication" in having staff create abstruse financing, licensing, and ownership schemes, as well as hiring competent accountants and lawyers to take advantage of the rules. His organization, basically his family, has never been large. Most of Trump's wealth is based on nothing more than folks believing his fame has value. Like the Kardashians, he is famous for being famous. At least P.T. Barnum provided better entertainment. So we have a second-rate circus master as president. Yes, there are still lots of suckers who think anyone can be president.
1
I think it's worth noting that many presidents have also practiced law. After his presidency, William Howard Taft became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
Everything Donald Trump knows about the law comes from suing and being sued.
15
Although many of our presidents were lawyers, few actually "practiced law."
In fact, the only ones who were actively engaged in practicing law for more than a few months were John Adams and Lincoln. And Adams pretty much ignored the law when he was president by instituting the Alien and Sedition Acts, laws that Trump would love to have around so he could lock up anybody who says anything at all negative about him.
Because of the wealth of his half brother, Taft never had to practice law but was pretty much able to start his career as a judge and spend most of his life holding other offices.
He will learn more about law as he becomes embroiled in the criminal justice system. That will be, unfortunately, too late to inform his presidency.
1
....and from breaking the law for a living, Dara.
3
The figure for "No political or military experience" is doubly false: it implies both that the loser never ran for President before (he has more than once), and that he didn't lose in 2016.
Please correct both, for history's sake.
1
Listening to the aspirants for POTUS over the years, most of them are running for Mayor of whatever town they are in because they focus on local issues that are not federal like payment for town employees, streets, local crime rates, et cetera. Yeah, it gets the attention of the audience but the POTUS cannot actually do anything about those issues.
After the trump fiasco, perhaps people might think twice before electing someone with no experience. Actually, someone with emotional intelligence even with no governmental experience might still make a good president if he or she was willing to learn and rely on experts in their given fields. Trump has neither the experience, the ability to learn, or the ability to listen to expert opinions. His incurious nature and temperament, more than his experience or lack thereof, is what makes him unfit for office.
9
When N Korea was acting up, I was very happy that weapons of mass destruction not Hillary Clinton was NOT president. And I don't think tariffs are a terrible thing. I am NOT a neo-liberal. Exploitation of people, resources for economic gain is heinous NO MATTER where in the world it occurs.
Experience for the last thirty years has meant promoting Reagan's policies with which I do not agree.
This is interesting look at who might be next president. What it doesn't predict is who most likely might be a president someday?
How many presidents were once mayors, on the path (congress, senate, governor, vice-president) becoming president?
Also, what are the odds with each background? There are only fifty governors at any one time, but ten have become president. There have been thousands of house members in last 200 years and only 2 became president? Bad odds.
Vice presidents probably have had the best odds. We have had 48 vice-presidents and five became president. Not bad odds.
1
Regarding experience, it's worth noting that Lincoln's service in the House ended 12 years before he became president and consisted of one term while James Buchanan had held multiple important offices in both Congress and the executive branch. Lincoln was at the top of anybody's list of greatest presidents while Buchanan was at the bottom.
Theodore Roosevelt's sole elective offices were as a state senator, governor of NY for 2 years, and VP for about 6 months. Hardly a lot of experience yet he is also considered one of our best VPs. Nixon had served in the House, the Senate and as VP and we know how successful he was as president.
It would seem that what's inside the person is more important than what his experience would seem to be. This is certainly true of Trump, a man whose inner rottedness is so severe that it is doubtful the founders of the country could have ever foreseen the voters would ever elect someone like him.
15
However much experience it takes to be a competent president, Donald Trump doesn't have it.
10
"Anyone in the USA can become President. That is the problem." - George Carlin
23
trump has verified that it takes no brains and even less experience to become the . . .
5
I can tell you what the bar is... It's low...
4