The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[il Padrino Ute]

no you shouldn't have said that because serving as a Senator provides executive experience in a government position.

What you should have said (assuming you believe it) is that you feel that the POTUS should come from the Executive Branch. In that case, then you are correct, a senator would not qualify.

Correct.

[il Padrino Ute]

bro i clearly don't understand what it means to be qualified in your world

I've stated what I think it is to be qualified, but that isn't the issue. I am asking you to name one thing Obama did as either a US Senator, state Senator or head of the Harvard Law Review that you believe qualified him to be POTUS. The only thing you've come up with is that he won elections for those positions. I'm just asking what he did while in any of those positions that qualified him to be POTUS. Its' not about what I think; it's about what you think qualified him.

[HuskyFreeNorthwest]

Success at the executive level , such as a governor of a rather populated state. By success, I mean someone who took a state that was in the red and turned it around. That would demonstrate that one is qualified to lead the US.

So you are not interested in any candidates but Jeb! and Kasich? Is that correct?

[frank ryan]

Do you have any recollection of how Obama addressed foreign policy questions when he went off teleprompter? Um...I tend to think that history has shown that Romney owned him in foreign policy - even though the moderator laughed and declared Obama the winner.

Carson's lack of foreign policy knowledge is Palinesque. http://www.businessinsider.com/ben-c...terview-2015-3

[Topper]

I don't know that any position in the executive branch outside Vice Pres. really prepares a dude for the presidency. Secretary of Homeland Security? Uh nope. Governor is probably as close as it comes. Then a career of distinction as a U.S. Senator probably comes in second, preferably chairing a sweet committee or two. Also, Americans love a candidate with a distinguished record of military service, which I guess feeds into the foreign policy 'Commander in Chief' qualification. In short, a well-rounded, charismatic, intelligent individual with a sterling collegiate/military record with a distinguished record of government service is what probably best qualifies a candidate. Jeb Bush and Hillary it is.

I don't believe we have any candidate that is well-qualified to do a good job. We have candidates one of which will become President but that doesn't mean they have the experience and qualifications necessary to succeed.

We tend to overlook the need for extensive executive and administrative experience. The only exception to that of a governor of a populous state is a high ranking military official. Eisenhower would be viewed as having a successful presidency by most, and it is obvious his significant executive and administrative experience as head of the US military in WWII gave him the ability to both be elected and to govern.

Today's candidates are deficient in experience and abilities. Hillary has had one elected position and did not distinguish herself as Senator from her borrowed state of New York. She also failed to distinguish herself as Secretary of State and her email snafu speaks to her administrative abilities if her explanation is to be believed. Other than that, the only experience she is becoming old. Somehow simply being old makes one qualified. ?!

Bernie is a joke, but charismatic because he can tell people what they wish were true. You can have a richness of benefits at no cost except by taxing the mythical rich. Do we really want somebody whose sole experience is in the massively populated state of Vermont? Choosing somebody from Alaska was a mistake for the GOP. It doesn't matter, Bernie is nothing more than side show entertainment.

Rubio, whom I like, is somewhat akin to a certain Senator from Massachusetts fifty-five years ago, charismatic, lightly experienced and likely to encircle himself with smart, experienced insiders. I wonder if his personal finances should cause us concern.

Kasich is probably the most qualified of the candidates, serving as a successful governor of Ohio. I like him but he isn't getting much traction.

Neither Trump nor Carson would do well unless they selected outstanding insiders. Being outsiders with little experience, would render them like Carter in 1976 and later in 1980.

Is there anybody else worth discussing? Cruz? Can't and won't win. He's smart but mostly unelectable.

Qualifications:

Charisma and media savvy.
Executive Experience in management of large bureaucracy.
Administrative Experience.
Foreign Relations experience. (This should be successful experience; experience of failure should not recommend a candidate).
Familiarity with the Judicial System.
Business Acumen and Economically Principled.
Connections Sufficient to Finance an Election.
Lack of Scandals

[San Juan Sun]

Charisma and media savvy.
Executive Experience in management of large bureaucracy.
Administrative Experience.
Foreign Relations experience. (This should be successful experience; experience of failure should not recommend a candidate).
Familiarity with the Judicial System.
Business Acumen and Economically Principled.
Connections Sufficient to Finance an Election.
Lack of Scandals

I know the perfect guy. Too bad he applied twice and didn't get the job.

[Maximus]

I know the perfect guy. Too bad he applied twice and didn't get the job.

He was missing the first one.

[San Juan Sun]

He was missing the first one.

If you don't like Mitt, you can SaD and GTFO.

[old_gregg]

If you don't like Mitt, you can SaD and GTFO.

also, esad

[Northwestcoug]

Carson's lack of foreign policy knowledge is Palinesque. http://www.businessinsider.com/ben-c...terview-2015-3

It sounds like the media might have overreacted over some of his autobiography. Still, his lack of foreign policy (and pretty much everything else outside of neurosurgery) knowledge should be what voters should focus on.

[Moliere]

If you don't like Mitt, you can SaD and GTFO.

Also, I wonder how long this thread will get before someone gives a major accomplishment of Hillary

[scottie]

It sounds like the media might have overreacted over some of his autobiography. Still, his lack of foreign policy (and pretty much everything else outside of neurosurgery) knowledge should be what voters should focus on.

And also inside of neurosurgery/medicine; don't forget about his association with an MLM essential oils company and his response to Trump’s anti-vaccine rant.

[Topper]

Also, I wonder how long this thread will get before someone gives a major accomplishment of Hillary

That reminds me of the children's song, "this is the song that never ends." Hillary's accomplishments are limited to attaining a position, not doing anything once she had a position. Attainment is something that most of us cannot achieve. Most of us can't get elected to the US Senate and most of us can't be appointed Secretary of State, but there is an spooky silence when one must discuss accomplishment in those jobs.

[scottie]

This has surely been said here already, but 2016 would be a slam-dunk for Mitt, however the risk of losing again, and this time to Hillary, is just too much for his--and most people's--ego.

[Topper]

This has surely been said here already, but 2016 would be a slam-dunk for Mitt, however the risk of losing again, and this time to Hillary, is just too much for his--and most people's--ego.

Why do you say that?

Isn't it a demographic battle that forces the GOP to run uphill? With the GOP conceding New York, California, most likely Michigan and Illinois, there are too many toss ups for any GOP to run comfortably. Ohio and Florida (remember Obama won Florida) are difficult now for the GOP to win, as are some other toss ups such as Nevada and New Mexico.