Who Do You Disagree With But Acknowledge Is/Was Prepared To Be President?

[Free Bird]

The title explains it all. Which presidential candidates (or past or prospective future ones) do you mostly disagree with but, in terms of qualifications, do not question their preparedness for the job?

I for one disagree(d) a great deal with Hillary and Joe Biden (and, in retrospect, John McCain), but I still think that they could step into the office on day one without much help needed. I guess you could throw Al Gore in there as well even if I don't remember his campaign, though I was alive during it technically. By contrast, I disagree with Pete and Yang a lot, but I also think, on top of that, that they both are completely unprepared for the job.

[T'Chenka]

Hillary Clinton is the obvious answer IMO.

[morgieb]

Probably harsh to say Hillary as I still agreed with her more than Trump. But yes, there's little question on whether she's ready to be President. Same applies to Biden.

On the other side, Romney is probably the best answer in recent years. Or Jeb.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I'm inclined to say that this applies to most of the losing Republican nominees in recent past: Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole.

I suppose this can in part be attributed to that odd habit of the American electorate to vote the less experienced and/or less qualified candidate into office (applies to 2016, 2008, and 2000 for instance), except when it's an incumbent president running for re-election.

The last winning, non-incumbent Republican nominee which I considered to be sufficiently qualified for the job was probably George H. W. Bush in 1988.

[Free Bird]

I'm inclined to say that this applies to most of the losing Republican nominees in recent past: Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole.

I suppose this can in part be attributed to that odd habit of the American electorate to vote the less experienced and/or less qualified candidate into office (applies to 2016, 2008, and 2000 for instance), except when it's an incumbent president running for re-election.

The last winning, non-incumbent Republican nominee which I considered to be sufficiently qualified for the job was probably George H. W. Bush in 1988.

I think the tendency you mentioned has a lot to do with a combination of the Next-In-Line and Pendulum effects. Oftentimes the third term nominee of a party (or, for that matter, the challenger of an incumbent) is a runner up from the last open cycle that had since gained a lot of relevant experience that qualifies them even further than they were during their first run. They're qualified, but the country is almost always in the mood to reelect the incumbent or for the other party to control the White House after two terms.

In that regard, 1996 is a really underrated race with just how qualified both of the major party nominees were. Bob Dole was immensely prepared to step in, and Clinton obviously had already been on the job for four years. I think it's often overlooked because Dole ran a bad campaign and didn't come particularly close to winning all things considered, but this was probably the most "yeah we'll be fine no matter who wins" race in recent memory.

[Free Bird]

Romney is the obvious answer among Republicans. McCain to some degree but less so; if I had to choose another Republican losing candidate, it would be Dole. None of the losers in primaries would be as high.

I'm interested why you list Romney above McCain. Don't get me wrong, Romney could have stepped in no problems as a manager sort of President, but McCain knew military and foreign matters, where the President has the most clout, like humans know breathing (especially since he was a veteran), and wasn't a slouch in domestic policy either.

[Grassroots]

Clinton was prepared, sure.

[SWE]

I mean yeah, people like Hillary, McCain, Biden, have spent a lot of time in public office, but they spent all that time proving that they shouldn't hold those offices, so I really don't think I have an answer for this one.

[Middle-aged Europe]

I'm inclined to say that this applies to most of the losing Republican nominees in recent past: Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole.

I suppose this can in part be attributed to that odd habit of the American electorate to vote the less experienced and/or less qualified candidate into office (applies to 2016, 2008, and 2000 for instance), except when it's an incumbent president running for re-election.

The last winning, non-incumbent Republican nominee which I considered to be sufficiently qualified for the job was probably George H. W. Bush in 1988.

I think the tendency you mentioned has a lot to do with a combination of the Next-In-Line and Pendulum effects. Oftentimes the third term nominee of a party (or, for that matter, the challenger of an incumbent) is a runner up from the last open cycle that had since gained a lot of relevant experience that qualifies them even further than they were during their first run. They're qualified, but the country is almost always in the mood to reelect the incumbent or for the other party to control the White House after two terms.

In that regard, 1996 is a really underrated race with just how qualified both of the major party nominees were. Bob Dole was immensely prepared to step in, and Clinton obviously had already been on the job for four years. I think it's often overlooked because Dole ran a bad campaign and didn't come particularly close to winning all things considered, but this was probably the most "yeah we'll be fine no matter who wins" race in recent memory.

While this is of course to some extent true it doesn't really explain what kept both major political parties from nominating someone more experienced than George W. Bush, Barack Obama, or Donald Trump. And here comes an additional factor into play: The "non-elitist", non-establishment Washington outsider has seemingly an advantage in the primaries. Not only want voters a different party at the helm after eight years, they want an entirely different type of politician irrespective of his or her party.

With this prioritization the voter often tends to delude himself though. At the core, the longing for an anti-establishment outsider stems from the idea that a Washington politician doesn't understand or care for the average person's needs. However, it's somewhat doubtful that people like Bush or Trump who were essentially born into and grew up in wealthy families have a better understanding of the "common" man than someone who originally had humble beginnings and then has been a senator in Washington for the past 15 years. So, these generally accepted preconceptions haven't necessarily something to do with reality.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Joe Biden

[OSR stands with Israel]

I'm inclined to say that this applies to most of the losing Republican nominees in recent past: Mitt Romney, John McCain, Bob Dole.

I suppose this can in part be attributed to that odd habit of the American electorate to vote the less experienced and/or less qualified candidate into office (applies to 2016, 2008, and 2000 for instance), except when it's an incumbent president running for re-election.

The last winning, non-incumbent Republican nominee which I considered to be sufficiently qualified for the job was probably George H. W. Bush in 1988.

I think a lot of the reason has to do with how the dynamic in the post Cold War era was like but from 1932-2000 every President we have had were experienced and qualified with the exception of Carter and maybe JFK


FDR- Governor of New York and created a proto New Deal as Governor

Truman - Senator for 10 years

Eisenhower - General during WW2 who led allied forces to victory on Western Front

Kennedy - In Congress for 13 years before becoming President with 7 of those years being senator

LBJ - Senate Majority Leader and Vice President

Nixon - Vice President for 8 years

Ford - House Minority Leader

Carter - This is an exception and that was cause in 1976 in post watergate , voters wanted an actual outsider

Reagan - Two Term Governor the largest state in the union and despite having the Dems control the state legislature he got much of his agenda passed

HW Bush - Congressman , UN Ambassador , CIA Director , Vice President for 8 years



I think the post Cold War landscape changed things in which voters want someone outside of Washington

[darklordoftech]

Dewey both times he ran, Nixon all three times he was nominated, HW Bush whenever he ran, both candidates in 1996, McCain in 2008

[😥]

Former: John McCain
Current: Ron DeSantis, Josh Hawley, Charlie Baker (disagree with him rarely)

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Former:

George H.W. Bush, probably the most professionally qualified President we've ever had.
Bob Dole
John McCain (whom I preferred in 2000)
Mitt Romney

Current/Future:

Mike Pence
Nikki Haley
Marco Rubio
John Kasich

[Kingpoleon]

Not that I broadly disagree with him, but I tend to agree: George H. W. Bush had been Ambassador to the UN and China(~4 years), Director of Central Intelligence(~1 year), Congressman, and Vice President. He had foreign policy, intelligence, legislative, and executive experience and was overwhelmingly qualified.

As for Presidents: Bill Clinton, FDR, Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama - I have rather low~ish standards of experience, I guess.

[Santander]

NYCMM

[Hammy]

Clinton was prepared, sure.

Clinton was absolutely prepared for the presidency, and whether effective or not had the experience necessary to at least know what she was doing. She just wasn't prepared to run an effective campaign against an internet troll.

[Dr Oz Lost Party!]

McCain and H.W. Bush.

[Fuzzy Bear]

Of the present candidates of both parties:

Bloomberg
Klobuchar
Biden
Bennet
Sanders
Warren
Weld