What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Barrister]

It also seems a bit odd to describe someone as 'possessing no qualifications whatsoever for higher office, no policies that made sense, and no charisma.' and then styling them the least terrible of the terrible candidates...by sole virtue of the fact that they won. Not that you've done that but what seems to in general be shaping up when we are post facto determining who was a 'good candidate.'

It is of course wrong to describe Trump as having no qualifications whatsoever.  He certainly did have some.  He had a through-the-roof name recognition as a result of being a public figure for the last 30 years.  He also had the good luck to really be able to absolutely own the anti-illegal immigration issue since almost all of his opponents had proposed various immigration compromises in the past.

[Razgovory]

It also seems a bit odd to describe someone as 'possessing no qualifications whatsoever for higher office, no policies that made sense, and no charisma.' and then styling them the least terrible of the terrible candidates...by sole virtue of the fact that they won. Not that you've done that but what seems to in general be shaping up when we are post facto determining who was a 'good candidate.'

It is of course wrong to describe Trump as having no qualifications whatsoever.  He certainly did have some.  He had a through-the-roof name recognition as a result of being a public figure for the last 30 years.  He also had the good luck to really be able to absolutely own the anti-illegal immigration issue since almost all of his opponents had proposed various immigration compromises in the past.

That's not really a qualification for office, that's more of a stance on an issue.

[frunk]

It is of course wrong to describe Trump as having no qualifications whatsoever.  He certainly did have some.  He had a through-the-roof name recognition as a result of being a public figure for the last 30 years.  He also had the good luck to really be able to absolutely own the anti-illegal immigration issue since almost all of his opponents had proposed various immigration compromises in the past.

That's not qualifications.  That doesn't tell me he's capable of doing the job, which is what qualifications are about.  That's name recognition and a specific position.

They certainly helped him get elected, but aren't qualifications.

[Malthus]

It also seems a bit odd to describe someone as 'possessing no qualifications whatsoever for higher office, no policies that made sense, and no charisma.' and then styling them the least terrible of the terrible candidates...by sole virtue of the fact that they won. Not that you've done that but what seems to in general be shaping up when we are post facto determining who was a 'good candidate.'

It is of course wrong to describe Trump as having no qualifications whatsoever.  He certainly did have some.  He had a through-the-roof name recognition as a result of being a public figure for the last 30 years.  He also had the good luck to really be able to absolutely own the anti-illegal immigration issue since almost all of his opponents had proposed various immigration compromises in the past.

Neither of those are "qualifications for higher office" though.

I'm thinking of stuff like 'years of public service', 'demonstrated track record of success in public office', that sort of thing.

Having name recognition for appearing in seasons of a reality show, and the same anti-immigrant stance as that obnoxious uncle you try to avoid at family gatherings, isn't the same thing - even if they help him win.

The fact he's a businessman is closer - though his business career isn't exactly one of unalloyed honors.

[Barrister]

I don't think you can separate out "things that make it likely to be elected" from "things that mean he'll do a good job once elected".  Being electable is a key qualification for being a politician.

I think I would make an excellent politician, but I doubt I'd ever be able to get elected.  Which would of course make me a terrible politician.

And yes "running a billion dollar business" is probably a qualification in and of itself, even given his numerous failures.

[garbon]

I don't think you can separate out "things that make it likely to be elected" from "things that mean he'll do a good job once elected".  Being electable is a key qualification for being a politician.

I think I would make an excellent politician, but I doubt I'd ever be able to get elected.  Which would of course make me a terrible politician.

[Grey Fox]

Yes, how do we fix that?

People have to dial down cynicism, on everything.  Cynicism is not a sign of wisdom, it's a cheap substitute.  Cynicism is toxic to free society.

You are asking for a LOT.

[The Minsky Moment]

And yes "running a billion dollar business" is probably a qualification in and of itself, even given his numerous failures.

Brought to you by the Madoff for President Committee.

[crazy canuck]

Being electable is a key qualification for being a politician.

We were discussing how someone who was not qualified for high public office became electable.  I suppose you have provided the answer - if enough people thought the way you do. 

[derspiess]

The Republicans fielded a large number of presidential hopefuls. Trump defeated the lot. Were they all also 'terrible candidates'? If so, what is wrong with the party, that it can only attract terrible candidates?

Fair question.  Jeb!, for example, was about as terrible a candidate as you can get.  Yet oddly enough I think he could have made a halfway decent president. 

Some others-- particularly Rand (with whom I still stand), Cruz, and Rubio-- I still think were good candidates.  They just got caught off-guard by Trump's asshattery and in the latter two cases Trump pummeled them when they tried to beat him at his own game.  I think Kasich was also a pretty good candidate but waited too long to commit to running.

[Tamas]

Today the thought hit me that all political news, articles, TV shows, general discourse, have been dominated by Trump since the start of the primaries. I am now utterly tired of him and the hysteria on both end of the Trump spectrum, and I dread the thought of having to endure 7 more years of this shit. Because there is no way he can lose if all the world revolves around him to this fucking degree.

[Berkut]

Cruz is a good candidate. That's funny.

[saskganesh]

Last Year, a media metric article in the New York Times woefully concluded that Trump is the most famous person in the entirety of human history (so far).

So Tamas, your options are rather limited.

[Eddie Teach]

Damn internet.

Edit- Trump is better known than Jesus? 

[Habbaku]

Cruz is a good candidate. That's funny.

It's pretty telling who DerS considers a good candidate and a bad candidate. Calling Jeb! "as terrible a candidate as you can get" while thinking Cruz and Rubio were good ones?