I dunno… this IMO is an intrinsecally political office. Technocrats often are unsuited by temperament. Military-Industrial complex careerists often will not have built the right kind of “base” needed and may lack breadth.
As for private business exec types, the trick is how do we make sure we wind up with someone who understands this is NOT a private business.
Which is not to mean it can’t happen:
GHWBush 41 ticked many of the boxes AND was an active Republican politician, including 2 terms in Congress.
The Romneys combined succesful corporate AND political careers.
So experience and skill in the political trenches as not-the-top-dog is important.
So Jeff Bezos doesn’t meet your age limit. That is too bad- He could easily win as the High Democrat of the Republic of Untied States.
Good experience foreign policy working with China. Has lots of lawyers so will know who to put on the SC.
Seriously Buttegieg, Katie Porter, Duckworth, Tim Kaine ,Gilliabrand, Jay Inslee
Republicans are known for Perjory Traitor Greene, R Paul, Abortion Allen and his cohorts. And Huey Long in a long red tie.
I’m tempted to say Barstow, but that would just be mean .
I meant that I believe that there is a little bit of national anti-Californian bias in which California Democrats in particular are perceived as being extremely liberal (beyond what they may actually be), a little more arrogant and a little “kooky”. I think a CA presidential candidate has to be just a little more charismatic and work a little bit harder to be elected as opposed to someone from, say, Pennsylvania or Illinois.
I (weakly) supported Inslee in the last primary, but at 71 he also doesn’t meet the OP’s age requirement.
Aww heck. I didn’t look up their ages because they seem like kids to me. Nobody remembers that Tim Kaine ran with Hillary Clinton in 2016. He did good in Virginia as governor.
Inslee talked up Union support and Enviroment protection.But I have seen 71 and that is too old to start a new job in a new town.
Barstow? I was somewhere outside of Barstow, on the edge of the desert…oh, never mind.
So this California taint, (Calitaint?) is strictly a Dem thing? Yeah, I seem to remember a Californian or two becoming President. But they were Republicans.
Abrams biggest accomplishment is being a state representative, hardly qualifications for being POTUS. Let’s see if she can make it to the big stage in Georgia before escorting her to the back steps of the US Capitol.
Clocking in at age 52 here’s another (scary as hell) GOP possibility.
He’s got a big enough ego to go for it, if nothing else just for the publicity. He’d also probably have a good shot at the nomination. Hopefully he’d get crushed in the general where non-fox watcher make the majority, but if the Republicans successfully rig 2024 and Carlson is the next POTUS America is going to be a very bad place not to be white.
A lot of these business type people come into government claiming they’re going to run government like it’s a business, and people lap this stuff up. But this is based on a shared notion that the difference between government and business is that politicians are running the former and businessmen are running the latter, so all you need is a successfull businessman in government and he’ll replicate his business success in running the government. But the reality is that government is structured very differently than business, in particular in having far more centers of power and also more involved special interests that need to be reckoned with. Someone who comes into office with a “run it like a business” mentality is likely to be a failure.
The ideal business guy would be someone who has also been successfull in a government situation (e.g. Romney).
Criminal justice reform
NAFTA renegotiation
Abraham Accords
My impression - based on parliamentary systems of government in general and not GB in particular - is that in such systems the job of foreign secretary (or any other cabinet post) is typically awarded based on political considerations rather than foreign policy expertise, to a greater extent than in the US where the executive branch is more delineated.
To my knowledge. We’ve had lawyers, tailors, teachers, journalists, engineers, farmers, actors, CEOs, soldiers, and generals all do the job.
If we compare that to how the Presidents have ranked (going up to Gerald Ford, because that’s where the numbers stop agreeing with one another), in the hindsight of later knowledge:
Then we get a chart like so:
Best
1 surveyor
1 planter
2 general
1 writer
1 inventor
4 lawyer
1 architect
5 governor
1 secretary of state
3 vp
1 postmaster
2 congressman
1 rancher
2 soldier
1 teacher
1 dean
1 farmer
1 haberdasher
1 judge
Good
3 teacher
8 lawyer
2 diplomat
2 vp
1 political theorist
8 congressman
2 secretary of state
4 soldier
4 governor
1 sheriff
1 mayor
1 judge
1 dean
1 secretary of war
1 journalist
Meh
6 lawyer
5 congressman
3 governor
4 vp
1 general
3 soldier
1 teacher
1 journalist
1 engineer
1 secretary of commerce
Bad
3 soldier
7 congressman
4 lawyer
3 vp
1 secretary of state
1 tailor
1 governor
1 editor
From it, some things that I note:
Being a congressman is a negative.
The variety of professions becomes larger as you go up the ladder. (People with a more interesting history are better presidents).
Being a governor is a positive.
Jobs with management requirements - running a ranch, managing a university, running the post office, etc. - are a positive.
Jobs that are non-managerial (soldier, tailor, etc.) are generally negative. Where someone made it into the higher ranks with one of these, it’s generally because they had other jobs that were managerial (e.g. teacher + dean).
Sorry for the delayed answer (and sorry to bump the thread for a tangent, but I missed this question, earlier).
Kushner negotiated New NAFTA, negotiated for reduced prison sentences, and nearly arranged a truce between Israel and Saudi Arabia, to cooperate against Iran. The last was, it seemed, going to be signed in a day or two when Trump decided to announce that Jerusalem was the capital of Israel, and the whole thing fell apart. His timing on that was deeply suspicious.
Hasn’t Yang left the Democratic party? In any case while I do rather like him, he has nowhere near the experience to run for President.
From the Democrats in the OP, I would probably put Buttigieg and Booker on top: good communication skills, reasonable experience and relatively moderate.
Unfortunately, the only age limitation on the Presidency is on the lower end, not the upper. Although I, too, would like to see younger names on the ballot, I think Trump is the overwhelming favorite for the 2024 Republican nomination. I’m not confident that Biden could beat him again, and I don’t see any younger names that could beat him either.
ISTM the Democrats have some serious work to do to keep us from another four years of Trump.
While I might agree with this statement I must sadly admit I think assassination at the hands of an unhinged Trumpist is more likely for Kinzinger than being elected to the Presidency as a Republican.
.