Okay. I was misled by your use of “are” when you should have used “was”.
The problem is, state governorship is not a uniform criteria. In some states, the governor has such executive power as to be almost autocratic; in others (e.g. Texas) he’s little more than a figurehead. Being governor of Alaska, which has less population than St. Louis, MO, is not the same as being governor of California.
Am I supposed to believe a three-term U.S. Senator has less experience than a one-term governor of Wyoming? :dubious:
A person is only experienced to be president if he or she has had a minimum of 6 years as a Democratic legislator and is currently one as well 
Well… I’m not sure that putting in more people with a lack of political experience would help there. Does a bunch of partisan newbies seem more desirable than a bunch of partisan incumbents?
The primary fix for partisan politics has to happen at the local level, either in voter behavior or in redistricting. (Or both).
Well, depending on how high or low a legislative office you mean, Barack Obama and his 4 years of experience as Senator for Illinois wouldn’t have qualified in 2008.
As for the OP, I would point out Gerald Ford’s highest office was House Minority Leader before being appointed Vice-President. While technically he was VP before president, it does raise the question if he was electable at a national level as a House member.
You mean like Herbert Hoover?
That’s ok, he worked out quite well for us 
No
No
Yes
No
Maybe. A CEO of a large company, yes. An author who understands how government works better than most politicians do, possibly. I’d trust a guy like Bob Woodward because no one knows how to find something out better than him, and part of running a large apparatus like the federal government is knowing how to find out what you need to know. I’m sure there are other elite citizens who I’d consider. There are just so many varied ways to gain experience in the private sector.
I’d also consider a lower officer than general to be qualified. A good high ranking NCO I think could be a fantastic President. Those guys do the real work of keeping the military going. I bet if we had a drill sergeant President(President Ermey?) that the bureaucrats would suddenly become a lot more diligent.
Assuming “accomplished” includes persuasiveness of a sufficient degree to induce a majority of voters to vote for him or her, this.
That’s stating the obvious though. What level of experience is persuasive and what undermines a candidate’s ability to persuade? Obviously a very charismatic homeless person is going to have trouble convincing very many people that he can be President if he’s never been able to get hired by McDonald’s.
IMO, executive/leadership experience is key. I’m less likely to pay attention to legislators, no matter how good at speechifying they are.
I have always wanted to run for office on the claim that I probably couldn’t do any worse…
Is a college degree a minimum requirement?
It’s whatever my candidate has and yours doesn’t.
If you went by resumes, James Buchanan would have been an awesome president and Abraham Lincoln would have sucked.
In general terms:
Experience in the US House is helpful but not necessary. Experience in the US Senate is a bit more helpful but not necessary.
Experience in the military is helpful only as a campaign prop. Officers get too used to having subordinates obey orders and not thinking for themselves. You need thinkers around you, not toadies.
Experience as a governor is helpful but not necessary. It would be better to be a governor with a hostile legislature rather than a red governor in a deep red state.
Experience as a mayor is not particularly helpful. As witness I present Rudy Giuliani.
Experience in business is counterproductive. Businessmen have a negative view of government and would want to be in charge of it only to bring it down.
You know, one thing I could really get behind is if our leaders weren’t all lawyers and majored in things like history, philosophy, and the sciences more.
(Bolding, mine)
I like a lot of this post, but I don’t think you’ve been around the modern military enough, or you might see differently. Most enlisted I work with are smart and we have culture (at least in aviation) that input from the enlisted ranks is welcomed and often required. And I’ve worked around USN and USAF aircrews and it wasn’t much different.
I’m just thinking in terms of generals and how Ike was a bit flustered when he got to the White House and discovered that he couldn’t just tell people to make something happen and they couldn’t do so. I agree I did word it poorly, rather than state that they wanted toadies, I should have said they weren’t used to orders not being carried out as a matter of course. For that matter, even Washington had a same experience. He went to the Senate expecting them to ratify a treaty while he waited, was told it wasn’t going to be that way, and he left in a huff and vowed never to return (which he didn’t). I just see military experience as an impediment to success.
It can be, but a lot of Presidents have had it, such as JFK, Lincoln, Washington.
It’s probably better though if it’s combined with other types of experience. Ike may have just been too used to a particular culture. Still, he was a solid President despite the adjustment he had to make.
Our last history-major president decided against law school, earning a completely different graduate degree from Harvard instead; folks call him Dubya.
I think it’s worth adding that in 1992, Clinton, the less experienced candidate defeated Bush Sr., the more experienced candidate.
In 2000, Bush Jr., arguably the less experienced candidate, defeated Gore, the more experienced candidate.
In 2008, Obama, the less experienced candidate, defeated McCain, the more experienced candidate.
In other words, experience is overrated.
I think that’s mainly due to our political environment, which currently values change over experience, since most of the experienced guys did a bad job. As James Stockdale once said, “I don’t have experience running a huge deficit”.