Simple Question

[David Sklansky]

Assuming they were first given a few years to learn, prepare, and train, how many American citizens would make a better president than EITHER Bush or Kerry?

[Stu Pidasso]

50%

Stu

[Non_Comformist]

less than 1%,

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming they were first given a few years to learn, prepare, and train, how many American citizens would make a better president than EITHER Bush or Kerry?

[/ QUOTE ]

Better in terms of carrying out correct social, economic and international policies or better in terms of having a glitering political career and being re-elected by vast majorities.

Unfortunately they are not allways one and the same.

As an example. Intelectualy speaking I am certain I could make a better president than Bush in terms of policy.

However I would have to have extensive dental work (I am a Brit /images/graemlins/blush.gif) and I also have a slight lisp. Though in my favour I would say I am much more handsom than either Bush or Kerry.

These factors would count against me heavily in the political arena in which I must compete with those wishing to take my presidential office away from me so they can enjoy its powers. Indeed they would probably barr me from being elected in the first place.

[arabie]

A lot. It is hard to say in terms of a % of the population without just making up a number. However, I can quite confidently say that if one runs a simulation testing all Americans, hypothetically giving them the training and oppurtinity to be a Presidential candidate, and one then compares the simulation's highest scoring candidate to Bush or Kerry. My prediction is that we would realize we were way off the right guy.

[James Boston]

Not to dodge the question, but what does "better" mean? More electable? Better at gaining and maintaining approval rating? Better at doing what is, at the core, the best thing for America, regardless of whether the uneducated masses understand why? I think the number is very small. That doesn't mean that Bush and Kerry are out two best options. I would say that 2% are smart enough, and ethical enough to do the job well. 49% are as good as Bush and Kerry. 49% don't have the mental capacity, ethical background, or social agenda to handle it.

[TorontoCFE]

Probably no more than 1%.
The job requires a logical mind (not necessarily intelligence) and charisma, matched with a passionate vision of what they are trying to accomplish.
Much of the ideas / process comes from the system below the president, so a techincal knowledge of details , the part that can be taught, would only go so far.
The keys are to have a vision (something most don't have - at least one they are truly passionate about) and the charisma to get others to buy into your ideas. This can't be taught so it limits how many people would qualify.
The technical knowledge of issues only requires the logical mind to consider the alternatives presented to you. That would be the easy part to find.

I would say any decent CEO could do the job at least as well, probably better, along with up to 1% of the population I'd say (being generous).

[GHWB]

I wish I could say that Presidential greatness was in the genes. I blame how Junior turned out on Bar's side of the family. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[MaxPower]

I think that only a very small percentage of people have what it takes to be President - perhaps about .1%. However that is still a couple of hundred thousand people. Unfortunately, I don't think Bush belongs to that .1%. I would guess that about 50% of that .1% would be better than Kerry.

So 200,000 citizens would make a better president than Bush and 100,000 citizens would make a better president than Kerry.

The question is - How do we get presidential candidates that are actually worth voting for?

[tolbiny]

As others have pointed out, what do you mean by better?
If by better you mean run the country acording to what i think would be the best agenda, then i think you could take the to 5% combined in intelliegence, corresponding view points and decency of character (and severl other things) and train them to be a "better" president than bush has been the past 4 years.
since Kerry has never held that office i dont know how he will do at all.

[BeerMoney]

[ QUOTE ]
I think that only a very small percentage of people have what it takes to be President - perhaps about .1%. However that is still a couple of hundred thousand people. Unfortunately, I don't think Bush belongs to that .1%. I would guess that about 50% of that .1% would be better than Kerry.

So 200,000 citizens would make a better president than Bush and 100,000 citizens would make a better president than Kerry.

The question is - How do we get presidential candidates that are actually worth voting for?

[/ QUOTE ]

I second your thoughts.

[ThaSaltCracka]

I would say that there may be somewhere between 1000 and 5000 other people in this country who could do a better job than Bush or Kerry, so what % is that? not sure but I know its less than 1%.

[Clarkmeister]

I'd take the population and only look at college grads between the ages of 35-65. Undergraduate is fine.

Give me the top 3% of college grads from a GPA perspective and the top 5% of college grads from a standardized test perspective. There will be some overlap there, so let's say that gives us 6.5% of college grads.

I'd guess that social, personality, leadership and other issues strain out 75% of those people.

So call it 1.7% of college grads between 35-65, whatever that number is.

[MMMMMM]

Percentagewise, under 10%, maybe under 1%.

[andyfox]

Absolutely impossible to say. First, Kerry hasn't been president yet, so there's nothing to compare him with. Second, learning, preparation and training might make for an excellent president, or for a disastrous president. Third, "inate" qualifications (say, a high IQ) don't necessarily make for a good president. Fourth, your definition of a good president might be completely different than mine.

[adios]

Not sure what you mean by better president. Success as president could be defined in a lot of ways.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd take the population and only look at college grads between the ages of 35-65. Undergraduate is fine.

Give me the top 3% of college grads from a GPA perspective and the top 5% of college grads from a standardized test perspective. There will be some overlap there, so let's say that gives us 6.5% of college grads.

I'd guess that social, personality, leadership and other issues strain out 75% of those people.

So call it 1.7% of college grads between 35-65, whatever that number is.

[/ QUOTE ]I'd cut that in half by saying America isn't ready to elect a woman.

[andyfox]

Stop copying my answers. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[SinCityGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I wish I could say that Presidential greatness was in the genes. I blame how Junior turned out on Bar's side of the family. /images/graemlins/crazy.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

How about Neil? Whose genes are to blame for him?

[andyfox]

David said nothing about electability. But my sense is that a women could indeed get elected now. If Kerry loses, we may see this proposition tested by Hillary in 2008.

[elwoodblues]

I would discount minority groups as well (not a discount of 100% of that minority population, maybe a 50% discount.)

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'd take the population and only look at college grads between the ages of 35-65. Undergraduate is fine.

Give me the top 3% of college grads from a GPA perspective and the top 5% of college grads from a standardized test perspective. There will be some overlap there, so let's say that gives us 6.5% of college grads.

I'd guess that social, personality, leadership and other issues strain out 75% of those people.

So call it 1.7% of college grads between 35-65, whatever that number is.

[/ QUOTE ]I'd cut that in half by saying America isn't ready to elect a woman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. I loathe Hillary, but if Bush gets re-elected, I'd say she becomes a slight chalk to win the next election over McCain.

[Matty]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I loathe Hillary, but if Bush gets re-elected, I'd say she becomes a slight chalk to win the next election over McCain.

[/ QUOTE ]What about Guliani?

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd say she becomes a slight chalk to win the next election over McCain.

[/ QUOTE ]

McCain is probably the only man who could persuade me to vote for a non-third party candidate. He would kill Hillary. As you said, too many people "loathe" her, myself included.

[theBruiser500]

[ QUOTE ]
I would say that there may be somewhere between 1000 and 5000 other people in this country who could do a better job than Bush or Kerry, so what % is that? not sure but I know its less than 1%.

[/ QUOTE ]

This number is way too low.

[Rusty266]

[ QUOTE ]
Assuming they were first given a few years to learn, prepare, and train, how many American citizens would make a better president than EITHER Bush or Kerry?

[/ QUOTE ]

Its difficult to put a specific number on the deal, but I would guess that at least 5% of the population is well schooled and successful at what ever they do. From there figure another 5% with the same qualifications still waiting for their big break or their opportunity to succeed, or on the way to the top.

So 10% would be a reasonable number, and of those, I would expect a top notch effort and a job well done.

Oh, but wait! The issue is who would make a better president then either Bush or Kerry? Good heavens, open the flood gates.......

[mmcd]

The question is - How do we get presidential candidates that are actually worth voting for?

We don't. No one who is smart enough to be able to actually do the job right would ever be foolish enough to want the job.

[James Boston]

[ QUOTE ]
But my sense is that a women could indeed get elected now. If Kerry loses, we may see this proposition tested by Hillary in 2008.

[/ QUOTE ]

Tested, yes. Elected...nope.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd take the population and only look at college grads between the ages of 35-65. Undergraduate is fine.

Give me the top 3% of college grads from a GPA perspective and the top 5% of college grads from a standardized test perspective. There will be some overlap there, so let's say that gives us 6.5% of college grads.

I'd guess that social, personality, leadership and other issues strain out 75% of those people.

So call it 1.7% of college grads between 35-65, whatever that number is.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is generally a good approach.

A big problem most people in this thread are having is that they don't understand what the President needs to do in his job. It's not a matter of deciding what the best way to handle Social Security, taxes, foreign policy, etc. Solving problems isn't the President's main job.

The President's greatest challenge is getting OTHERS to do what his administration wants done. He has to get the Congress to pass legislation. He has to get other nations to strive for the U.S. vision of the world. And, most importantly, he has to convince the American public to stand behind his policies. He has to do all these things while not hurting his future ability to get other things done.

Most people can't handle this type of situation. Jimmy Carter was very smart but a terrible President. He didn't have the skills to lead others into doing what he wanted. By comparison, Ronald Reagan was well known for not gettting involved with the details and minutia of his policies. Reagan was a great President because he used his resources to get others to support his policies and enact them.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I loathe Hillary, but if Bush gets re-elected, I'd say she becomes a slight chalk to win the next election over McCain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hillary will be a big favorite to win the Democratic nomination.

But, McCain has virtually no chance to win the Republican nomination in 2008. McCain was at the height of his popularity in 2000 and got convincingly beat by Bush. McCain is unpopular (not just "not pupular") with the conservative base of the Republican party. They think he's too moderate, even liberal, on many social issues. He's also disliked by the Republican leadership in Washington.

McCain will be 72 years old in 2008 and doesn't have the support of the party bigshots or the party base. I doubt he will even run in 2008. If he does, he'll be a flop.

The big Republican candidates in 2008 are going to be Florida Governor Jeb Bush, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, and former New York Mayer Rudy Guilliani. There will certainly be other "unknowns".

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I disagree. I loathe Hillary, but if Bush gets re-elected, I'd say she becomes a slight chalk to win the next election over McCain.

[/ QUOTE ]What about Guliani?

[/ QUOTE ]

Guilliani has little chance to win the Republican nomination in 2008. He's pro-choice and generally liberal on social issues. That's a death sentance in Republican primaries.

Guilliani will get lots of press, get some votes in Iowa and especially New Hampshire (where he could actually win). But, he'll get murdered when the nomination gets decided in the south.

Guilliani would make an interesting Vice Presidential candidate. But, in order for the Republican base to accept him, the Presidential candidate will have to be a rock-solid social conservative.

Don't underestimate the social conservatism of the Republican primary voters. They voted for Bush big time over McCain.

[feelixthegreek]

I'd like to make this analogous to poker. There's the learning curve of "a few years," the subsequent practice, preparation and training, all in the hopes of becoming a winning player over the long run. However, is a four year term a sufficient sample size to make any assesment accurate?

To return to the issue, though, I'd ask this: how much does the governmant machine run itself to the point where anyone with competent (or semi-competent)advisers could survive four years on the job given the right circumstances? For instance, I'm ill-equipped, but I'm knowledgable enough to pick a cabinet and a staff to carry my dead weight long enough to survive my term unscathed where I'd go down in history as an effective president.

[Dynasty]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd cut that in half by saying America isn't ready to elect a woman.

[/ QUOTE ]

I"m not so sure. I'd agree that America isn't interested in electing a feminist woman as President. That carries with it all the bad sterotypes. Most woman politicians who could be considered even remotley possible as Presidential candidates tend to liberal feminist Democrats.

But, if a conservative Republican woman won her party's nomination for President, I could see her winning. I thought Bush should have made the tough (even cold blooded) decision to dump Dick Cheney off the ticket and pick Condaleeza Rice as his Vice Presidential running mate. A LOT of conservative political wonks wanted this too.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
I'd take the population and only look at college grads between the ages of 35-65. Undergraduate is fine.

Give me the top 3% of college grads from a GPA perspective and the top 5% of college grads from a standardized test perspective. There will be some overlap there, so let's say that gives us 6.5% of college grads.

I'd guess that social, personality, leadership and other issues strain out 75% of those people.

So call it 1.7% of college grads between 35-65, whatever that number is.



This is generally a good approach.

A big problem most people in this thread are having is that they don't understand what the President needs to do in his job. It's not a matter of deciding what the best way to handle Social Security, taxes, foreign policy, etc. Solving problems isn't the President's main job.

The President's greatest challenge is getting OTHERS to do what his administration wants done. He has to get the Congress to pass legislation. He has to get other nations to strive for the U.S. vision of the world. And, most importantly, he has to convince the American public to stand behind his policies. He has to do all these things while not hurting his future ability to get other things done.

Most people can't handle this type of situation. Jimmy Carter was very smart but a terrible President. He didn't have the skills to lead others into doing what he wanted. By comparison, Ronald Reagan was well known for not gettting involved with the details and minutia of his policies. Reagan was a great President because he used his resources to get others to support his policies and enact them.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats a lot of analysis to answer a question that was never asked. The question is how many american citizens are there that would do a better job as president than either Bush or Kerry not what precentage of the population would make a good president.

I doubt Bush and Kerry would even make the 1.7% cut.

Stu

[flair1239]

Just a wild guess. But I suspect that you could actually derive a close approximation by taking the percentage of people who are small/medium business owners of privately held companies.

Many of these people may lack the polish. But many of the skills of running a small/medium size business, do transfer through.

[BadBoyBenny]

told you

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd take the population and only look at college grads between the ages of 35-65. Undergraduate is fine.

Give me the top 3% of college grads from a GPA perspective and the top 5% of college grads from a standardized test perspective. There will be some overlap there, so let's say that gives us 6.5% of college grads.

I'd guess that social, personality, leadership and other issues strain out 75% of those people.

So call it 1.7% of college grads between 35-65, whatever that number is.

[/ QUOTE ]

A college degree is vastly overrated. I would argue that my previous suggestion that owners of small/medium size businesses would have a better correlation.

The reason I limit it to small/medium size businesses; is that typically these businesses have limited access to outside funding (loans, bonds..etc) so these people are comfortable with making do with a limited budget. Also They (usually)) have a good feel, for surrounding themselves with capable people.

[Rushmore]

[ QUOTE ]
less than 1%

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously the correct answer.

Have you met the citizens?

[Non_Comformist]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
less than 1%

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously the correct answer.

Have you met the citizens?

[/ QUOTE ]

You know I was thinking that there is not 1 person myself included who know that would be capable of being President. So no I haven't

[Trainwreck]

In this dream scenario....

I think another issue here is, how many would want to be president and then corral those people together and find the most suitable person.

I am certainly capable of being president, but no I would not want ALL the BS involved.

So I'm going to put the % at .000001% which leaves a bit too much room for error [How else did both G.B.'s get the job?] /images/graemlins/grin.gif

>TW<