In 2016, Republicans went through the process of selecting a presidential candidate from a large field (17 candidates) that ultimately narrowed it down to Donald Trump. Now with the democrats forced to pick a challenger, it looks like they will have even more names than the GOP. Some estimates say the field will number more than 20 Democrats but realistically, you have to produce some creds to be taken seriously and most of the wannabes will fail to deliver; Vanity campaigns. Hoping to learn from the past, I compiled a file on past presidents to see if there were patterns that might lead to a winner in 2020.
It’s interesting to note who our presidents have been over the past sixty years and where they came from. John Kennedy was a first term Senator in 1960. Kennedy’s work life was almost entirely as an elected member of the congress both in the house and the senate. He was a first term senator from Massachusetts when he ran. Lyndon Johnson took over after Kennedy’s assassination and was elected to the job in 1964 but he was also a senator from Texas before teaming with Kennedy as his vice president. Lyndon Johnson spent most of his working life in the congress both in the house and the senate. He was a lawyer.
In 1968 Richard Nixon (a lawyer) was out of government but came back to win the presidency. His previous job had been Eisenhower’s vice president and before that he was in the congress from California. When he was driven out of office following his re-election in ’72, Jerry Ford filled in but failed to win election to his own term. Ford was also a lawyer and career politician.
Jimmy Carter was governor from Georgia and a relative unknown, but he came out of the sticks and beat Ford in 1976. Carter had been a farmer before election to governor. Carter was a graduate of the Naval Academy and spent a number of years serving in the Navy. Carter was not a lawyer.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan won and was re-elected in 1984. Reagan had been governor of California previous to running for president. He was thought of as a weak candidate because of his actor back ground. In 1988 George Bush won the presidency after being Reagan’s vice president for eight years. He only served one term. Bush 41 was probably the best qualified candidate in modern times having been a successful business man in Texas before serving in the congress, as an ambassador and as director of the CIA. Neither Reagan or Bush 41 were lawyers.
In 1992 Bill Clinton was elected as governor of Arkansas. Other than being a lawyer by trade he spent his whole working life as an elected official in Arkansas. Clinton served two terms. Where Nixon resigned before he was impeached, Clinton stuck it out through the impeachment process but was not removed from office by the senate.
In 2000, George W Bush won the presidency as the governor of Texas. He served two terms. He spent eight years as governor of Texas but previous to that was an OIL MAN in the state. Bush 43 was not a lawyer.
In 2008, Barack Obama won a hard-fought battle to be the democrat nominee over Hillary Clinton then defeated John McCain for the presidency. Obama was a lawyer by trade whose work history described him as a neighborhood organizer. Other than that, he had never held a job until being elected to the Illinois State legislature. He was a first term Senator when he ran for president.
In 2016 businessman and political rookie Donald Trump defeated sixteen primary rivals and the vaunted Hillary Clinton to be president. He came directly to the highest office in the land from the business world. It wasn’t the first time in our country’s history that it happened, but in the modern era it was unheard of. More often than not, the candidates have been lawyers by trade. In my mind that is not a recommendation. Of the winners of the office in this review all but Carter, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43 and Trump were lawyers. Is it any wonder our country is in the dire straits with so many lawyers in charge? Of the non-lawyers, all were Republicans except Carter.
So, in review, voters in America have been fed lawyers with little or no management experience running anything in the private sector to manage the largest enterprise in the world and we’re surprised it hasn’t thrived?
The success of a president is frequently impacted by the level of cooperation with the congress. If you have a president with a congress of the same party the outcome can be impressive because of the compatible ideology. A president with a split congress will be somewhat less successful because of the compromise required to work with the opposition party. The hardest time a president will have if the congress is wholly of the opposition party. That is hell in the world of politics.
Gauging the success of presidents needs to be viewed in the context of the congresses they worked with. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to be successful if the congress is with you. It takes a master deal maker to accomplish anything if the congress is opposite. From a nuance perspective, the size of the political majority is also a factor.
If Trump is the deal maker he tells us he is, the next two years will be his biggest test. The clinker might be the determination of the opposition to prove him to be a loud-mouthed blow hard. Sadly, Trump’s style will not serve him when he in forced to work with people he has insulted time and time again. That might be a teaching moment for Trump. Insulting your rivals might bite you in the ass down the road.
Now moving forward to the looming campaign of 2020, the Democrats are jockeying for the run. It’s interesting to note the number of first term senators (like Obama) who view the time being right for another lawyer to run the country. It appears that lawyers will be the most numerous in the field this cycle as well.
Joe Biden, Kirsten Gillibrand, Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Cory Booker and now Amy Klobuchar all lawyers, all career politicians. None of them have experience running a business or managing an organization larger than a campaign.
Bernie Sanders is a career politician but is not a lawyer. Interestingly, the Democrats allowed Sanders to run as a Democrat when he competed against Hillary Clinton even though he does not belong to the Democrat Party. It will be interesting in the next cycle to see if they allow an unaffiliated candidate to participate. Howard Schultz is thinking about running as an independent even though he has always identified as a democrat. How can Sanders run as a D if he’s never identified with the party?
I have to concede that Abe Lincoln was a lawyer, so I’m not completely turned off by them but the reason our country is in the difficulty we are is largely due to lawyers and insurance companies. And yet, we keep regurgitating lawyers as candidates.
Donald Trump has demonstrated that a guy with good business instincts can do good work leading the country so I don’t think we should eliminate business people from consideration. As a side consideration, for a business guy, being president calls for a cut in pay. For career politicians, election to the presidency is a step up in status and pay. It might be worthwhile to develop a cultivation program for business people as candidates so they can bring that experience to the job.
Finally, what we’ve learned from Trump is that our president does need a bedside manner. Our president needs to be the hard ass in private while being civil in public.
No Loss for Words 
Who Will have the Ear of the Next Republican Nominee?
by Steve DanaThere is a presidential election coming in 2028.
You may think that sounds premature. It isn’t.
The race doesn’t begin when candidates announce. It begins when alliances form, when donors make quiet commitments, and when organizations decide who will be lifted up — and who will quietly be squeezed out.
I watched Secretary of State Marco Rubio speak in Munich last week. It was a strong speech. Confident. Clear. Grounded in America’s historic alliance with Western Europe. He looked like a man comfortable on the world stage. A man wanting to prove he belongs on the world stage.
And I found myself asking a larger question.
When Donald Trump leaves the stage, who stands there next — and who stands behind them?
For the first time in a long time, the Republican Party has a deep bench. JD Vance. Marco Rubio. Glenn Youngkin. Vivek Ramaswamy. Each brings talent. Each brings ambition. Each brings potential.
But potential is not the same thing as independence.
Donald Trump disrupted something in 2016. Whatever one thinks of his style, he walked into politics with his own resources and his own agenda. The traditional donor class did not build him. They did not fund him into existence. In many ways, they were left on the outside looking in.
And that sent a message.
For decades, Americans have watched candidates promise reform and then govern with altogether different priorities. Priorities influenced by the financial ecosystem that carried them to power. Large donors write large checks. Large donors expect access. Access brings influence. Influence brings policy.
That pattern is not new. It is woven into modern politics.
Trump challenged that pattern. Not perfectly. Not without resistance. But he challenged it.
The question now is whether that disruption becomes the new normal — or whether it was simply an exception.
Will the Republican Party allow a fully contested primary in 2028? Or will organizations and power brokers quietly consolidate behind one heir apparent before voters have truly weighed their options?
We have seen what happens when parties bypass robust primaries. Voters notice. Voters resent it. And often, voters respond.
I like JD Vance. I respect Marco Rubio. I admire Glenn Youngkin’s record in Virginia. Vivek Ramaswamy has undeniable energy. But admiration is not the issue.
The issue is allegiance.
If America First was more than a slogan — if it was a governing philosophy — then who carries it forward? And can they carry it forward without becoming indebted to the very structures that resisted it?
Because here is what many Americans understand instinctively: money in politics is never neutral.
Campaigns are expensive. Media is expensive. National organization is expensive. Unless a candidate arrives with extraordinary personal wealth, they must raise funds. And when funds are raised, relationships are formed. When relationships are formed, expectations follow.
That is not cynicism. That is reality.
For years, many of us have spoken about what is often called the “deep state” — the permanent bureaucracy, the consultant class, the professional political operatives who remain while elected officials come and go. Those structures do not disappear. They adapt. They wait.
And they prefer predictability.
Disruptors are tolerated only temporarily. Systems prefer stability. Systems prefer familiarity. Systems prefer candidates who understand how things are “supposed” to work.
So I ask again:
When Donald Trump exits the stage, does the system quietly reset?
Will the next president be chosen by voters — or shaped long before by donors, consultants, and institutional power?
These are not accusations. They are questions. And they are questions worth asking early.
The 2028 election will not simply be about personality. It will not simply be about messaging. It will be about whether the political and financial architecture that defined Washington for decades reasserts itself fully.
If the Republican Party believes in competition, then let there be competition. Let the candidates debate. Let them challenge each other. Let them prove not only their talent, but their independence.
Because voters are not naïve.
They know that campaign money flows somewhere. They know that influence follows money. And they know that governing courage is rare.
Donald Trump was, in many ways, an anomaly. The exception. The disruption.
The next election will tell us whether that disruption changed the system — or whether the system was merely waiting its turn.
Who will lead?
More importantly — who will own the leader?
Answering that question begins now.
Posted in 28 Campaign, Partisan Politics, Political commentary, Presidential Politics | Leave a Comment »