What should be the minimum qualifications for running for President?

[retromike22]

I'm seeing a lot of threads suggesting several non-politicians as potential candidates, but I think most people would find it absolutely ridiculous that a non-politician could be taken seriously. The last President we had who was not a politician was... Eisenhower. And he was a five star General.

So, in your opinion, what are the minimum political qualifications to run for President. Yes I know, Herman Cain and Roseanne ran for President. But to be taken seriously by a major party, what do you think the qualifications are?

Mine:
Vice President (current or past)
Senator (current or past)
Governor (current or past)
Mayor of either NY, LA, or Chicago (current or past). (One thing I notice is that in many other countries several Presidents were previously mayors, and Mayors as Presidential candidates rarely happen here, except for Giuliani 2008.

I honestly don't think House members qualify.

[Vega]

Vice President.
Senator.
Governor.
Secretary of State.
Speaker of the House or majority/minority leader in House.
Mayor of any city with over 1,000,000 Citizens.

[Bojack Horseman]

-No religious affiliation
-Not a CEO or businessman
-Prior political experience and re-elected
-Must pass an IQ test and not be mentally ill

[I Will Not Be Wrong]

Vice President
Senator
Governor
Mayor
House representative
Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense

[Mister Mets]

Interesting question.

The obvious qualifications are...
A notable tenure as Governor.
A notable tenure as Senator.
Significant congressman. Head of the Finance Committee qualifies.
Significant cabinet or cabinet-level post. This includes Veep.

For some big city mayors, I consider that job the equivalent of serving in statewide office. It depends on the population and the responsibilities.

In some cases, you may have a candidate who doesn't meet one of the qualifications, but has an interesting enough combination (IE- A newly elected Governor with an unremarkable stint in the US House) to meet the basic threshold.

There's also room for an occasional businessman and General. There has to be something special about their experience. Bill Gates's efforts as a philanthropist help him pass the minimum qualifications for the presidency. Ideally these would be positions that help someone demonstrate administrative skill, as well as an understanding of the nation and the world. In a rare case, a state attorney general or Lieutenant Governor might also qualify.

I think there's also an age cap. 74 is the max for a final presidential bid, and it would be better if the candidate had run before to understand what it'll take. I'd expect someone to be making a first presidential bid to be bit younger (68's the cap on that.)

[Vega]

To be honest, I don't believe age caps are the right way to go.

Someone can be 80 and still be okay to serve (Read: Daniel Inouye, Ronald Reagan, etc.).

[Mordecai]

Highest qualification

Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Vice President
Senator
Governor
Congressman

Lowest qualification

Of course that doesn't automatically mean whoever is Secretary of State or Vice President should be the next President but they rank very highly as qualifications.

I also rate education as a credit. For Clinton and Obama it offsets being a small state governor and being a senator for only three years. If you don't have a college education, that's ok but it will need to be offset by experience.

To be honest, I don't believe age caps are the right way to go.

Someone can be 80 and still be okay to serve (Read: Daniel Inouye, Ronald Reagan, etc.).

Reagan had Alzheimer's right after he left the Presidency and probably did have it during his second term.

[Mister Mets]

A random thing I realized was how unqualified Democratic, Whig and Republican nominees were in the nineteenth century. The party out of power got kind of desperate with their choices.

Zachary Taylor barely understood national politics. He only became significant because the President gave him a plum military assignment figuring he wouldn't run for the office. Abraham Lincoln had served one term in Congress, and was notable for losing to Democratic nominee Stephen Douglas in a Senate match. When Republicans took to winning, Democrats started nominating second-year Governors of New York whenever the opportunity came up, before nominating a former two-term congressman three times.

I also started wondering about 2008 and 2012 nominees and whether they satisfied the minimum qualifications in my eyes.

2008 Democrats...
Hillary Clinton- Yes
Barack Obama- No
John Edwards- Yes
Bill Richardson- Yes
Joe Biden- Yes

2008 Republicans
John McCain- Yes
Rudy Giuliani- Yes
Fred Thompson- Yes
Mike Huckabee- Yes
Mitt Romney- Yes
Duncan Hunter- Yes
Sam Brownback- Yes
Sarah Palin- No

2012 Republicans
Mitt Romney- Yes
Ron Paul- No
Rick Perry- On paper, Yes
Rick Santorum- Yes
Herman Cain- No
Newt Gingrich- Yes
Paul Ryan- Yes
Michelle Bachmann- No

Rick Perry highlights the need for a different bare minimum.

I'll note that most of the potential 2016 nominees seem to meet the minimum qualifications, although the media is less likely to cover anyone who lacks the conventional qualifications for a serious bid. Ted Cruz and Elizabeth Warren seem to have more of an impact on the Senate (for good or bad) than Obama did, so they may be more qualified to run as fourth-year Senators than he was.

To be honest, I don't believe age caps are the right way to go.

Someone can be 80 and still be okay to serve (Read: Daniel Inouye, Ronald Reagan, etc.).

The question was in the context of what someone needs to be taken seriously by a party.

That's where unofficial age caps come in.

[H.E. VOLODYMYR ZELENKSYY]

-No religious affiliation
-Not a CEO or businessman
-Prior political experience and re-elected
-Must pass an IQ test and not be mentally ill

So disqualifying the vast majority of Presidents and every member of Congress except Kirsten Sinema?

[Suburbia]

You must be experienced in foreign and economic policy.
You should be a mayor in a large American city with a large media market
Vice President
Secretary of State
A well-known commentator with a large following
A Representative
A Senator
A state legislator with large media market appeal

[pbrower2a]

In practice:

Having been...

1. Elected to be a State Governor or US Senator.

2. Heroic General (maybe admiral) as a major war hero.

3. Elected to the House of Representatives in an at-large State.

We have never had a successful nominee for President who has been neither of those since at least 1900. A hint: Gerald Ford, not a bad President, was not elected to a full term. Dick Cheney was elected VP. Unlike the case for Miller (1964),  Shriver (1972), Ferraro (1984), Kemp (1996), and Ryan (2012), Cheney was elected statewide even if in a state in no way a microcosm of America.

Until 1960

4. Being a Protestant (of course, Kennedy made that irrelevant). If Al Gore had wanted to nominate a Jew as VP, maybe he would have done better with Carl Levin than with Joseph Lieberman.

Until 2008

5. Being unambiguously a white male, with origin entirely within Europe to the north of the  Pyrenees and Alps and west of the Sudetenland, Oder, and Baltic Sea... and the north of the Gulf of Finland.

Shattered by Barack Obama.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

-No religious affiliation
-Prior political experience and re-elected

Atheists are heavily discriminated against in elections, so that doesn't leave a whole lot.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

-No religious affiliation
-Not a CEO or businessman
-Prior political experience and re-elected
-Must pass an IQ test and not be mentally ill

Because religious tests for office and tests based on difficult to measure and possibly culturally variable attributes like intelligence and mental health are totally great ideas and entirely consistent with the ideals of liberal democracy!

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Anyone who wants the role should be excluded.

Also excluded should be anyone who unironically uses the term "the dignity of the office" (of course this strongly overlaps with the first qualification).

Otherwise, I'm not sure what else is necessary.

[Hatman 🍁]

Legally, anyone should be able to run if they want (as long as they can get enough signatures).

[TNF]

Any person over the age of 18 should be allowed to run, natural born or not.

[sdu754]

I don't understand why someone would have to have political experience. I also don't understand why House members wouldn't be considered qualified, but senators would. A house member of 20+ years would be less qualified then a senator who hasn't yet finished a single term? Doesn't make sense. As was pointed out, Lincoln served a single house term, was he good or bad? Eisenhower & Washington were both war heroes with very little political experience, definitely none on most of these lists, yet they were two of the best presidents ever.

I don't think there should be a minimal political experience. The people need to be trusted to make the best choice available, even if you don't agree with it.

[muon2]

Ross Perot ran in 1992 with no prior background in political office - merely as a business owner. As an independent there were a lot of voters who took his candidacy seriously. Not only did he get 19% nationwide, but he took second in two states (ME, UT) beating out Bush in ME and Clinton in UT.

The Constitution's qualifications seem fine - keep it simple.

[Del Tachi]

George Washington would have not qualified under any of the above criteria.

The only qualification should be one's ability to Constitutionally-elected.  Citizenship and age requirements are moot in a democratic republic. 

[Mordecai]

Highest qualification

Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Vice President
Senator
Governor
Congressman

Lowest qualification

Of course that doesn't automatically mean whoever is Secretary of State or Vice President should be the next President but they rank very highly as qualifications.

I also rate education as a credit. For Clinton and Obama it offsets being a small state governor and being a senator for only three years. If you don't have a college education, that's ok but it will need to be offset by experience.

I forgot to mention military experience, that's also a qualification and also business experience. But none of them should actually be required by law, just factors to take into consideration when judging candidates.

[anvi]

Citizenship, successful experience working with people both professionally and personally, and sanity.  Those last two requirements should keep the office good and vacant for a while.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Any No person over the age of 18 should be allowed to run, natural born or not.

Fixed.

Abolish the Presidency. Anyone who actually wants that job is either a sociopath or a crazy person. Probably both.

[sdu754]

Ross Perot ran in 1992 with no prior background in political office - merely as a business owner. As an independent there were a lot of voters who took his candidacy seriously. Not only did he get 19% nationwide, but he took second in two states (ME, UT) beating out Bush in ME and Clinton in UT.

The Constitution's qualifications seem fine - keep it simple.

Had he not dropped out then rejoined the campaign, he might have won.

[politicallefty]

Abolish the Presidency.

I'd prefer that option, or at least transforming it into a strictly ceremonial office. Otherwise, I believe any US citizen above the age of 18 should be eligible.

[SWE]

Any person over the age of 18 should be allowed to run, natural born or not.

Also, experience is the most overrated attribute in presidents. Some of our best presidents had little experience (Washington) and some of our most experienced were the worst (Buchanan)