Which GOP Candidate, In A Vacuum, Was The Most Qualified To Be President?

[Free Bird]

Putting aside all of the electioneering stuff like money, organization, strategy, and media attention, which Republican candidate, based on pure credentials and pure credentials alone, was the most qualified to be President? Which of them could have most easily stepped into the job on Day 1?
There was a lot of talk about how qualified Hillary was, but I never heard much talk about credentials on this side.

Discuss.

Oddly enough, I'll have to go with Graham

[Mr. Smith]

Kasich.

[pops]

Kasich, and it’s not even close

[Deblano]

Kasich, followed by Pataki or Bush

[😥]

Kasich, and it’s not even close

[I Can Now Die Happy]

Donald Trump

and I'll stress that Kasuck is overrated af and y'all need to get over him

[RINO Tom]

Donald Trump

and I'll stress that Kasuck is overrated af and y'all need to get over him

C-

[OSR stands with Israel]

Kasich was the most qualified candidate period

[I Can Now Die Happy]

Donald Trump

and I'll stress that Kasuck is overrated af and y'all need to get over him

C-

yeah that's the grade I'd give Kasick in his best case scenario

[Kleine Scheiße]

George Pataki was wonderfully qualified and would have been a fine president.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Rick Santorum, Mike Huckabee, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Rick Perry, and (begrudgingly) John Kasich

[Grassroots]

Kasich or Christie

[Del Tachi]

Bush had the most exposure to the presidency of any Republican running that year.  He would have been the most comfortable in the Oval.

[bagelman]

the one I voted for

[Lincoln_Chaffee]

Kasich.

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I agree with Kasich, would've preferred him over Clinton too, because he's more likeable as a person, doesn't deny climate change and wouldn't have been such a war hawk like Clinton was going to be, and was a moderate (which i'm willing to "tolerate").

Also capable: Christie, Bush, Huckabee (not 100% sure), Pataki and Graham. I think Walker and Rubio are overrated. Cruz was the most qualified non-establishment candidate.

Competency isn't exactly Trump's strongest asset, but there were candidates who were less qualified to be president than him, like Carson and Santorum and probably also Perry, Gilmore and Fiorina. Being qualified to be president doesn't exactly make you a good candidate. Pence is qualified, but not a good candidate. I have doubts though if Rubio and Walker were qualified. Probably a lot more than Trump but they wouldn't have been the strongest candidates on competency IMO.

[brucejoel99]

Kasich.

[Senator Incitatus]

George Pataki was wonderfully qualified and would have been a fine president.

The answer is clearly Pataki, the governor of a massively important state for 12 years including during the greatest political-managerial crisis of the century. He also served as a legislator. No other candidate had experience that was remotely comparable or as suitable for the presidency.

Perry was governor in a larger state for an equal amount of time, but in a notoriously ceremonial role.

Bush was also the governor of a large and diverse state, but his record as Florida's governor is weaker than Pataki's. His major crisis was the Schiavo affair, and it's hard to say he handled that well.

Kasich was a Congressman and the governor of a mid-sized state for less than two terms. Based on credentials alone, he is a joke compared to Pataki, Bush, or Perry. Scott Walker is also probably more qualified. Pretty baffling that Atlas is so loudly screeching the wrong note.

[Lechasseur]

George Pataki was wonderfully qualified and would have been a fine president.

The answer is clearly Pataki, the governor of a massively important state for 12 years including during the greatest political-managerial crisis of the century. He also served as a legislator. No other candidate had experience that was remotely comparable or as suitable for the presidency.

Perry was governor in a larger state for an equal amount of time, but in a notoriously ceremonial role.

Bush was also the governor of a large and diverse state, but his record as Florida's governor is weaker than Pataki's. His major crisis was the Schiavo affair, and it's hard to say he handled that well.

Kasich was a Congressman and the governor of a mid-sized state for less than two terms. Based on credentials alone, he is a joke compared to Pataki, Bush, or Perry. Scott Walker is also probably more qualified. Pretty baffling that Atlas is so loudly screeching the wrong note.

This

[Roll Roons]

George Pataki was wonderfully qualified and would have been a fine president.

The answer is clearly Pataki, the governor of a massively important state for 12 years including during the greatest political-managerial crisis of the century. He also served as a legislator. No other candidate had experience that was remotely comparable or as suitable for the presidency.

Perry was governor in a larger state for an equal amount of time, but in a notoriously ceremonial role.

Bush was also the governor of a large and diverse state, but his record as Florida's governor is weaker than Pataki's. His major crisis was the Schiavo affair, and it's hard to say he handled that well.

Kasich was a Congressman and the governor of a mid-sized state for less than two terms. Based on credentials alone, he is a joke compared to Pataki, Bush, or Perry. Scott Walker is also probably more qualified. Pretty baffling that Atlas is so loudly screeching the wrong note.

Ohio is not "mid-sized" - it's the seventh largest state in terms of population. Yeah, it's not New York, Texas, or Florida, but that's still something. Romney was governor of a less populous state for only one term. Also Kasich wasn't just a Congressman. He was there for eighteen years, including six as Budget Committee Chairman. He and Jindal were the only 2016 candidates that had both Congressional and executive experience. Maybe he is less qualified than Pataki (who led his state through 9/11), but he was more qualified than Perry, Jeb and definitely Walker.

[Senator Incitatus]

George Pataki was wonderfully qualified and would have been a fine president.

The answer is clearly Pataki, the governor of a massively important state for 12 years including during the greatest political-managerial crisis of the century. He also served as a legislator. No other candidate had experience that was remotely comparable or as suitable for the presidency.

Perry was governor in a larger state for an equal amount of time, but in a notoriously ceremonial role.

Bush was also the governor of a large and diverse state, but his record as Florida's governor is weaker than Pataki's. His major crisis was the Schiavo affair, and it's hard to say he handled that well.

Kasich was a Congressman and the governor of a mid-sized state for less than two terms. Based on credentials alone, he is a joke compared to Pataki, Bush, or Perry. Scott Walker is also probably more qualified. Pretty baffling that Atlas is so loudly screeching the wrong note.

Ohio is not "mid-sized" - it's the seventh largest state in terms of population. Yeah, it's not New York, Texas, or Florida, but that's still something. Romney was governor of a less populous state for only one term. Also Kasich wasn't just a Congressman. He was there for eighteen years, including six as Budget Committee Chairman. He and Jindal were the only 2016 candidates that had both Congressional and executive experience. Maybe he is less qualified than Pataki (who led his state through 9/11), but he was more qualified than Perry, Jeb and definitely Walker.

Good point – Jindal is probably more qualified than Kasich too.

[TrumpBritt24]

Pataki.

[DINGO Joe]

Well, in a vacuum, there is no air and a human would literally explode, because of science.  I'm gonna go with Ted Cruz because he's the most likely to not be a human.

[brucejoel99]

Well, in a vacuum, there is no air and a human would literally explode, because of science.  I'm gonna go with Ted Cruz because he's the most likely to not be a human.

dingojoe is correct, & clearly the smartest one among us.

George Pataki was wonderfully qualified and would have been a fine president.

The answer is clearly Pataki, the governor of a massively important state for 12 years including during the greatest political-managerial crisis of the century. He also served as a legislator. No other candidate had experience that was remotely comparable or as suitable for the presidency.

Perry was governor in a larger state for an equal amount of time, but in a notoriously ceremonial role.

Bush was also the governor of a large and diverse state, but his record as Florida's governor is weaker than Pataki's. His major crisis was the Schiavo affair, and it's hard to say he handled that well.

Kasich was a Congressman and the governor of a mid-sized state for less than two terms. Based on credentials alone, he is a joke compared to Pataki, Bush, or Perry. Scott Walker is also probably more qualified. Pretty baffling that Atlas is so loudly screeching the wrong note.

Ohio is not "mid-sized" - it's the seventh largest state in terms of population. Yeah, it's not New York, Texas, or Florida, but that's still something. Romney was governor of a less populous state for only one term. Also Kasich wasn't just a Congressman. He was there for eighteen years, including six as Budget Committee Chairman. He and Jindal were the only 2016 candidates that had both Congressional and executive experience. Maybe he is less qualified than Pataki (who led his state through 9/11), but he was more qualified than Perry, Jeb and definitely Walker.

Good point – Jindal is probably more qualified than Kasich too.

Oh c'mon, if you believe that, then you obviously just have some sort of inherent bias against Kasich lol

[darklordoftech]

Kasich has both legislative and executive experience, has federal experience, and helped create the surplus of the roaring 90s, so him.