One, that's exactly what Trump did.
Sort of, he was in a parallel department to acting, let's call it showmanship. That's not
not what I was talking about, but I meant someone charismatic who could play a president in a movie, except do it in real life.
Two, it would require insiders to give up their possible only shot at winning the whole game.
Yes, that was the rationale behind Hillary running. It was her turn, and that's that. What I'm talking about would require turning over a new leaf and somewhat rebranding on the public-facing side. Since everyone is sick of politics as usual it's a good tactical move. The last president anyone was excited about was Obama, and even his presidency soured everyone to having hope.
Three, being President is not an unskilled job. Being good at being popular and even winning elections aren't the same thing as being good at being President. You do need someone who can do more than warm a chair in the role.
Well there's the type of CEO/VIP who hire based on experience. To an extreme, you'll see the tech posting "entry level job, minimum 5-10 years experience required, Python, C, etc etc". The rationale is no doubt that whoever has the most stacked CV will be the best. Really it's probably often just an excuse to not have to do decent onboarding. But then you have the occasional boss or CEO whose policy is that they want to hire the smartest and most adaptable people, even those with no experience who want to get into the field. The premise is that you're investing in training them and in return you get an exceptional hire who isn't stuck with any bad training they've received in previous toxic work environments or outdated bachelor's programs. I want to stress this last point because although being President isn't an unskilled job, I don't particularly think that you're better off with an insider who's been trained in who-knows-what-way, compared to someone intelligent and fresh who has a new perspective. Now you might say that this is fine for entry-level jobs, but you wouldn't hire a CEO who has no experience in the field. That's true, but the POTUS is a bit different, because most technical skill sets are supplied by the experts surrounding the office. You don't need to be an economist, or a lawyer, or a career political insider, or any other particular thing. You do need to be someone who can rally a team, who can rally the people, and who can represent the U.S. well and with good conscience. I don't think those qualities are taught in the Congress or in Governor school anyhow.
