[stephenr]

My point was, that you'd be going from a train-wreck to a pile up on the interstate.

They're both fucking ridiculous concepts as the leader of a country. That you've got one of them now should be eye opening enough that this doesn't happen again for a fucking long time.

[krapp]

>That you've got one of them now should be eye opening enough that this doesn't happen again for a fucking long time.

That's not what's likely to happen, though. Trump may be a garbage fire, but he still won, and the "politically competent" candidate still lost. Plenty of Americans still believe almost religiously in the concept of a "CEO in Chief," and they won't be giving that up any time soon, even if they disavow Trump as an exemplar.

Both parties are probably going to field primarily business-oriented candidates as long as it seems the electorate wants anti-establishment, anti-political leadership, at best they'll try to make sure the next one isn't as much of a buffoon.

[stephenr]

> as long as it seems the electorate wants

Given that 3 million more people voted for Hillary, I don't think you can make claims like 'the electorate wants anti-political leadership'.

[krapp]

>Given that 3 million more people voted for Hillary,

A significant number of Democrats would have preferred Bernie Sanders, but settled for the only option they had rather than not vote at all. There was an anti-establishment movement on both sides which only the Republicans capitalized on. The deep-seated cynicism and mistrust of politicians and of political expertise in the US which led to the reactionary nature of this last election isn't going away when Trump finally gets the boot, either.

The fact appears to be that Hillary Clinton's political expertise did her no favors, while Donald Trump's political inexperience gave him an advantage, and the people who wanted the latter are the ones who took power.