[x]

One problem is that at the time so many people thought each one of those would be an improvement over his predecessor.

If they were wrong all those times, how good are the chances you're right now?

The other problem is that at least some of those guys were near the average for presidents.

Bush II and Obama were definitely below average, but Bush I and Clinton I weren't among our worst presidents.

What are the odds that an outsider with a habit of shooting off his mouth would be substantially better?

[editor-surveyor]

.
>> “What are the odds that an outsider with a habit of shooting off his mouth would be substantially better?” <<

.
But he’s rich...

[mkjessup]

I submit that Bush I was an incompetent boob who squandered and dismantled every good political benefit that had been bequeathed to him by the greatest President of the 20th century, Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Due to Bush I screwing the pooch, THAT is why we ended up with a serial rapist and predator in the form of William Jefferson Clinton, who with his grifter wife, sold out our national security to the Communist Chinese, among many other offenses, and if THAT doesn’t qualify as ‘among the worst’, I don’t know what does.

Here is the difference between those past elections and this one: we have suffered through eight years of treason under that Kenyan fraud in the White House, aided and abetted by a spineless and complicit GOP in Congress, enabled and encouraged by a compromised and corrupted media, and THAT is why Trump has the support he has, the American people are saying ‘enough is enough’ and Trump may not be the perfect conservative (something which simply doesn’t exist in the real world) but he’s conservative enough to turn this mess around, political, economic and military.