The question still remains:
Judging on past performance, he obviously can't lead a pack of cub scouts to the toilet. So, does he really have absolutely no leadership skills at all, or is he leading in the direction he really wants to?
Consider: We have an alleged two party system, both of which are run by committees comprised entirely of representatives of the big money special interests. These committees will only allow candidates who are acceptable to big money. On the republican side, they put up a billionaire and some mooks who are crazier than a ferret on acid. on the democratic side they stuck with the law teaching speachifier who's performance evaluation makes him either solidly republican or a damn fine Harkonnen. Are we to believe that big money is so stupid they don't know what they bought?
The only conclusion I can come to is that this is the desired result. The country is split about 50/50. Nothing is progressing socially except we are slipping closer to feudalism. "Representatives" of both sides play their orchestrated roles and only agree on stripping further rights from the people. I mean nobody REALLY needed the first, second, fourth, or fifth amendments, did they? The rich are getting richer, the middle are being pitted against the poor which reduces the chance of armed revolt. I see nothing here that gives me any surprise or hope. Only futility.
At least I never have to listen to the "But what if the BAD guys won? Think of how bad that would be!" argument again. We have a live demonstration that it's pretty much the same as if the "good" guy won.