Presidents with no political or high level military experience

Of all the presidents of the United States, only three – Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower – have taken office without political experience, but they all had high-level military experience to make up for it. George Washington, besides being a career military officer, also served in the Continental Congress.
Taylor was a major general in the Mexican-American War, Grant the commanding general of the Army at the end of the Civil War and Eisenhower the supreme commander of the Allied forces in World War II. Their military achievements spoke louder than their lack of prior elected or appointed political office.
Among losing candidates, only three entered the race with no political experience. Winfield Scott (1852) and Winfield Scott Hancock (1880) were both army generals. That makes Wendell Willkie (1940), a corporate lawyer, the only major-party presidential candidate in U.S. history ever to win his party’s nomination with no political or military experience. He lost to Franklin D. Roosevelt in a landslide, 449 electoral votes to 82.
Additionally, more presidents than losing candidates have had political experience – vice president, governor, senator, etc. or high level military leadership experience. Overall, each winning presidential candidate had more political or military experience than the losing contender had. *
This does not look good for Carson, Trump or Fiorina, none of whom have ever held any elected or appointed political office and also have never even served in the military.
The other leading Republican candidates in 2015 have been or are still are governors or senators, but here are several minor Republican candidates who have never been elected or appointed to political office–but I feel safe in saying they have no chance of winning the nomination.
(*Edited material taken from a 2011 article in The International Business Times)

I have been thinking about this a lot. Just because you can run a business or operate on a brain (Carson), doesn’t mean you can run a nation and operate among world leaders. I have been employed in both the private sector and government and the two function very differently and you do not have the same power in government (even in those high-level positions of the gov’t your power is less than as you would have as a CEO over your own private company). If Trump thinks he is going to go into the White House and bully everyone in the nation through his CEO bully tactics and sarcasm, we’re F’ed and the U.S. is going to gain even more global enemies…I actually view his sacrascm and lack of tact as a potential security threat to the U.S. (from hostile nations whom he will undoubtedly offend and insult). He will prove to be a major liablilty. But, of course the white people in the heartland who make <$30/year think Trump, who received just a “small loan of a million dollars” from his Daddy when starting out, will understand their daily struggle.

This does not look good for Carson, Trump or Fiorina, none of whom have ever held any elected or appointed political office and also have never even served in the military.
Their one "ace-in-the-hole" is counting on what may be a real backlash from moderate Republicans/conservatives that the politicians have caved to right wing nutjobs long enough. To take back their party, they may have to resort to drastic measures and look to the "outside" for leadership. It may only serve to replace one group of clowns with another, but I think it is a possibility.
I have been thinking about this a lot. Just because you can run a business or operate on a brain (Carson), doesn't mean you can run a nation and operate among world leaders. I have been employed in both the private sector and government and the two function very differently and you do not have the same power in government (even in those high-level positions of the gov't your power is less than as you would have as a CEO over your own private company). If Trump thinks he is going to go into the White House and bully everyone in the nation through his CEO bully tactics and sarcasm, we're F'ed and the U.S. is going to gain even more global enemies...I actually view his sacrascm and lack of tact as a potential security threat to the U.S. (from hostile nations whom he will undoubtedly offend and insult). He will prove to be a major liablilty. But, of course the white people in the heartland who make <$30/year think Trump, who received just a "small loan of a million dollars" from his Daddy when starting out, will understand their daily struggle.
You've hit the nail on the head!

The GOP thinks anyone who has done anything “outside” of the government and that involved “management,” is qualified to lead the nation. Remember Herman Cain (the pizza guy)? He was the candidate running on the platform of saving a pizza chain. Each election cycle, I think they’re going to offer up what they think will relate to the people, even if it doesn’t make sense for the position of Presidency.

The GOP thinks anyone who has done anything "outside" of the government ...
No no no, only if it's their kooks. But then again, under it all, they do want to destroy our government so what can we expect.
The GOP thinks anyone who has done anything "outside" of the government ...
No no no, only if it's their kooks. But then again, under it all, they do want to destroy our government so what can we expect.That's a point I think everyone is missing, especially the pundits. These clowns want to kill government, not govern a country. They're fascists at heart, even though they'd never admit it. They want to minimize government so that corporations can effectively control the country, even more so than currently. So really the goal is to get any clown in, and then conduct the real business of dismantling things. Reagan and W are perfect examples.
The GOP thinks anyone who has done anything "outside" of the government ...
No no no, only if it's their kooks. But then again, under it all, they do want to destroy our government so what can we expect.That's a point I think everyone is missing, especially the pundits. These clowns want to kill government, not govern a country. They're fascists at heart, even though they'd never admit it. They want to minimize government so that corporations can effectively control the country, even more so than currently. So really the goal is to get any clown in, and then conduct the real business of dismantling things. Reagan and W are perfect examples. You're asolutely right. That explains so much. In addition When business won't pay a living wage, the government has to make it up, meaning that the government is subsidizing business when it comes to wages--yes, itis subsidizing business, not the people. It's another form of corporate welfare the right wing doesn't want to recognize. They'd rather blame the workers for being lazy. When the governmemt subsidizes wages, everyone's taxes go up. We should be focusing on corporate welfare, which increases profits, instead of individual welfare. However it's done, the taxpayer pays. But right wingers focus only on individual welfare as if they had nothing to do with it. More welfare money goes to businesses than to individuals but you don't hear right wingers complaining about that kind of welfare. You don't hear right wingers calling corporate welfare a social program that must be cut. THAT kind of social program is ok with them--as long as it protects their profits.

Subject matter aside, notice how limited Trump’s speech is. People used to point out Bush, but I am finding Trump’s speech more cringe-worthy. He can somehow speak five sentences using about three words repeatedly and make no sense at the end : Huffington Post Article]
****Edit: I have linked in the correct article now. Prior, it was the wrong article.

Subject matter aside, notice how limited Trump's speech is. People used to point out Bush, but I am finding Trump's speech more cringe-worthy. He can somehow speak five sentences using about three words repeatedly and make no sense at the end :Trump (Huffington Post Article)]
Trump is a modern day pied piper leading "children," who willingly follow him--to their deaths. Lois
I have been thinking about this a lot. Just because you can run a business or operate on a brain (Carson), doesn't mean you can run a nation and operate among world leaders.
It doesn't mean you can't, either.
If Trump thinks he is going to go into the White House and bully everyone in the nation through his CEO bully tactics and sarcasm, we're F'ed
He probably won't "bully everyone"--just those who need it.
the U.S. is going to gain even more global enemies...I actually view his sacrascm and lack of tact as a potential security threat to the U.S. (from hostile nations whom he will undoubtedly offend and insult) He will prove to be a major liablilty.
Disagree, the enemies we have who would be offended by Trump don't really matter as a security threat.
Subject matter aside, notice how limited Trump's speech is. People used to point out Bush, but I am finding Trump's speech more cringe-worthy. He can somehow speak five sentences using about three words repeatedly and make no sense at the end :Trump (Huffington Post Article)]
Trump is a modern day pied piper leading "children," who willingly follow him--to their deaths. LoisFunny comments like this are an indication that Trump is pushing the right buttons.
Subject matter aside, notice how limited Trump's speech is. People used to point out Bush, but I am finding Trump's speech more cringe-worthy. He can somehow speak five sentences using about three words repeatedly and make no sense at the end :Trump (Huffington Post Article)]
Trump is a modern day pied piper leading "children," who willingly follow him--to their deaths. Lois I attached the wrong article initially. The correct one is linked in now up in my post.

The following is how Mr. Trump talks. I think he speaks in general terms and stumbles a lot because he doesn’t have deep knowledge on what he talks about. He hides behind bully tactics, his version of humor, and insults to redirect people from the fact that he is not actually giving solid talks. He said the following of Ben Carson being “pathological.” Apparently, this label of “pathological” came from Carson’s memoir that he published about his personal struggle with anger and violence years ago. He is outrageously insulting. A winner for sure.
“If you’re pathological there’s no cure for that folks. And I did one of the shows today, and I don’t to say what I said but I’ll tell you anyway. I said that if you’re a child molester, a sick puppy, you’re a child molester, there’s no cure for that. There’s only one cure, we don’t to talk about that cure. That’s the ultimate cure. No there’s two, there’s death and there’s the other thing. But if you’re a child molester there’s no cure, they can’t stop you. Pathological, there’s no cure. Now he said he was pathological, okay,” he said.

The following is how Mr. Trump talks. I think he speaks in general terms and stumbles a lot because he doesn't have deep knowledge on what he talks about. He hides behind bully tactics, his version of humor, and insults to redirect people from the fact that he is not actually giving solid talks. He said the following of Ben Carson being "pathological." He is outrageously insulting. A winner for sure. "If you're pathological there's no cure for that folks. And I did one of the shows today, and I don't to say what I said but I'll tell you anyway. I said that if you're a child molester, a sick puppy, you're a child molester, there's no cure for that. There's only one cure, we don't to talk about that cure. That's the ultimate cure. No there's two, there's death and there's the other thing. But if you're a child molester there's no cure, they can't stop you. Pathological, there's no cure. Now he said he was pathological, okay," he said.
Are you kidding? That's pure stream of consciousness...Donald "Jack Kerouac" Trump! Donald "James Joyce" Trump! Pure genius. :) (...he said with sarcasm).

Your info on winners and losers is not totally correct but for the most part it is. For me, I could care less about political or military experience. In a way any military personnel must have political skill to reach such a high rank and the vast majority in high ranking political positions are lawyers. The part that scares me is that most are lawyers, people who earned their living by yapping away and I am yet to see a President who doesn’t carry on the tradition.