“So the word “qualified” has a specific definition.”
I agree. For any job, it involves a resume that (a) contains relevant experience with (b) documented successes with few or no © documented failures.
When it comes to running for president, determining what is a (a) a relevant experience, (b) what is a documented success, and © what is a documented failure……is not always so clear.
Having said that, I agree. Let’s not relitigate that.
“That doesn’t make him better qualified.”
I agree, if one candidate is NOT qualified, that doesn’t have anything to do with if the other candidate is or is not qualified. But in the case of an “either-or” election, the voter is forced to make a judgement on who is more qualified and which is less qualified.
“The polls may be unreliable, but they are not speculation.”
I;ve been looking at the same polls, I think you need to look again. The way CNN did this is confusing. If you click it over to “graph” rather than “chart” it suddenly makes more sense. And fortunately they asked a very specific “qualified to serve” question so you don’t have to draw inferences from other questions.
QUESTION: Is Clinton qualified to be President?
52% of voters said yes. 86% of those were Clinton voters, 9% of them were Trump voters.
47% of voters said no. 5% of those were Clinton voters, 90% of them were Trump voters.
QUESTION: Is Trump qualified to be President?
38% of voters said yes. 86% of those were Clinton voters, 94% of them were Trump voters.
60% of voters said no. 75% of those were Clinton voters, 18% of them were Trump voters.
QUESTION: Who is qualified to be President?
5% said BOTH
46% said ONLY CLINTON
33% said ONLY TRUMP
14% said NEITHER
So, granted, the more voters said that Hilly was qualified than Trump, by a 51% to 38% margin. That’s not close to the landslide in Hilly’s favor that you inferred above.
(Whoever designed that presentation scheme for CNN should be fired.) :-)