system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: I believe that political experience is necessary for impactful legislation and high profile political roles and that USA's idea that an outsider will bring change is completely wrong

The 2 arguments behind my view are 

1. Intuition - You need to understand how institutions work from the inside to use them to your advantage
2. Historical Precedent - For the last hundred years, the most lasting legislative impact has been cast by politicians who have had tons of experience 

**Positive Examples Of Experience Being Useful**

1. FDR - had 22 years of political experience and was able to make a lasting impact through Social Security and the New Deal.
2. LBJ - Had 36 years of experience and make a lasting impact through Medicare, Medicaid, and the great society.
3. Richard Nixon - had 2 terms as vice president in the Eisenhower administration ( Eisenhower was a political outsider and was getting old; thus, the vice president had more hands-on experience) and his policy on drugs ( whether we agree or not), China and the EPA has remained almost intact. 
4. George H.W.Bush ( Slightly different example here) - Had over 25 years of domestic and foreign policy experience. Stabilized the world in a post Coldwar era i.e. avoiding any political vacuum that might have caused ISIS type instabilities in eastern Europe and successfully restored American Spirit in interventionism by winning the 1st war against Saddam Hussain

**Negative Examples Of Inexperience Failing**

* Robert Mcnamara ( Businessman, Veitnam)
* John F Kennedy ( zero experience, bay of pigs)
* Jimmy Carter(no experience, Iranian Hostage Crisis)
* Bill Clinton (6 terms Governor and no Washington experience, inaction during Rwanda genocide)
*George W Bush (3 term Governor, Iraq war amongst so many other quagmires)
*Barack Obama( Junior Senator, political vacuum in Iraq leading to rise of ISIS) 
* Finally, Trump and Rex Tillerson(it may be too early but so far... Zero political Experience, not filling bureaucratic appointments leading to hollow and inefficient government and state department)

Some background on myself to help you CMV

* I am not an American but have been following American politics for a couple of years now, so there may be historical blindsights/ on the ground reality related blindsight in my perspective.

*  I happen to lean center of the left and may have confirmation biases here and there too.

**Edit -** I seem to have changed my mind on quite a few issues from the scope of the presidency to the unknown achievements of many presidents. All in all, this was a good learning experience, thanks for keeping it civil.
gpt
It seems like your only metric for analyzing success and useful is "I can think of something good for these experienced people" and failure as "I can think of something bad for these inexperienced people". 

 _Surely_ you have to have a basic understanding of confirmation bias such that you aren't actually really satisfied with that?

How are you constructing your terms and analysis such that is Vietnam a hit against McNamara but _not_ LBJ?