I liked the first President Bush and found it shocking he lost his second term.    To win a major conflict on foreign soil, protect American interest, and defend an ally should have been huge.  But his own party defeated him (as the Democrats are close to doing), because he wasn't 'muscular enough in not squishing Iraq and that he recognized he had a huge deficit and had to roll back previous tax cuts (a move that President Reagan also dd by the way.  A move that President Clinton did and managed to balance at least one years budget with a Republican congress).

Bush may have been the most qualified candidate in terms of government experience and inter department knowledge we've had in my lifetime.   And yes, I think his performance was superior to the work of H. Clinton.  
 
Trump has a very thin resume.    The 'corporate' rule that says a good manager can manage any company is nonsense (and proven as such).   The best managers have intimate knowledge of their product/service.