This is really interesting. Thanks for taking the time to do this.

Not that it matters, but since I am a stats nerd, here is some statistical analysis of your results.

In a statistical sense the null hypothesis would be that there was no difference in the proportion of good presidents between presidents with and without executive experience (i.e. executive experince does not make a difference). In this case the alternative hypothesis would be that experience makes a president more likely to be good.

Using a Fisher’s Exact test we get a p-value of 0.32 meaning that 32% of the time you could get the above result due to chance. We cannot reject the null hypothesis and thus conclude that executive experience has no impact on the quality of the president (and actually it is trending the other direction).

I don’t think I really added anything with this, but it was an interesting exercise.

Woodrow Wilson was a racist, empiralist, anti-Democracy, red scare baiting, ku-kluking sheet-head:

http://www.utwatch.org/funfacts/woodrowwilson.html

He ordered the unsuccessful invasion & occupation of Russia, Haiti/Dominican Republic (and enslavement by Marines of their people) and Mexico (twice).

To call him a successful president is to further perpetuate the lie.