In my soon to be released book, How to Select an American President by James George with James Rodger (c) 2106 Archway Publishing, using a suggested scoring method to evaluate candidate resumes, Clinton and Trump scored equally for different reasons. The government knowledge and experience edge goes to Clinton. The private enterprise experience edge goes to Trump. The "outsider" advantage goes to Trump. The "insider" advantage goes to Clinton.
Without considering their presidential manifestos, and based on abilities alone, it's a wash.
Now, also a part of the suggested method includes medical and mental health evaluations from certified sources. The medical health reports are in. The mental health reports are incomplete.
Nothing can be done about the fact that these two candidates are older than the preferred age 57-58 for qualified candidates to increase the probability that they can complete two terms while remaining in good health.
Turning to the vastly more complex question, what are these candidates' presidential manifestos? How do their individual manifestos compare with their parties' platforms?
Party platforms have been hastily prepared, largely behind the scenes, and without sufficient vetting by the voter public. Presidential manifestos evolve at the last minute in fits and spurts. Neither of these circumstances serves the voter public.
Both political parties and their candidates are responsible for deficiencies that plague the American political system.
It might be wonderful if Monday's "dead heat" were from a race between two superb entries. It is not.
Nip and paw