Honestly, what is the polite acceptable explanation for all this nonsense?
Because I can only think of possibilities that are all in one way or another deeply hostile to beliefs that polite progressives hold. Either:
a) These are in fact the most qualified candidates in their respective countries, because ability to lead a country is extremely highly heritable, presumably due to an overwhelmingly strong genetic component (though Hillary Clinton doesn't fit this, being a spouse, not a blood relative)
b) These are not the most qualified candidates, and these are not even the candidates that the electorate really most wants, but they win anyway due to some combination of :
b. i) the fact that we are ruled by an iron oligarchy of powerful families and interests who perpetuate themselves, and/or
b. ii) the electorate is comprised of complete morons.
c) These are not the most qualified candidates, but these are the candidates that the electorate really wants, because the electorate really has a deep-seated desire to return either to a hereditary monarchy, or a system of alternating rule by powerful ruling families, a la medieval and renaissance Florence.
I don't think these are mutually exclusive possibilities, and all have something of a ring of truth about them.
But seriously, is there some other answer I've missed that would be more acceptable to the way the world is portrayed in a high school civics class?
Don't hold your breath waiting for the media to discuss the implications of any of these hypotheses.