You are just saying something not true and is very insulting. That is an absolute lie.
Obama ranked 11th best president
- Thread starter Cypress
- Start date
You are just saying something not true and is very insulting. That is an absolute lie.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
You’re an expert on domestic violence, ain’tcha, dingo-breath?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Wrong. Data on presidential performance shouldn't be based on opinion which is how these polls measure things, but based on empirical, measurable evidence. Factual histories provide that. Also, time helps and allows those measuring these thing to gain more information about what some president did in office. That isn't always readily available in the short run.
The Senica poll is based on opinions, mostly Leftist professor's opinions, and little more.
For instance, a great historical example is Thomas Jefferson. Why should he be rated highly? He was a one-term president for a reason, and that wasn't because he was a success in office...
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Scholars aren't going to rank Obama based on how much TA Gardner hated him.
Obama easily won back to back elections and served two consecutive terms. That is a judgement of the voters on Obama. Obama took office and reversed an economic meltdown and left office with a 60 percent approval rating, a growing economy and low unemployment.
Those are standards and criteria by which historians are going to judge Obama's historic stature.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Instead, they foist their subjective opinions based on how much they like or hate them.
What does that have to do with how good a president he was? More opinion being used as some measurable fact. And, Obama's approval rating was about 54% on leaving office.
Historians are using subjective opinion. That's obvious from their ratings. Or, do you have evidence they use some objective set of measures in making their ratings?
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Why do Trumpers whine about not being able to foist their views upon others but constantly whine, bitch and moan when others exercise the same right?
Look at the methodology and metrics used for your answers. Why are your panties in such a wad over this, Terry?
Define “subjective”? That fact they chose the criteria of measurement? Start your own fucking measurement if you don’t like theirs. I’m betting yours would be very subjective. So much so that you’d easily put Trump in the Top Ten if not the Top Five.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
When you (historians and political scientists who are supposedly professionals) are doing it for an accurate and factual historical accounting, objectivity and measurable quantification of each president's results and capacity in the categories being measured should be a first priority. Personal politics should be set aside. But they aren't and it shows in the ratings produced.
I'd put Trump in the bottom of the half of presidents, over all a fairly mediocre score. I'd score Biden well below him. Obama I'd, off hand, would say was middle of the pack. Not particularly good, but not particularly bad either.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Are you saying they hid their criteria? That they lied? You seem overly upset about this and I’m curious why.
Frankly, I haven’t been happy with any Presidents since GHW Bush and agree on the mediocrity. Part of the problem is Congress, which is worse than mediocre. In fact, I’d charge most of them with dereliction of duty if I could do so.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
They never produced any criteria to begin with. They just gave a rating in each category. Sort of a pick a number between 1 and 10 for each category. No explanation or criteria given.
For example, the Senia College ratings have a category "Background." It should be possible to make a list of what characteristics and previous experience are relevant to determining the background of a president and producing a reasonably objective list base on those characteristics.
In that category, off the top of my head I might list:
Political
--governor
--House (state / federal)
--Senate (state / federal)
--VP
--longevity
Military
--officer
--general
--wartime leader
--longevity
Edu
--Top university
--college grad
--exceptional academic
Business
--executive
--success
--wealthy
--longevity
List significant accomplishments prior to being president.
Each category could be weighted some. The idea is you score each president on their previous accomplishments. The more they have, the better they score. So, many presidents would have high scores in this category. Obama comes to mind as being fairly low on this ranking with virtually no background beyond a minimum in any category before becoming president. That's not to bash Obama, but what can you objectively give him, particularly when you look at what he accomplished in the positions he had and how long he was in them.
Likewise, Trump would come out with a mediocre score outside of business. Biden would have politics and little else to point to. Again, he'd get a mediocre score.
Last edited:
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
There’s a shitload of resources there and multiple rankings. Again, I fail to see why you are so worked up over this.
Several of the rankings were done before the Clinton administration. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States
Did you complain 30 years ago?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Because as someone who studies and writes history I think it's important to have the most objective historical analysis possible. And, yes, I did complain 30 years ago about this sort of thing.
Two separate mainstream polls showed Obama with 60 percent approval on January 18, 2017 two days before he left office.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38667115.amp
The fact that the Sienna survey shows Republicans as three of the top six presidents shows there was no concerted bias towards Democrats. There are more Republicans in the top six presidents than Democrats.
Your hatred of Obama does not factor into The judgement of scholars.
Objective facts are these-->
Obama easily won two consecutive terms as president, left office with a 60 percent approval rating, took office during an economic crash and turned it around, passed landmark legislation, and left office with a growing economy and low unemployment.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
You can bitch and whine about historical rankings and it won’t stop people from making them. You’re pissing up a rope, Terry.
Why do you think these rankings are so vitally important to history and the United States?
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Look at the various ratings again. Obama objectively scores poorly on most of them if you look at his time in office. For example, "Relations with Congress." Once the Democrats lost control of both houses of Congress, Obama couldn't get shit done. He had ZERO ability to work with Republicans. Contrast that with Clinton who faced the same thing and was able to get quite a bit done with an opposition led congress.
Yet, Clinton is ranked far below Obama, presumably on his impeachment rather than all the stuff he did manage to do, while Obama accomplished nothing with the Republicans. Of note is that Clinton's popularity rose after that change, while Obama's plummeted.
There are plenty of obvious anomalies in the ratings too. For instance, Obama is rated well ahead of Ronald Reagan who had far more background experience than Obama did. Damn near every president on the list had more experience than Obama who's whole experience consisted of a few terms in the Illinois state senate where he did nothing, and a partial term in the US senate where he did nothing. Outside of graduating from Harvard, he did nothing of note until elected president.
Or, FDR is rated ahead of Woodrow Wilson on background even though the two share similar ones with Wilson actually having more varied and exceptional experience. Why would FDR get a better rating?
It was Republicans who said on day one of Obama's presidency they would obstruct him on everything.
The fact you hate Obamacare, and dislike Obama personally have no bearing on the objective historical judgement of a president.
Obama easily coasted to two consecutive terms, easily dispatched his opponents, left office with a 60 percent approval rating, and ended his presidency with a growing economy and low unemployment.
Just those objective, undeniable facts alone virtually ensures a president is going to be ranked in the top third at a minimum.
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
FDR was ranked first, and I would certainly agree with that.
There's another reason why I oppose term limits.
We should have the choice to keep good ones until they die.
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
So? The Democrats said essentially the same thing about Trump. Getting reelected, is one small item in overall presidential performance. It isn't the be-all, end-all of it. If it were, then Nixon would be near the top of the heap as he won reelection against McGovern in what was the worst defeats of a candidate in US history.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Why? What did FDR do that was so great?
NiftyNiblick
1960s Chick Magnet
Worked to abolish Prohibition.
Signed the National Recovery Act and implemented the Works Projects Administration.
Implemented Social Security.
Supported the TVA.
Led the nation toward victory in World War II.
None of those are small things.
Nobody else to have occupied the Oval Office even approached FDR in achievement.
Nobody from Washington to Biden.