Presidential Rankings

Biased.

From your link:

editor James Taranto noted that Democratic-leaning scholars rated George W. Bush the sixth-worst president of all time while Republican scholars rated him the sixth-best, giving him a split-decision rating of "average".

The 1994 survey placed only two presidents, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Abraham Lincoln, above 80 points and two presidents, Andrew Johnson and Warren G. Harding, below 50 points.

Trump isn't ranked in your first link.

Your second link doesn't have him in the bottom tier.

Your third link has the same ranking as your second one.

Why do you lie?
 
domer76 said:
As I’ve said, Trump is always at the bottom of the heap.

Historical rankings of presidents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

https://scri.siena.edu/us-presidents-study-historical-rankings/

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/presidents-ranked-worst-best/
Click to expand...

Those ratings are highly questionable and more opinion of those making them than quantified fact. This isn't to defend Trump or some other president, but rather a comment on their general methodology.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Those ratings are highly questionable and more opinion of those making them than quantified fact. This isn't to defend Trump or some other president, but rather a comment on their general methodology.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we all know you’re the expert.

Odd, how they are so consistent. And place your boy at the bottom.

Now, run off and cry.
 
domer76 said:
As I’ve said, Trump is always at the bottom of the heap.

Historical rankings of presidents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

https://scri.siena.edu/us-presidents-study-historical-rankings/

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/presidents-ranked-worst-best/
Click to expand...

Anyone who thinks there is an objective way to rank presidents is a moron. Its like ranking NFL quarterbacks. I know this stuff makes you imbeciles excited but its pure conjecture and we know trumps at the bottom when a dem is running the rankings. How stupid are you exactly? never mind this thread tells us.
 
domer76 said:
As I’ve said, Trump is always at the bottom of the heap.

Historical rankings of presidents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

https://scri.siena.edu/us-presidents-study-historical-rankings/

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/presidents-ranked-worst-best/
Click to expand...

I don’t put too much of an emphasis on Presidential rankings. We’ve had a few truly great Presidents and a few truly bad ones and the rest in between have set a very good record for governance.

Mostly when someone ranks Presidents it’s a reflection of their own personal values as opposed to the historical significance and long term impact of their policies.

A good example of this is the popularity of Calvin Coolidge with Libertarian. Coolidge believed that the Presidency and that the Presidency Federal authorities on domestic affairs should be limited. Which fits in well with libertarian values and thus he is popular amongst those who have strong libertarian beliefs.

U.S. Grant is another example. If you’re a neo-Confederate he would probably be ranked dead last in your book. If you’re of an egalitarian bent Grant, as President, ranks significantly higher for his work on reconstruction, civil rights, creating the Justice Department, his destruction of the first iteration of the KKK and the precedents he established as President that was the beginning of the end of the spoils system that led to our modern Civil Service.

Again, that boils down to a reflection of your values.
 
Yakuda said:
Anyone who thinks there is an objective way to rank presidents is a moron. Its like ranking NFL quarterbacks. I know this stuff makes you imbeciles excited but its pure conjecture and we know trumps at the bottom when a dem is running the rankings. How stupid are you exactly? never mind this thread tells us.
Click to expand...

Same method applied to all presidents in any given survey of historians. Criteria probably differs for each survey.

THE RESULTS ARE THE SAME. Trump is at the bottom of the heap. Not a surprise at all.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I don’t put too much of an emphasis on Presidential rankings. We’ve had a few truly great Presidents and a few truly bad ones and the rest in between have set a very good record for governance.

Mostly when someone ranks Presidents it’s a reflection of their own personal values as opposed to the historical significance and long term impact of their policies.

A good example of this is the popularity of Calvin Coolidge with Libertarian. Coolidge believed that the Presidency and that the Presidency Federal authorities on domestic affairs should be limited. Which fits in well with libertarian values and thus he is popular amongst those who have strong libertarian beliefs.

U.S. Grant is another example. If you’re a neo-Confederate he would probably be ranked dead last in your book. If you’re of an egalitarian bent Grant, as President, ranks significantly higher for his work on reconstruction, civil rights, creating the Justice Department, his destruction of the first iteration of the KKK and the precedents he established as President that was the beginning of the end of the spoils system that led to our modern Civil Service.

Again, that boils down to a reflection of your values.
Click to expand...

That’s fine and dandy, but these surveys don’t represent any one personal view. They are a conglomerate of many, with specific and identifiable criteria.
 
domer76 said:
As I’ve said, Trump is always at the bottom of the heap.

Historical rankings of presidents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

https://scri.siena.edu/us-presidents-study-historical-rankings/

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/presidents-ranked-worst-best/
Click to expand...

According to the CBS survey, the last three Democratic presidents all rank within the top 20, while the last three Republican presidents rank 20, 35, and 43.

There are Republican adults well into their 40s who have never known a Republican president during their lifetimes they can be proud of.
 
Cypress said:
According to the CBS survey, the last three Democratic presidents all rank within the top 20, while the last three Republican presidents rank 20, 35, and 43.

There are Republican adults well into their 40s who have never known a Republican president during their lifetimes they can be proud of.
Click to expand...

It's biased based on opinion.

Of course these idiots are going to rank democrats at the top and republicans at the bottom.

They don't even list what things they are ranking them by.

That right there tells you everything you need to know.
 
domer76 said:
Yeah, we all know you’re the expert.

Odd, how they are so consistent. And place your boy at the bottom.

Now, run off and cry.
Click to expand...

My comments are reasonably provable.

Let's look at the Seina college rankings, for example:

https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/PDF-Ranking-FINAL-REAL.pdf

They use 20 rankings in this comparison:

Background
Imagination
Integrity
Intelligence
Luck
Willing to take risks
Avoid crucial mistakes
Court appointments
Domestic Accomplishments
Executive Appointments
Foreign Policy accomplishments
Handling of U.S. Economy
Party leadership
Relationship with Congress
Ability to compromise
Communication ability
Executive ability
Leadership ability
Overall ability

https://scri.siena.edu/us-presidents-study/about-the-presidents-study/

They don't tell you what the criteria are for those ratings, just that they are numerical. In other words, it's still just opinion, there really is no quantitative method involved.

And in some categories, they don't make much sense whatsoever, like how do you measure "Luck?" Also, the rating, "overall" if this is a rating category, not some averaging of the other ratings, is a duplicate and should be eliminated.

The categories aren't weighted by importance either, but all given equal importance. For example, three of the first four (leaving out integrity) really don't play into presidential success. Carter, as one example, was quite intelligent that's pretty clear. Didn't make him a better president...

What difference does "background" make? How do you rate that for importance? Does a career politician rate higher than someone coming from the private sector? Why would that hold significance to overall performance as president?

Then look at the results as posted. Why would a president's say, background rating change dramatically from year to year? Shouldn't it stay relatively constant, only moving slightly as new presidents are added to the list. But some of the ratings in this category vary fairly wildly. The same goes for many of the other categories.

You see, without the survey having some quantitative measures in it to justify a rating, the ratings are nothing but ill-informed opinion.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
My comments are reasonably provable.

Let's look at the Seina college rankings, for example:

https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/PDF-Ranking-FINAL-REAL.pdf

They use 20 rankings in this comparison:

Background
Imagination
Integrity
Intelligence
Luck
Willing to take risks
Avoid crucial mistakes
Court appointments
Domestic Accomplishments
Executive Appointments
Foreign Policy accomplishments
Handling of U.S. Economy
Party leadership
Relationship with Congress
Ability to compromise
Communication ability
Executive ability
Leadership ability
Overall ability

https://scri.siena.edu/us-presidents-study/about-the-presidents-study/

They don't tell you what the criteria are for those ratings, just that they are numerical. In other words, it's still just opinion, there really is no quantitative method involved.

And in some categories, they don't make much sense whatsoever, like how do you measure "Luck?" Also, the rating, "overall" if this is a rating category, not some averaging of the other ratings, is a duplicate and should be eliminated.

The categories aren't weighted by importance either, but all given equal importance. For example, three of the first four (leaving out integrity) really don't play into presidential success. Carter, as one example, was quite intelligent that's pretty clear. Didn't make him a better president...

What difference does "background" make? How do you rate that for importance? Does a career politician rate higher than someone coming from the private sector? Why would that hold significance to overall performance as president?

Then look at the results as posted. Why would a president's say, background rating change dramatically from year to year? Shouldn't it stay relatively constant, only moving slightly as new presidents are added to the list. But some of the ratings in this category vary fairly wildly. The same goes for many of the other categories.

You see, without the survey having some quantitative measures in it to justify a rating, the ratings are nothing but ill-informed opinion.
Click to expand...

Bottom 3 or 4, no matter how you shake it out, pally boy.
 
Tinkerpeach said:
It's biased based on opinion.

Of course these idiots are going to rank democrats at the top and republicans at the bottom.

They don't even list what things they are ranking them by.

That right there tells you everything you need to know.
Click to expand...

These polls routinely rank the Republicans Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower as among our top presidents. Lincoln is routinely ranked as the greatest president.

There hasn't been a Republican president conservative voters can be proud of in 35 years. Poppy Bush was considered apostate for raising taxes. George Dumbya Bush lost two wars and is so embarrassing he doesn't even get invited to speak at GOP presidential nomination conventions. The best reason conservatives can dream up to support Trump is: "I'm not voting for Trump! I'm voting against Democrats!"
 
domer76 said:
As I’ve said, Trump is always at the bottom of the heap.

Historical rankings of presidents

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_presidents_of_the_United_States

https://scri.siena.edu/us-presidents-study-historical-rankings/

https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/presidents-ranked-worst-best/
Click to expand...

clouded-leopard-big-cats.gif
 
Cypress said:
There hasn't been a Republican president conservative voters can be proud of in 35 years. Poppy Bush was considered apostate for raising taxes. George Dumbya Bush lost two wars and is so embarrassing he doesn't even get invited to speak at GOP presidential nomination conventions. The best reason conservatives can dream up to support Trump is: "I'm not voting for Trump! I'm voting against Democrats!"
Click to expand...

Johnson was someone to be proud of? Carter??? Biden???? Obama the economy destroyer???? Yeah, right snowflake.

boy-meets-world-laughing.gif
 
Cypress said:
These polls routinely rank the Republicans Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower as among our top presidents. Lincoln is routinely ranked as the greatest president.

There hasn't been a Republican president conservative voters can be proud of in 35 years. Poppy Bush was considered apostate for raising taxes. George Dumbya Bush lost two wars and is so embarrassing he doesn't even get invited to speak at GOP presidential nomination conventions. The best reason conservatives can dream up to support Trump is: "I'm not voting for Trump! I'm voting against Democrats!"
Click to expand...

Why did you pick 35 years?

Is that so you don't have to include Reagan?
 
Tinkerpeach said:
Why did you pick 35 years?

Is that so you don't have to include Reagan?
Click to expand...

Do you regard it to your benefit if that B Actor, union-busting troglodyte Ronnie Ray-Gun is in fact included?

Perhaps you do, Tink.

I, of course, voted against him twice.

As did the Gestapo.

The kids, unfortunately, were too young
and had to wait until they were eighteen to vote against Republican candidates.

They've been doing it for a while now, though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top