Obama ranked 7th greatest president

Cypress said:
It's a survey of professional historians.

Not a survey of numbskulls on the street.

A valid representative sampling only has to be adequate to represent the sample population. There aren't millions of professional historians in America.
Click to expand...

One would think that a poster who claims to be a "doctor" would know this, since they have to take at least one course in statistics, in order to understand a typical medical journal published study regarding a new treatment protocol. :rolleyes:
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
One would think that a poster who claims to be a "doctor" would know this, since they have to take at least one course in statistics, in order to understand a typical medical journal published study regarding a new treatment protocol. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I believe MAGA has been trained like monkeys to believe Deep State deliberately and relentlessly publishes information to make their Orange Messiah look bad.

It sounds like the survey is of professional historians who are experts on American history and the presidency.

That's even a smaller subset of the already small pool of professional historians.

A representative sample of 154, out of a sample population that can't be more than ~couple thousand seems statistically valid to me at first blush.
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
I'll be passing out earplugs so we sane ppl can block out the Reichwing screams of outrage. :laugh:
Click to expand...

Jimmy Carter ranked 22nd, so all the Democratic presidents of my lifetime ranked in the top half of all presidents in history, and usually in the top third
 
Cypress said:
I believe MAGA has been trained like monkeys to believe Deep State deliberately and relentlessly publishes information to make their Orange Messiah look bad.

It sounds like the survey is of professional historians who are experts on American history and the presidency.

That's even a smaller subset of the already small pool of professional historians.

A representative sample of 154, out of a sample population that can't be more than ~couple thousand seems statistically valid to me at first blush.
Click to expand...

The study itself, which is linked in the NYT article contrary to the Reichtards' claims otherwise, states that they sent the survey out to 525 historians. 154 responded, for a response rate of 29.3%. Given the small pool of possible professional historians, that's a good sampling and statistically valid.

This idiocy is so typical of the low-IQ, low-info MAGATs. Don't like the news? Call it fake or pretend you can't see it!
 
martin said:
They say the source was 154 professional historians, some self identified as Democrats, some as Republicans, and the Republicans also ranked Trump low on the list - imagine that.
Click to expand...

We have idiots on this thread who claim they have an NYT subscription, but don't see a source link, even though the source is highlighted and hyperlinked clearly in the article
 
Cypress said:
He must have been lying about having a NYT subscription. The hyperlink to the original source is clearly provided in the NYT article.

Who lies about having an NYT subscription, and what's the motivation for that lie?
Click to expand...

He wants to sound informed and intelligent. The MAGATs hate the "failing New York Times" because 1) their fuehrer told them to, and 2) they perceive it as something liberal "elitists" subscribe to. Maybe I should change the title under my screen name from "Leftist Vermin" to "New York Times Subscriber." :rofl2:
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
He wants to sound informed and intelligent. The MAGATs hate the "failing New York Times" because 1) their fuehrer told them to, and 2) they perceive it as something liberal "elitists" subscribe to. Maybe I should change the title under my screen name from "Leftist Vermin" to "New York Times Subscriber." :rofl2:
Click to expand...

Oh I see. He lied about having an NYT subscription with the motivation to undermine my post, but he didn't realize other people know how to access the free reads option in NYT and could debunk his claim of no sources in the article
 
ThatOwlWoman said:
The study itself, which is linked in the NYT article contrary to the Reichtards' claims otherwise, states that they sent the survey out to 525 historians. 154 responded, for a response rate of 29.3%. Given the small pool of possible professional historians, that's a good sampling and statistically valid.

This idiocy is so typical of the low-IQ, low-info MAGATs. Don't like the news? Call it fake or pretend you can't see it!
Click to expand...

You're right. At first blush, that seems an extremely good sample size of the pool of reputable professional historians with expertise in the history of the presidency.
 
Cypress said:
Obama 7th best
Clinton 11th
Biden 14th
Reagan 16th
Trump dead last at 45th

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/18/us/politics/biden-trump-presidential-rankings.html
Click to expand...

MAGA soils diapers.

flea.gif
tenor.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top