26,172

T. A. Gardner said:
Trivial objection fallacy. Harrison shouldn't be rated at all. This is nothing to rate him on. Garfield and Taylor lasted long enough to establish a record. They can be rated on what they did.


Plenty of stuff is objective and measurable. GOOD historians work from facts and objective data not opinion and subjective nonsense.
Click to expand...
But if you are complaining a full list of all Presidents you have to put him somewhere, and if your list measures successes and failures, Harrison’s biggest fault was Tyler as his VP, which turned out a huge mistake going forward

Facts alone don’t give you anything, ie, Washington was the first President, he served from …… to ……., he nationalized the banks and took on all the State’s debt, etc., etc., etc.. What does that tell you about Washington in history? All facts have to be studied and interpreted, and the ones best qualified to do such are those that study and research history for a living, historians
 
archives said:
But if you are complaining a full list of all Presidents you have to put him somewhere, and if your list measures successes and failures, Harrison’s biggest fault was Tyler as his VP, which turned out a huge mistake going forward
Click to expand...

At the bottom of the list as "Not observed." In other words, simply don't rank him at all but include him on the list for completeness.
archives said:
Facts alone don’t give you anything, ie, Washington was the first President, he served from …… to ……., he nationalized the banks and took on all the State’s debt, etc., etc., etc.. What does that tell you about Washington in history? All facts have to be studied and interpreted, and the ones best qualified to do such are those that study and research history for a living, historians
Click to expand...
Presidents performed specific acts and actions that had consequences. These can be observed and ranked. The results can be seen over time too and ranked in importance.


One of the things this statistician points out is that historian's ratings aren't consistent with polling for presidents who were in office and for which polling is available. Truman, for example, is usually rated fairly high by historians but his polling was terrible.

lakemichiganbookshelf.substack.com

Soapbox: Historians' Presidential Rankings are Useless

[Trivia: What titles from two volumes of William Blake’s poetry were later adopted as titles for two U2 albums?]
lakemichiganbookshelf.substack.com lakemichiganbookshelf.substack.com

This article argues that no objective standard is being used.


“Trump Ranked History’s Worst U.S. President, Biden Finishes 14” trumpeted the New York Daily News. The New York Times flipped the emphasis: “Poll Ranks Biden as 14th-Best President, With Trump Last.”

Yea, sure...
 
T. A. Gardner said:
At the bottom of the list as "Not observed." In other words, simply don't rank him at all but include him on the list for completeness.

Presidents performed specific acts and actions that had consequences. These can be observed and ranked. The results can be seen over time too and ranked in importance.


One of the things this statistician points out is that historian's ratings aren't consistent with polling for presidents who were in office and for which polling is available. Truman, for example, is usually rated fairly high by historians but his polling was terrible.

lakemichiganbookshelf.substack.com

Soapbox: Historians' Presidential Rankings are Useless

[Trivia: What titles from two volumes of William Blake’s poetry were later adopted as titles for two U2 albums?]
lakemichiganbookshelf.substack.com lakemichiganbookshelf.substack.com

This article argues that no objective standard is being used.


“Trump Ranked History’s Worst U.S. President, Biden Finishes 14” trumpeted the New York Daily News. The New York Times flipped the emphasis: “Poll Ranks Biden as 14th-Best President, With Trump Last.”

Yea, sure...
Click to expand...
As I noted, his selection for VP gives some reason to make the rankings

Public polls don’t enter in historians rankings, and as I said, they aren’t totally objective, little is, but if you look at rankings over time the top dozen or so seemingly remain the same, as do the bottom few. And back to my original point Obama is the majority of time found in the top fifteor so

And the article, although interesting, is the predictable attack on the historians for their assumed political bias
 
archives said:
No need to spin, as historians have noted, Obama stands within the top fifteen ranked US Presidents

For beginners, Obama never said he wouldn’t, that was Trump’s lie, and he echoed the lie more than once

And no I am not calling for Trump’s impeachment over bombing Iran, nor are many on the left, rather pointing out the dishonesty from Trump in doing his best to control thr narrative which anyone knows is not true, Iran’s nuclear sites were not “obliviated and totally destroyed” as Trump told Americans over the weekend and continues to say today
Click to expand...
Trump will end up on Mt. Rushmore. :woot:
 
archives said:
As I noted, his selection for VP gives some reason to make the rankings
Click to expand...

Until fairly recently VP's ran independently of presidential candidates.
archives said:
Public polls don’t enter in historians rankings, and as I said, they aren’t totally objective, little is, but if you look at rankings over time the top dozen or so seemingly remain the same, as do the bottom few. And back to my original point Obama is the majority of time found in the top fifteor so
Click to expand...

They should. They are evidence--measurable evidence--of the general popularity of a president and should be considered.
archives said:
And the article, although interesting, is the predictable attack on the historians for their assumed political bias
Click to expand...
That's because it's accurate in that. There is political bias at work to one degree or another.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Until fairly recently VP's ran independently of presidential candidates.


They should. They are evidence--measurable evidence--of the general popularity of a president and should be considered.

That's because it's accurate in that. There is political bias at work to one degree or another.
Click to expand...
Ended in 1804, and I believe it played a role in the Burr/Hamilton feud leading to Hamilton’s death

Not true, Buchanan and Harding were popular for most of their Presidency, you give them credit for that when measuring their successes and failures?

As I been saying, so his article, none of it is objective, history isn’t totally objective, that is what Historiography is all about
 
Matt Dillon said:
Yep. It's time.
Click to expand...
There is a reason the proposal never went beyond Luna’s text

He can build his own at Maralago, all you Floridians can go visit, but you can rest assured he’ll charge a pretty penny to see it, probably amp up the cost on all the Trump paraphernalia in the gift shop, but it will be worth it cause it will be the “best monument in history,” and “tremendous.”
 
archives said:
Ended in 1804, and I believe it played a role in the Burr/Hamilton feud leading to Hamilton’s death

Not true, Buchanan and Harding were popular for most of their Presidency, you give them credit for that when measuring their successes and failures?

As I been saying, so his article, none of it is objective, history isn’t totally objective, that is what Historiography is all about
Click to expand...
Buchanan had one of the biggest failures in American history occur on his watch, the Civil War. Buchanan left it to Lincoln to deal with instead of doing something about the rebellion between Lincoln's election and his inauguration.

Harding on the whole wasn't that bad a President. He had his scandals (Teapot Dome), but on the whole he did pretty well as a president.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Buchanan had one of the biggest failures in American history occur on his watch, the Civil War. Buchanan left it to Lincoln to deal with instead of doing something about the rebellion between Lincoln's election and his inauguration.

Harding on the whole wasn't that bad a President. He had his scandals (Teapot Dome), but on the whole he did pretty well as a president.
Click to expand...
First off, your point was that public polls should be considered by historians when ranking Presidents, and asI said both Buchanan and Harding were popular at some point in their Presidency, hell, even WH Harrison was for a month, he got easily elected

No one gong to argue that Buchanan was not a good president, deserves his ranking, and Harding was in over his head even before he took office, Congress ran the country Harding was just a puppet, which he had no clue what was occurring under him
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top