Worst US President of the last 50 years (1 Viewer)

[timschochet]

It also cost us many more American lives than Iraq did, although that is at least partially due to medical breakthroughs between then and now.

WTF are you talking about?

I read an article a few years back about how much better we are these days at treating battlefield casualties than we were during Vietnam. Medical science is much more adept at saving lives. The net result is that in modern wars like Iraq and Afghanistan, we suffered far less deaths than we did in Vietnam, in terms of percentage of wounded ending up dead.

 

[glumpy]

Carter should be the answer here but too many Bush haters on this board. Take this poll in about 10 years for better results.

Man, in hindsight, invading Iraq and toppling Saddam was such a great idea...

In foresight too--Dubya's Dad knew when to stop.

 

[Todd Andrews]

2. Carter - that economy was really awful, we almost hit a Hoover tailspin

5. GWB (Jr.)

SMH.

I took a running jump shot at a full ranking, but I will say that the only intervening presidents I have are LBJ and Ford.

I don't know where Ford ranks, I just slotted him at 4 because he had a short term and he pardoned Nixon. He did hold the country together though. So that leaves LBJ.

People who are ranking GWB Jr. as No. 1 or No. 2 based on what he did with/to/before the Iraq War have got to back up and compare the Iraq War vs the Vietnam War and what was done there.

JFK/LBJ/Nixon & Vietnam War - Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (makes the Iraq runup look like a model of transparency and debate), War Deaths 57,000+, and 150,000+ War casualties

vs.

GWB & Iraq - Full Senate authorization and long debate, with the current Demo VP & 2 SOS's voting for, 4400+ war deaths (3500 under GWB, 900 under BHO)

Rank Carter however you want but Iraq cannot hold a candle to Vietnam in terms of damage done, the lies told (especially by LBJ & Nixon) and the effect on this nation.

If you're looking at the economy also though you have to bring Carter back into the conversation.

Bush Great Recession trump card wins everything.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Saints, Vietnam had a bigger impact on the political culture of this nation and on our trust in our leadership. It also cost us many more American lives than Iraq did, although that is at least partially due to medical breakthroughs between then and now.

However, in terms or our status in the world, Iraq was by far the bigger blunder. What ultimately happened in Vietnam had little effect on us long term. What ultimately happens in Iraq will.

This is truly awful, low grade stuff.

I would like to think you, me and CSTU could all agree that Nixon is the all time worst in the past 50.

However as to Vietnam:

• Over 10 times more casualties
• drafted army, not a volunteer one
• the country was racked by the war, it was transformed politically, culturally, socially
• the country was affected for years after by the war, in some respects it still is, again culturally, militarily, diplomatically, politically, domestically and in foreign affairs
• massive lies about the Gulf of Tonkin, the Bush run-up pales in comparison
• we invaded and bombed two whole nations secretly

Not even close; if it's wars and foreign policy we're looking at only LBJ and Nixon certainly belong at a worse ranking than GWB Jr.

 

[timschochet]

But Nixon gets two huge bonuses for foreign policy: detente and China.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But Nixon gets two huge bonuses for foreign policy: detente and China.

Yet still the worst, no?

He resigned, broke into campaign headquarters, coverups, fired attorneys general, secret invasions, oval office recordings, resigned in disgrace, only president to ever be run out of office, etc. x 100.

 

[joffer]

It also cost us many more American lives than Iraq did, although that is at least partially due to medical breakthroughs between then and now.

WTF are you talking about?

Seems pretty clear

 

[Insomniac]

2. Carter - that economy was really awful, we almost hit a Hoover tailspin

5. GWB (Jr.)

SMH.

I took a running jump shot at a full ranking, but I will say that the only intervening presidents I have are LBJ and Ford.

I don't know where Ford ranks, I just slotted him at 4 because he had a short term and he pardoned Nixon. He did hold the country together though. So that leaves LBJ.

People who are ranking GWB Jr. as No. 1 or No. 2 based on what he did with/to/before the Iraq War have got to back up and compare the Iraq War vs the Vietnam War and what was done there.

JFK/LBJ/Nixon & Vietnam War - Gulf of Tonkin Resolution (makes the Iraq runup look like a model of transparency and debate), War Deaths 57,000+, and 150,000+ War casualties

vs.

GWB & Iraq - Full Senate authorization and long debate, with the current Demo VP & 2 SOS's voting for, 4400+ war deaths (3500 under GWB, 900 under BHO)

Rank Carter however you want but Iraq cannot hold a candle to Vietnam in terms of damage done, the lies told (especially by LBJ & Nixon) and the effect on this nation.

If you're looking at the economy also though you have to bring Carter back into the conversation.

The difference between LBJ/Nixon and GWB is that as much as I hate both LBJ and Tricky **** I can point to positive accomplishments for both of them. They also have the shared responsibility for the Vietnam War (with the Bronze Medal going to Robert McNamara)

Carter was a miserable POTUS but at least he deserves some of the credit for the Camp David agreement. When he took over the economy already was in bad shape but it's fair to say he did nothing to improve it.

There's just nothing positive to say about GWB's Presidency.

 

[Archer]

dumb poll since you don't have the correct answer, our current one, as an option.

 

[Juxtatarot]

dumb poll since you don't have the correct answer, our current one, as an option.

The foresight would have been awesome in 2006.

 

[Henry Ford]

dumb poll since you don't have the correct answer, our current one, as an option.

You can tell the geniuses. They don't even bother to read the date on the first post.

 

[timschochet]

But Nixon gets two huge bonuses for foreign policy: detente and China.

Yet still the worst, no?

He resigned, broke into campaign headquarters, coverups, fired attorneys general, secret invasions, oval office recordings, resigned in disgrace, only president to ever be run out of office, etc. x 100.

My problem with using Watergate as a means to grade Presidents is I strongly suspect that many other Presidents were involved in just as bad or worse shenanigans- LBJ certainly must have done worse stuff. The difference is that they didn't get caught. That being the case, I think these rankings should be based purely on accomplishments and we shouldn't look at scandal. Therefore, from worst to best in the last 50 years here's how I have it:

GWB

Carter

LBJ

Ford

Obama

JFK

Nixon

Bush Sr.

Clinton

Reagan

 

[Rohn Jambo]

But Nixon gets two huge bonuses for foreign policy: detente and China.

Yet still the worst, no?

He resigned, broke into campaign headquarters, coverups, fired attorneys general, secret invasions, oval office recordings, resigned in disgrace, only president to ever be run out of office, etc. x 100.

My problem with using Watergate as a means to grade Presidents is I strongly suspect that many other Presidents were involved in just as bad or worse shenanigans- LBJ certainly must have done worse stuff. The difference is that they didn't get caught. That being the case, I think these rankings should be based purely on accomplishments and we shouldn't look at scandal. Therefore, from worst to best in the last 50 years here's how I have it:GWB

Carter

LBJ

Ford

Obama

JFK

Nixon

Bush Sr.

Clinton

Reagan

By accomplishments, do you include how they handled crisis situations?

 

[timschochet]

But Nixon gets two huge bonuses for foreign policy: detente and China.

Yet still the worst, no?

He resigned, broke into campaign headquarters, coverups, fired attorneys general, secret invasions, oval office recordings, resigned in disgrace, only president to ever be run out of office, etc. x 100.

My problem with using Watergate as a means to grade Presidents is I strongly suspect that many other Presidents were involved in just as bad or worse shenanigans- LBJ certainly must have done worse stuff. The difference is that they didn't get caught. That being the case, I think these rankings should be based purely on accomplishments and we shouldn't look at scandal. Therefore, from worst to best in the last 50 years here's how I have it:GWB

Carter

LBJ

Ford

Obama

JFK

Nixon

Bush Sr.

Clinton

Reagan

By accomplishments, do you include how they handled crisis situations?

Yes. But it's not the only criteria (otherwise JFK might be the best).

 

[Rove!]

The run-up to war in Iraq started during #######-gate ( :gate

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

But Nixon gets two huge bonuses for foreign policy: detente and China.

Yet still the worst, no?

He resigned, broke into campaign headquarters, coverups, fired attorneys general, secret invasions, oval office recordings, resigned in disgrace, only president to ever be run out of office, etc. x 100.

My problem with using Watergate as a means to grade Presidents is I strongly suspect that many other Presidents were involved in just as bad or worse shenanigans- LBJ certainly must have done worse stuff. The difference is that they didn't get caught. That being the case, I think these rankings should be based purely on accomplishments and we shouldn't look at scandal. Therefore, from worst to best in the last 50 years here's how I have it:

GWB

Carter

LBJ

Ford

Obama

JFK

Nixon

Bush Sr.

Clinton

Reagan

I strongly suspect that many other Presidents were involved in just as bad or worse shenanigans

That's because insulation and plausible deniability were born with Nixon. And the fact that he was caught at it, and in so many ways, shows how bad it was.

No president has come close. You are just plumb factually wrong on that.

we shouldn't look at scandal

Watergate wasn't a scandal - it was how Nixon performed in office, he broke his oaths, he violated the American trust, he broke the law repeatedly, he was on the verge of impeachment if he hadn't quit. No president (except maybe Andrew Johnson) has ever come as close to doing as BAD of a job as president.

Looking at "accomplishment" without failure is like looking at pluses without minuses, you would go broke that way.

Nixon was a disaster as a president. THE worst.

You've got a real problem with democracy if you rank a president who violated the constitution so badly so highly.

 

[Routilla]

W

 

[tommyboy]

Carter, by a landslide. Obama is gaining on him quickly

 

[Todd Andrews]

You KooKs are hilarious.

You wonder why no one takes you seriously? You gave us the Great Recession, George W ClownPresident, mandatory vajajay probes, trillions in debt, Jesus riding a dinosaur, legitimate rape, Ken Mehlman, Jim11/MaxKooK, Cliven Bundy, Open Carry, militia KooKs, and the Iraq War. If you had any shame or self awareness, you would stop voting as a public service to the rest of us because your judgment is defective and your voting hurts America.

Reality.

Bonus reality: What every Republican sees when they look in the mirror.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You KooKs are hilarious.

...

Just looking at that article and that graph...

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html

... look at Obama's first 12 months in the private sector. Arguably the way that the stimulus was employed was harmful, not the fact of itself but the way it was done.

This graph below is well known, it was based on Obama's own graph which he presented at the stimulus rollout (the blue lines were his, and he used those projections to justify his stimulus plan).

http://economics21.org/files/updated%20unemployment%20stimulus%20graph.png

In retrospect he did not manage it very well.

In your own graph Obama comes in 6th of 6 after 12 months and was tied with GWB Jr. after 24 months. It's trending upwards now but still just 5th of 6th and that has to be considered in light of how much was lost at he beginning.

(fwiw I voted Nixon).

 

[Todd Andrews]

You KooKs are hilarious.

...

Just looking at that article and that graph...

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html

... look at Obama's first 12 months in the private sector. Arguably the way that the stimulus was employed was harmful, not the fact of itself but the way it was done.

This graph below is well known, it was based on Obama's own graph which he presented at the stimulus rollout (the blue lines were his, and he used those projections to justify his stimulus plan).

http://economics21.org/files/updated%20unemployment%20stimulus%20graph.png

In retrospect he did not manage it very well.

In your own graph Obama comes in 6th of 6 after 12 months and was tied with GWB Jr. after 24 months. It's trending upwards now but still just 5th of 6th and that has to be considered in light of how much was lost at he beginning.

(fwiw I voted Nixon).

You realize that the job number starting points werent the same on that chart even though they all started at 0, right? In fact, if that chart started at the actual job loss/gains levels for each respective President, Obama would have taken office inheriting job losses of close to 800,000 per month and that chart would have looked like a diagonal from the bottom left to the top right for his presidency. That changes the whole perspective. Obama has already created tons more private sector jobs than Bush did in 8 years (Bush is close to net 0 in that category) while shedding close to 1 million public sector jobs (Bush increased public sector jobs massively). On every jobs count that Republicans are supposed to like, Obama outperforms Bush by miles and miles. Nixon sucked but not not as bad as W.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You KooKs are hilarious.

...

Just looking at that article and that graph...

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html

... look at Obama's first 12 months in the private sector. Arguably the way that the stimulus was employed was harmful, not the fact of itself but the way it was done.

This graph below is well known, it was based on Obama's own graph which he presented at the stimulus rollout (the blue lines were his, and he used those projections to justify his stimulus plan).

http://economics21.org/files/updated%20unemployment%20stimulus%20graph.png

In retrospect he did not manage it very well.

In your own graph Obama comes in 6th of 6 after 12 months and was tied with GWB Jr. after 24 months. It's trending upwards now but still just 5th of 6th and that has to be considered in light of how much was lost at he beginning.

(fwiw I voted Nixon).

You realize that the job number starting points werent the same on that chart even though they all started at 0, right? In fact, if that chart started at the actual job loss/gains levels for each respective President, Obama would have taken office inheriting job losses of close to 800,000 per month and that chart would have looked like a diagonal from the bottom left to the top right for his presidency. That changes the whole perspective. Obama has already created tons more private sector jobs than Bush did in 8 years (Bush is close to net 0 in that category) while shedding close to 1 million public sector jobs (Bush increased public sector jobs massively). On every jobs count that Republicans are supposed to like, Obama outperforms Bush by miles and miles. Nixon sucked but not not as bad as W.

Todd I was just looking at the article you posted and commenting and looking at the specific chart. At equivalent points in their presidencies Obama & GWB Jr. were pretty much in the same strata/tier, well below Reagan & Clinton. They only had 1 term, but Carter (surprising) did better and GHWB Sr. was in a similar tier. It looks like Obama took a big dip when he came in (see the plot line compared to his own projections in the 2nd link above) and considering Obama was so willing to put out there that his plan would have a positive impact on the economy it's fair to say it had a negative the way it turned out.

I think this justifies putting Reagan and Clinton at a higher tier and Obama and Bush Jr. (flipping the order however you like) a good bit lower.

At any rate how people keep glossing over Nixon's record as a law breaker and a guy who lied lies that are still unbelievable about the war and everything else is beyond me.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

It also cost us many more American lives than Iraq did, although that is at least partially due to medical breakthroughs between then and now.

WTF are you talking about?

Seems pretty clear

Of course medical breakthroughs saved lives in Iraq and would have in Vietnam but that doesn't change the fact many more soldiers died in Vietnam. Trying to use medical technology to lessen the difference in those wars isn't necessary.

 

[Todd Andrews]

You KooKs are hilarious.

...

Just looking at that article and that graph...

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html

... look at Obama's first 12 months in the private sector. Arguably the way that the stimulus was employed was harmful, not the fact of itself but the way it was done.

This graph below is well known, it was based on Obama's own graph which he presented at the stimulus rollout (the blue lines were his, and he used those projections to justify his stimulus plan).

http://economics21.org/files/updated%20unemployment%20stimulus%20graph.png

In retrospect he did not manage it very well.

In your own graph Obama comes in 6th of 6 after 12 months and was tied with GWB Jr. after 24 months. It's trending upwards now but still just 5th of 6th and that has to be considered in light of how much was lost at he beginning.

(fwiw I voted Nixon).

You realize that the job number starting points werent the same on that chart even though they all started at 0, right? In fact, if that chart started at the actual job loss/gains levels for each respective President, Obama would have taken office inheriting job losses of close to 800,000 per month and that chart would have looked like a diagonal from the bottom left to the top right for his presidency. That changes the whole perspective. Obama has already created tons more private sector jobs than Bush did in 8 years (Bush is close to net 0 in that category) while shedding close to 1 million public sector jobs (Bush increased public sector jobs massively). On every jobs count that Republicans are supposed to like, Obama outperforms Bush by miles and miles. Nixon sucked but not not as bad as W.

Todd I was just looking at the article you posted and commenting and looking at the specific chart. At equivalent points in their presidencies Obama & GWB Jr. were pretty much in the same strata/tier, well below Reagan & Clinton. They only had 1 term, but Carter (surprising) did better and GHWB Sr. was in a similar tier. It looks like Obama took a big dip when he came in (see the plot line compared to his own projections in the 2nd link above) and considering Obama was so willing to put out there that his plan would have a positive impact on the economy it's fair to say it had a negative the way it turned out.

I think this justifies putting Reagan and Clinton at a higher tier and Obama and Bush Jr. (flipping the order however you like) a good bit lower.

At any rate how people keep glossing over Nixon's record as a law breaker and a guy who lied lies that are still unbelievable about the war and everything else is beyond me.

Obama didnt "take a big dip", he started with -800,000 jobs per month and climbed out of that hole. He has already created 8 times as many jobs as W did in his entire 8 years.

 

[BeaverCleaver]

You KooKs are hilarious.

...

Just looking at that article and that graph...

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html

... look at Obama's first 12 months in the private sector. Arguably the way that the stimulus was employed was harmful, not the fact of itself but the way it was done.

This graph below is well known, it was based on Obama's own graph which he presented at the stimulus rollout (the blue lines were his, and he used those projections to justify his stimulus plan).

http://economics21.org/files/updated%20unemployment%20stimulus%20graph.png

In retrospect he did not manage it very well.

In your own graph Obama comes in 6th of 6 after 12 months and was tied with GWB Jr. after 24 months. It's trending upwards now but still just 5th of 6th and that has to be considered in light of how much was lost at he beginning.

(fwiw I voted Nixon).

You realize that the job number starting points werent the same on that chart even though they all started at 0, right? In fact, if that chart started at the actual job loss/gains levels for each respective President, Obama would have taken office inheriting job losses of close to 800,000 per month and that chart would have looked like a diagonal from the bottom left to the top right for his presidency. That changes the whole perspective. Obama has already created tons more private sector jobs than Bush did in 8 years (Bush is close to net 0 in that category) while shedding close to 1 million public sector jobs (Bush increased public sector jobs massively). On every jobs count that Republicans are supposed to like, Obama outperforms Bush by miles and miles. Nixon sucked but not not as bad as W.

Todd I was just looking at the article you posted and commenting and looking at the specific chart. At equivalent points in their presidencies Obama & GWB Jr. were pretty much in the same strata/tier, well below Reagan & Clinton. They only had 1 term, but Carter (surprising) did better and GHWB Sr. was in a similar tier. It looks like Obama took a big dip when he came in (see the plot line compared to his own projections in the 2nd link above) and considering Obama was so willing to put out there that his plan would have a positive impact on the economy it's fair to say it had a negative the way it turned out.

I think this justifies putting Reagan and Clinton at a higher tier and Obama and Bush Jr. (flipping the order however you like) a good bit lower.

At any rate how people keep glossing over Nixon's record as a law breaker and a guy who lied lies that are still unbelievable about the war and everything else is beyond me.

Obama didnt "take a big dip", he started with -800,000 jobs per month and climbed out of that hole. He has already created 8 times as many jobs as W did in his entire 8 years.

Yet there are more people not working and it's at it's worst level in 35 years.

 

[MaxThreshold]

You KooKs are hilarious.

...

Just looking at that article and that graph...

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html

... look at Obama's first 12 months in the private sector. Arguably the way that the stimulus was employed was harmful, not the fact of itself but the way it was done.

This graph below is well known, it was based on Obama's own graph which he presented at the stimulus rollout (the blue lines were his, and he used those projections to justify his stimulus plan).

http://economics21.org/files/updated%20unemployment%20stimulus%20graph.png

In retrospect he did not manage it very well.

In your own graph Obama comes in 6th of 6 after 12 months and was tied with GWB Jr. after 24 months. It's trending upwards now but still just 5th of 6th and that has to be considered in light of how much was lost at he beginning.

(fwiw I voted Nixon).

You realize that the job number starting points werent the same on that chart even though they all started at 0, right? In fact, if that chart started at the actual job loss/gains levels for each respective President, Obama would have taken office inheriting job losses of close to 800,000 per month and that chart would have looked like a diagonal from the bottom left to the top right for his presidency. That changes the whole perspective. Obama has already created tons more private sector jobs than Bush did in 8 years (Bush is close to net 0 in that category) while shedding close to 1 million public sector jobs (Bush increased public sector jobs massively). On every jobs count that Republicans are supposed to like, Obama outperforms Bush by miles and miles. Nixon sucked but not not as bad as W.

Todd I was just looking at the article you posted and commenting and looking at the specific chart. At equivalent points in their presidencies Obama & GWB Jr. were pretty much in the same strata/tier, well below Reagan & Clinton. They only had 1 term, but Carter (surprising) did better and GHWB Sr. was in a similar tier. It looks like Obama took a big dip when he came in (see the plot line compared to his own projections in the 2nd link above) and considering Obama was so willing to put out there that his plan would have a positive impact on the economy it's fair to say it had a negative the way it turned out.

I think this justifies putting Reagan and Clinton at a higher tier and Obama and Bush Jr. (flipping the order however you like) a good bit lower.

At any rate how people keep glossing over Nixon's record as a law breaker and a guy who lied lies that are still unbelievable about the war and everything else is beyond me.

Obama didnt "take a big dip", he started with -800,000 jobs per month and climbed out of that hole. He has already created 8 times as many jobs as W did in his entire 8 years.

Yet there are more people not working and it's at it's worst level in 35 years.

Guess the rah-rah Obama crowd doesn't think about that stuff. It's all talking points with them.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You KooKs are hilarious.

...

Just looking at that article and that graph...

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html

... look at Obama's first 12 months in the private sector. Arguably the way that the stimulus was employed was harmful, not the fact of itself but the way it was done.

This graph below is well known, it was based on Obama's own graph which he presented at the stimulus rollout (the blue lines were his, and he used those projections to justify his stimulus plan).

http://economics21.org/files/updated%20unemployment%20stimulus%20graph.png

In retrospect he did not manage it very well.

In your own graph Obama comes in 6th of 6 after 12 months and was tied with GWB Jr. after 24 months. It's trending upwards now but still just 5th of 6th and that has to be considered in light of how much was lost at he beginning.

(fwiw I voted Nixon).

You realize that the job number starting points werent the same on that chart even though they all started at 0, right? In fact, if that chart started at the actual job loss/gains levels for each respective President, Obama would have taken office inheriting job losses of close to 800,000 per month and that chart would have looked like a diagonal from the bottom left to the top right for his presidency. That changes the whole perspective. Obama has already created tons more private sector jobs than Bush did in 8 years (Bush is close to net 0 in that category) while shedding close to 1 million public sector jobs (Bush increased public sector jobs massively). On every jobs count that Republicans are supposed to like, Obama outperforms Bush by miles and miles. Nixon sucked but not not as bad as W.

Todd I was just looking at the article you posted and commenting and looking at the specific chart. At equivalent points in their presidencies Obama & GWB Jr. were pretty much in the same strata/tier, well below Reagan & Clinton. They only had 1 term, but Carter (surprising) did better and GHWB Sr. was in a similar tier. It looks like Obama took a big dip when he came in (see the plot line compared to his own projections in the 2nd link above) and considering Obama was so willing to put out there that his plan would have a positive impact on the economy it's fair to say it had a negative the way it turned out.

I think this justifies putting Reagan and Clinton at a higher tier and Obama and Bush Jr. (flipping the order however you like) a good bit lower.

At any rate how people keep glossing over Nixon's record as a law breaker and a guy who lied lies that are still unbelievable about the war and everything else is beyond me.

Obama didnt "take a big dip", he started with -800,000 jobs per month and climbed out of that hole. He has already created 8 times as many jobs as W did in his entire 8 years.

Todd, fine, I was just discussing one of the links you posted including the graph in there.

Obama's not really up for discussion anyway, he's still not finished, but I agree he's not "worst" regardless.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You KooKs are hilarious.

...

Just looking at that article and that graph...

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html

... look at Obama's first 12 months in the private sector. Arguably the way that the stimulus was employed was harmful, not the fact of itself but the way it was done.

This graph below is well known, it was based on Obama's own graph which he presented at the stimulus rollout (the blue lines were his, and he used those projections to justify his stimulus plan).

http://economics21.org/files/updated%20unemployment%20stimulus%20graph.png

In retrospect he did not manage it very well.

In your own graph Obama comes in 6th of 6 after 12 months and was tied with GWB Jr. after 24 months. It's trending upwards now but still just 5th of 6th and that has to be considered in light of how much was lost at he beginning.

(fwiw I voted Nixon).

You realize that the job number starting points werent the same on that chart even though they all started at 0, right? In fact, if that chart started at the actual job loss/gains levels for each respective President, Obama would have taken office inheriting job losses of close to 800,000 per month and that chart would have looked like a diagonal from the bottom left to the top right for his presidency. That changes the whole perspective. Obama has already created tons more private sector jobs than Bush did in 8 years (Bush is close to net 0 in that category) while shedding close to 1 million public sector jobs (Bush increased public sector jobs massively). On every jobs count that Republicans are supposed to like, Obama outperforms Bush by miles and miles. Nixon sucked but not not as bad as W.

Todd I was just looking at the article you posted and commenting and looking at the specific chart. At equivalent points in their presidencies Obama & GWB Jr. were pretty much in the same strata/tier, well below Reagan & Clinton. They only had 1 term, but Carter (surprising) did better and GHWB Sr. was in a similar tier. It looks like Obama took a big dip when he came in (see the plot line compared to his own projections in the 2nd link above) and considering Obama was so willing to put out there that his plan would have a positive impact on the economy it's fair to say it had a negative the way it turned out.

I think this justifies putting Reagan and Clinton at a higher tier and Obama and Bush Jr. (flipping the order however you like) a good bit lower.

At any rate how people keep glossing over Nixon's record as a law breaker and a guy who lied lies that are still unbelievable about the war and everything else is beyond me.

Obama didnt "take a big dip", he started with -800,000 jobs per month and climbed out of that hole. He has already created 8 times as many jobs as W did in his entire 8 years.

Yet there are more people not working and it's at it's worst level in 35 years.

Lowest labor participation rate since 1978.

http://money.cnn.com/2013/09/06/news/economy/labor-force-participation/index.html

We spent a long time climbing out of that Nixon era slump and now we seem to be digging back into it.

 

[tommyboy]

Fundamental transformation, as promised

 

[jon_mx]

Carter should be the answer here but too many Bush haters on this board. Take this poll in about 10 years for better results.

Man, in hindsight, invading Iraq and toppling Saddam was such a great idea...

In foresight too--Dubya's Dad knew when to stop.

W got this stupid idea that Democracy would bring about freedom and stability.

 

[jon_mx]

You KooKs are hilarious.

...

Just looking at that article and that graph...

http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2014/04/public-and-private-sector-payroll-jobs.html

... look at Obama's first 12 months in the private sector. Arguably the way that the stimulus was employed was harmful, not the fact of itself but the way it was done.

This graph below is well known, it was based on Obama's own graph which he presented at the stimulus rollout (the blue lines were his, and he used those projections to justify his stimulus plan).

http://economics21.org/files/updated%20unemployment%20stimulus%20graph.png

In retrospect he did not manage it very well.

In your own graph Obama comes in 6th of 6 after 12 months and was tied with GWB Jr. after 24 months. It's trending upwards now but still just 5th of 6th and that has to be considered in light of how much was lost at he beginning.

(fwiw I voted Nixon).

You realize that the job number starting points werent the same on that chart even though they all started at 0, right? In fact, if that chart started at the actual job loss/gains levels for each respective President, Obama would have taken office inheriting job losses of close to 800,000 per month and that chart would have looked like a diagonal from the bottom left to the top right for his presidency. That changes the whole perspective. Obama has already created tons more private sector jobs than Bush did in 8 years (Bush is close to net 0 in that category) while shedding close to 1 million public sector jobs (Bush increased public sector jobs massively). On every jobs count that Republicans are supposed to like, Obama outperforms Bush by miles and miles. Nixon sucked but not not as bad as W.

Todd I was just looking at the article you posted and commenting and looking at the specific chart. At equivalent points in their presidencies Obama & GWB Jr. were pretty much in the same strata/tier, well below Reagan & Clinton. They only had 1 term, but Carter (surprising) did better and GHWB Sr. was in a similar tier. It looks like Obama took a big dip when he came in (see the plot line compared to his own projections in the 2nd link above) and considering Obama was so willing to put out there that his plan would have a positive impact on the economy it's fair to say it had a negative the way it turned out.

I think this justifies putting Reagan and Clinton at a higher tier and Obama and Bush Jr. (flipping the order however you like) a good bit lower.

At any rate how people keep glossing over Nixon's record as a law breaker and a guy who lied lies that are still unbelievable about the war and everything else is beyond me.

Obama didnt "take a big dip", he started with -800,000 jobs per month and climbed out of that hole. He has already created 8 times as many jobs as W did in his entire 8 years.

Yet there are more people not working and it's at it's worst level in 35 years.

And the economic turn around had a lot more to do with TARP than anything Obama did.

 

[TwinTurbo]

I still think it's Carter. The guy had zero leadership ability and personified weakness. His entire Presidency was a comedy of errors. He would have done an equally horrible job in any era, under any circumstances.

The only thing he did marginally right was appoint Volcker. But that was his second chance pick which most President's don't get. His first pick Miller was a disaster. And without the support of Reagan, Volcker would have been remembered as a failure too.

 

[rascal]

http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

 

[joffer]

W edges out Carter

 

[tommyboy]

With Mr. Obama deploying military troops to Iraq, failing to find compromise with Congress and seeing major defeats in the Supreme Court, voters continue to sour on him.

Quinnipiac found 45 percent of voters say the country would have been better off if Mr. Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee, had been election, while just 38 percent say Mr. Obama remains a better choice. Even Democrats aren’t so sure — just 74 percent of them told the pollsters Mr. Obama was clearly the better pick in the last election.

Voters also rate him the worst president since World War II, topping even his predecessor, President George W. Bush, who had left office with terrible ratings.

“Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel,” said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

A Zogby Analytics Poll released Wednesday also found Mr. Obama slipping — in that survey, to 44 percent approval, while his disapproval leapt 4 percentage points from last month to reach 54 percent.

Nearly half of voters told the Zogby poll that Mr. Obama is “unable to lead the country.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/obama-worst-president-wwii-new-poll-shows/

 

[Insein]

With Mr. Obama deploying military troops to Iraq, failing to find compromise with Congress and seeing major defeats in the Supreme Court, voters continue to sour on him.

Quinnipiac found 45 percent of voters say the country would have been better off if Mr. Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee, had been election, while just 38 percent say Mr. Obama remains a better choice. Even Democrats arent so sure just 74 percent of them told the pollsters Mr. Obama was clearly the better pick in the last election.

Voters also rate him the worst president since World War II, topping even his predecessor, President George W. Bush, who had left office with terrible ratings.

Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel, said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

A Zogby Analytics Poll released Wednesday also found Mr. Obama slipping in that survey, to 44 percent approval, while his disapproval leapt 4 percentage points from last month to reach 54 percent.

Nearly half of voters told the Zogby poll that Mr. Obama is unable to lead the country.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/obama-worst-president-wwii-new-poll-shows/

Hes making a run at the title. Solid body of work to give him great consideration.

 

[Koya]

With Mr. Obama deploying military troops to Iraq, failing to find compromise with Congress and seeing major defeats in the Supreme Court, voters continue to sour on him.

Quinnipiac found 45 percent of voters say the country would have been better off if Mr. Romney, the 2012 GOP nominee, had been election, while just 38 percent say Mr. Obama remains a better choice. Even Democrats arent so sure just 74 percent of them told the pollsters Mr. Obama was clearly the better pick in the last election.

Voters also rate him the worst president since World War II, topping even his predecessor, President George W. Bush, who had left office with terrible ratings.

Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel, said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

A Zogby Analytics Poll released Wednesday also found Mr. Obama slipping in that survey, to 44 percent approval, while his disapproval leapt 4 percentage points from last month to reach 54 percent.

Nearly half of voters told the Zogby poll that Mr. Obama is unable to lead the country.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jul/2/obama-worst-president-wwii-new-poll-shows/

Hes making a run at the title. Solid body of work to give him great consideration.

I am not exactly an Obama cheerleader, but anyone who is going to put the blame on him, without at the least including Congress on the same level, is either willfully ignorant or partisanly blind.

If anything, Obama's greatest failure was his utter inability to understand the mechanisms of DC when he had an early mandate, while focusing on the wrong freakin' issues. That said, by overplaying their hand, the GOP has done as much, if not more, damage to our nation's well being than an admittedly crappy pres.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

He's (still) not the worst.

But this is really something:

When to comes to President Obama, one other set of numbers stand out to us: 50% say his administration is competent managing the federal government, and an equal 50% don’t think it has been competent. To put that finding into perspective, when the same question was asked about George W. Bush -- after Hurricane Katrina and the increased violence in Iraq -- 53% said his administration was competent vs. 46% who said it wasn’t. So Bush fared BETTER on this question than Obama. That has to sting for the folks in the West Wing.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/obamas-presidency-ropes-again-n134441

So people are saying he's in Bush territory or just below it.

To me in the last 50 years, he's jockeying with Bush Jr. and Ford for that No. 4-5 slot.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Worst US President of the last 50 years

we haven't run a poll like this in a while

Well Righetti looks like you were way ahead of your time.

President Obama has topped predecessor George W. Bush in another poll, but not one he would like.

In a new Quinnipiac University Poll, 33% named Obama the worst president since World War II, and 28% put Bush at the bottom of post-war presidents.

"Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

Ronald Reagan topped the poll as the best president since World War II, with 35%. He is followed by presidents Bill Clinton (18%) and John F. Kennedy (15%).

Obama received only 8% in the best presidents poll.

The Quinnipiac poll also reports that 45% believe the nation would be better off had Mitt Romney defeated Obama in the 2012 presidential election; 38% say the country would be worse off with a Romney presidency.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/07/02/obama-george-w-bush-quinnipiac-poll-reagan-clinton/11985837/

This thread was last 50 years; the actual poll is last 70 years, which goes back even further.

A-mazing.

 

[timschochet]

The public is wrong. It happens.

The more I learn about Obama, the more I like him, the better job I think he's doing. He was not my first choice. I disagree with his political philosophy. But that doesn't matter; I used to think he was mediocre, but now I think he actually may be above average.

 

[avoiding injuries]

The public is wrong. It happens.

The more I learn about Obama, the more I like him, the better job I think he's doing. He was not my first choice. I disagree with his political philosophy. But that doesn't matter; I used to think he was mediocre, but now I think he actually may be above average.

One threat of assault tonight wasn't enough for you, huh? I love it.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The public is wrong. It happens.

The more I learn about Obama, the more I like him, the better job I think he's doing. He was not my first choice. I disagree with his political philosophy. But that doesn't matter; I used to think he was mediocre, but now I think he actually may be above average.

Obama is where Bush was.... and actually a little bit lower, without the market crash and without the Iraq War.

 

[timschochet]

The public is wrong. It happens.

The more I learn about Obama, the more I like him, the better job I think he's doing. He was not my first choice. I disagree with his political philosophy. But that doesn't matter; I used to think he was mediocre, but now I think he actually may be above average.

One threat of assault tonight wasn't enough for you, huh? I love it.

Hey, if you can't be brave on a message board under an assumed name, when can you be? I'm a ####### hero.

 

[timschochet]

The public is wrong. It happens.

The more I learn about Obama, the more I like him, the better job I think he's doing. He was not my first choice. I disagree with his political philosophy. But that doesn't matter; I used to think he was mediocre, but now I think he actually may be above average.

Obama is where Bush was.... and actually a little bit lower, without the market crash and without the Iraq War.

Without the Iraq War, Bush is average for me. Neutral on the tax cuts, liked his response to 9/11 (overall), neutral on Medicare Plan B, strongly approved TARP, loved his fighting AIDs in Africa, appreciated his attempts at reforming Social Security and immigration. But I hated his religious turn, especially with regard to abstinence, gay issiues, and that woman in Florida. And then there's Katrina. So for me without Iraq it's a wash. Unfortunately Iraq puts him toward the bottom.

 

[matuski]

Worst US President of the last 50 years

we haven't run a poll like this in a while

Well Righetti looks like you were way ahead of your time.

President Obama has topped predecessor George W. Bush in another poll, but not one he would like.

In a new Quinnipiac University Poll, 33% named Obama the worst president since World War II, and 28% put Bush at the bottom of post-war presidents.

"Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

Ronald Reagan topped the poll as the best president since World War II, with 35%. He is followed by presidents Bill Clinton (18%) and John F. Kennedy (15%).

Obama received only 8% in the best presidents poll.

The Quinnipiac poll also reports that 45% believe the nation would be better off had Mitt Romney defeated Obama in the 2012 presidential election; 38% say the country would be worse off with a Romney presidency.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/07/02/obama-george-w-bush-quinnipiac-poll-reagan-clinton/11985837/

This thread was last 50 years; the actual poll is last 70 years, which goes back even further.

A-mazing.

Same poll puts him #4 on best Presidents ever.

Oops.

 

[timschochet]

Things I like about Obama's presidency:

Stimulus package (though not enough, and in some ways misapplied)

Gm bailout

Execution of Osama bin Laden

Promotion of free trade

Handling of Mexican oil spill

Handling of Hurricane Sandy

Reaction to Arab Spring

Nuclear negotiations with Iran

Handling of several foreign crises, including Greece, Syria, Libya, Russia/Ukraine

Things I dislike about Obama's presidency:

Mismanagent of last year in Iraq

Passage of Obamacare

Initial roll out of Obamacare

Not enough emphasis on jobs

Failure to pursue nuclear energy as promised

Too much populist class struggle rhetoric

For me, the good outweighs the bad, which is why I now rank him at above average.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Worst US President of the last 50 years

we haven't run a poll like this in a while

Well Righetti looks like you were way ahead of your time.

President Obama has topped predecessor George W. Bush in another poll, but not one he would like.

In a new Quinnipiac University Poll, 33% named Obama the worst president since World War II, and 28% put Bush at the bottom of post-war presidents.

"Over the span of 69 years of American history and 12 presidencies, President Barack Obama finds himself with President George W. Bush at the bottom of the popularity barrel," said Tim Malloy, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Poll.

Ronald Reagan topped the poll as the best president since World War II, with 35%. He is followed by presidents Bill Clinton (18%) and John F. Kennedy (15%).

Obama received only 8% in the best presidents poll.

The Quinnipiac poll also reports that 45% believe the nation would be better off had Mitt Romney defeated Obama in the 2012 presidential election; 38% say the country would be worse off with a Romney presidency.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/theoval/2014/07/02/obama-george-w-bush-quinnipiac-poll-reagan-clinton/11985837/

This thread was last 50 years; the actual poll is last 70 years, which goes back even further.

A-mazing.

Same poll puts him #4 on best Presidents ever.

Oops.

It's not "ever" - it's in the last 70 years.

Further up you will see I have him ranked right around there also (last 50 years), 4-5th worst (which out of 11 presidents is pretty much in the same tier of mediocrity, with Bush Jr. and Ford).

 

[timschochet]

I think Ford gets a bad rap. Vietnam didn't end well, but he's as responsible for that as Obama is for Iraq- not much.

Ford considered it his main job to bring about a national healing after the turbulence of the 60s, Vietnam, and WTergate. He was successful. We had 3 pretty smooth years under his leadership. Few Presidents can say that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

The public is wrong. It happens.

The more I learn about Obama, the more I like him, the better job I think he's doing. He was not my first choice. I disagree with his political philosophy. But that doesn't matter; I used to think he was mediocre, but now I think he actually may be above average.

Obama is where Bush was.... and actually a little bit lower, without the market crash and without the Iraq War.

Without the Iraq War, Bush is average for me. Neutral on the tax cuts, liked his response to 9/11 (overall), neutral on Medicare Plan B, strongly approved TARP, loved his fighting AIDs in Africa, appreciated his attempts at reforming Social Security and immigration. But I hated his religious turn, especially with regard to abstinence, gay issiues, and that woman in Florida. And then there's Katrina. So for me without Iraq it's a wash. Unfortunately Iraq puts him toward the bottom.

I wasn't commenting on his presidency, just expressing surprise that this 2006 poll has been "won" by someone who wasn't even in it at the time.

 

[MaxThreshold]

The public is wrong. It happens.

The more I learn about Obama, the more I like him, the better job I think he's doing. He was not my first choice. I disagree with his political philosophy. But that doesn't matter; I used to think he was mediocre, but now I think he actually may be above average.

Obama is where Bush was.... and actually a little bit lower, without the market crash and without the Iraq War.

That's so awesome.