snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Soapbox Derby

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03 July 2014, 04:06 PM
Amigone201's Avatar
Amigone201 Amigone201 is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2005
Location: Islip, NY
Posts: 6,036
Jaded Obama The ‘Worst’ President Since WWII? See How He Stacks Up

President Obama is considered to be the worst president since World War II, narrowly beating out George W. Bush, according to a new Quinnipiac University poll released today.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-he-stacks-up/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 03 July 2014, 04:18 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

More people remember more things about current president than past presidents, study finds.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03 July 2014, 04:21 PM
Amigone201's Avatar
Amigone201 Amigone201 is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2005
Location: Islip, NY
Posts: 6,036
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
More people remember more things about current president than past presidents, study finds.
That's a good explanation. There's also selection bias. I don't know anyone who is jumping up and down excitedly to defend Obama, but I do know people who will take every opportunity to bash him.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03 July 2014, 04:24 PM
Dr. Dave Dr. Dave is offline
 
Join Date: 28 June 2005
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 5,117
Default

Exactly.

Moving now to sports news:

-In 14 cities, fans voted the current manager of their MLB team "Worst manager in the history of baseball."

-In 10 NFL cities, fans voted the local team's back-up quarterback "Best player on the offense."
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03 July 2014, 04:26 PM
RichardM RichardM is offline
 
Join Date: 27 March 2004
Location: Las Cruces, NM
Posts: 3,764
Default

Given that Ronald Reagan was selected as the best president in this era, I strongly queston the intellegence of the people polled.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03 July 2014, 04:41 PM
Amigone201's Avatar
Amigone201 Amigone201 is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2005
Location: Islip, NY
Posts: 6,036
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Dave View Post
Exactly.

Moving now to sports news:

-In 14 cities, fans voted the current manager of their MLB team "Worst manager in the history of baseball."

-In 10 NFL cities, fans voted the local team's back-up quarterback "Best player on the offense."
Yeah, seriously. What is the point of polling people about who is the best/worst of anything? Your average person doesn't enough to form an opinion, but believe me, they'll have one!

Now, there probably is an intelligent, useful way to go about doing a poll like this. Start with your selection of participants: It should be a broad spectrum of policymakers and academics, and equally balanced across the political spectrum. The participants need to have a set minimum of credentials in the relevant topics.

Then, select a series of measurements upon which your selections will be based, and agree upon the weight given to each measurement. They will be things like Campaign Promises Kept, Foreign influence, Ability to Reach Across the Aisle, Domestic Economic Growth, Security from Terrorism, Education, Crime, Standard of Living, etc.

Then, asking your panelists to show their work, have them rank each president from best to worst based on your controlled criteria. THAT summary will probably be useful and meaningful.

(God, I live in such a boring world, don't I? I won't discuss vaccinations with people who don't understand medicine, I won't discuss court cases with people who don't understand law, and I won't discuss politics with people who don't understand political science!)
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03 July 2014, 06:03 PM
RobDBlackwolf's Avatar
RobDBlackwolf RobDBlackwolf is online now
 
Join Date: 28 December 2005
Location: Lancaster, OH
Posts: 2,279
Default

Also if you look at the poll itself. Obama was voted worst president by 63% of those who declared themselves Republicans. by 4% of those who declared themselves Democrats and 36% of those who declared themselves Independent.
Ronald Reagan was voted best president... by roughly the same margins (66%, 6% and 36%).

For me that poll only shows two things: Republicans are unified in their dislike for Obama and their love for Reagan.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04 July 2014, 02:56 AM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,599
Icon19 People Who Call Obama Worst President Since WWII Also Blame Him for Starting It

A new poll revealed that people rank President Barack Obama as the worst President since the Second World War, and also blame him for starting the Second World War.

While the respondents slammed the President for his handling of the economy, Iraq, and a host of other issues, his perceived role as the primary cause of the Second World War was the biggest drag on his numbers.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blog...arting-it.html
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04 July 2014, 05:51 AM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,080
Default

I saw the same analysis that Mr. Blackwolf refers to. Republicans responding overwhelmingly selected Reagan as the best, Obama as the worst. Democrats were more divided on both: the best (Truman, JFK, Clinton) and the worst (Nixon, Reagan, W). So in terms of raw number of votes, Reagan and Obama come out on top (or top and bottom, if you prefer). You could as easily interpret it as "Since WWII, there's only been one good Republican president and one bad Democratic one."

Obama has certainly not been the President I had hoped he would be -- partly of course because he can't get any cooperation from the opposition, making it hard to achieve anything; but there are other aspects where I disapprove of his own actual decisions (mostly having to do with "homeland security" issues, though I also still think he should have at least tried to push for a public option in the ACA). But no, not even close to the worst. George W. Bush is likely to hold that position for me for some time -- though we should not forget Nixon, I can think of a number of positive things Nixon did, which is much harder for Dubya. I would rate Clinton over Obama at this point; I think I'll need some perspective to see how I would rate Obama versus, say, Carter. (My evaluation of Carter's presidency is somewhat colored by my admiration for his ex-presidency...)

Last edited by E. Q. Taft; 04 July 2014 at 05:59 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04 July 2014, 01:23 PM
Neuromancer Neuromancer is offline
 
 
Join Date: 03 March 2014
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by E. Q. Taft View Post
I would rate Clinton over Obama at this point; I think I'll need some perspective to see how I would rate Obama versus, say, Carter. (My evaluation of Carter's presidency is somewhat colored by my admiration for his ex-presidency...)
Personally I would rate Obama the worst and I voted for him. I hold him to a higher standard since he presented himself as a beacon of change and he didn't deliver on it.

Reagan is at the top of my list as well as Clinton. The further I get from Clinton being president, the more I can reflect positively on his presidency.

I was only a child when Carter was in charge. My parents are die her Democrats and even they have nothing positive to say about Carter while he was President. Personally I have a lot of respect for what he did after his presidency and to me it shows that he is a very good man.

I like Carter when he is being himself and not in the political light.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04 July 2014, 01:32 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is online now
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 72,399
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuromancer View Post
Personally I would rate Obama the worst and I voted for him. I hold him to a higher standard since he presented himself as a beacon of change and he didn't deliver on it.
In that case, your "worst" is actually "most disappointing." That's not a criticism, I'm just pointing out that measuring the difference between your expectation of him and the reality is not the same as comparing the realities of multiple presidents.

If I expected a president to drive us into war and economic collapse and he didn't, it would be a pleasant surprise, but it wouldn't, on its own, get him a spot on my "best presidents" list.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04 July 2014, 01:40 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 8,306
Baseball

Well, the problem with "worst" is that there is no objective criteria for "worst". It is all relative.

Worst can be in that he lived up least to his hype, or worst could be that he lead into the greatest deficit.

Meanwhile worst could also mean that he started two wars, one on flimsy pretexts, or that the greatest terror strike on US soil in history happened on his watch.

Unless worst is defined, and we all understand it, it is a meaningless term for debate.

What can be debated though, are the things we bring as our factors for determining the value of President Obama's work in office.

For example, his foreign economics do show a horrible trend towards homeside populism that have severe economic impacts north of 49. This aspect of his presidency is not very welcome from outside his borders.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04 July 2014, 02:16 PM
Neuromancer Neuromancer is offline
 
 
Join Date: 03 March 2014
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by UEL View Post

For example, his foreign economics do show a horrible trend towards homeside populism that have severe economic impacts north of 49. This aspect of his presidency is not very welcome from outside his borders.
But isn't that what we expect from a US president? To focus on the people in our country?

Now I'm not aware of any policy changes that would impact Canada but I haven't seen much economic policy from him at all.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04 July 2014, 02:33 PM
Lainie's Avatar
Lainie Lainie is online now
 
Join Date: 29 August 2005
Location: Suburban Columbus, OH
Posts: 72,399
Default

It's not what I expect. Foreign policy is an important part of the job.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04 July 2014, 02:38 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Ottawa/Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 8,306
Baseball

Quote:
Originally Posted by Neuromancer View Post
But isn't that what we expect from a US president? To focus on the people in our country?

Now I'm not aware of any policy changes that would impact Canada but I haven't seen much economic policy from him at all.
For sure he is to look after the people from his own country. I am looking at it as a foreigner, with my own perspective.

His attempt at economic recovery was to go into isolation mode**. Between that and sitting on international economic policy decisions for years*** he has not been a friend to Canada.

And that is what I mean by "worst". My worst measurements are definitely not yours.

And, for the record, I don't think he's the worst.

**Buy American is the most visible portion of that. But his plan cancelled major contracts with Canadian firms. There were economic benefits to both sides of the border to the contracts, but when they were cancelled unilaterally, the penalties became ambiguous. Most municipal, state and federal agencies who cancelled felt that as the decision was not theirs to cancel, they should not be held financially accountable for penalties. Contracted materials were returned to Canada (even digging up pipes that had already been laid) and companies were out financially. But, as the restrictions were eased, over time, they have crept back. One perception among economists here is that the US recovery is on the backs of their trading partners.

***This could be why you don't see any economic policy much from the President. For example, the Keystone XL Pipeline has been awaiting an executive decision since 2010-11. The President and Congress had their sessions with the stakeholders at the same time. Congress came out for it. It has been at least two years that the stakeholders for this multi-billion dollar enterprise have been waiting. And the word is that the President will now wait until after the midterm elections before releasing his decision. I have other examples with wood, livestock and grain, but I don't want to bog down a thread.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 04 July 2014, 03:30 PM
Singing in the Drizzle Singing in the Drizzle is offline
 
Join Date: 24 November 2005
Location: Bellingham, WA
Posts: 4,745
Default

From what I remember over the last 50 years. The current president as always been the worst president in history, until a new one is elected and they then become the worst. I do not think that we honestly give a fare evaluations of what a president did good or bad for at least a decade after leaving office. Yes memories fade with time, but we tend to remember the larger things that affected us and forget the little trivial things we did or did not agree with.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04 July 2014, 04:14 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,599
United States

Quote:
Originally Posted by Singing in the Drizzle View Post
From what I remember over the last 50 years. The current president as always been the worst president in history, until a new one is elected and they then become the worst.
The "worst presidents" usually follows a pattern of:

1) Warren G. Harding

2) The incumbent president

3) The most recent president not of the same party as #2

4-7) All the guys who held office before Abraham Lincoln and didn't stop the Civil War from happening.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04 July 2014, 08:48 PM
E. Q. Taft's Avatar
E. Q. Taft E. Q. Taft is offline
 
Join Date: 30 July 2003
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 13,080
Default 12 of the Most Inhumane American Presidents

For all the gravity with which the presidency is written about, assessments of presidents are often at least partly based on fluff more suitable for Hollywood than Washington. Among the criteria that presidential rankings use are leadership, accomplishments, political skill, and character. Every one of those criteria but accomplishments are extremely vague to the point where no two people could agree on a definition. All of these qualities except character are pointedly amoral. Technically, Foreign Minister Von Ribbentrop of the Third Reich was quite adept at political skill. For such amoral use of skill, he was rightly hanged at Nuremberg.

What I propose to do instead is judge presidents by the most nonpartisan and reliable standard: who did the most harm and/or good to the greatest number of people, measured especially by the number of deaths they either caused or avoided, along with their intent. Judge presidents by their humanitarian record above all else, and everything as secondary, largely irrelevant.

http://www.alternet.org/12-most-inhu...nts?page=0%2C1
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04 July 2014, 09:17 PM
Amigone201's Avatar
Amigone201 Amigone201 is offline
 
Join Date: 11 March 2005
Location: Islip, NY
Posts: 6,036
Default

Next time I hear someone say "Obama was the worst president we've ever had!" I'll ask them, "Really? What makes him worse than say, Martin Van Buren? How does he stack up against Chester A. Arthur? Can you give me a comparison of Obama vs. John Quincy Adams?
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 06 July 2014, 09:56 AM
Ramblin' Dave's Avatar
Ramblin' Dave Ramblin' Dave is offline
 
Join Date: 11 May 2005
Location: Singapore
Posts: 13,120
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Amigone201 View Post
Next time I hear someone say "Obama was the worst president we've ever had!" I'll ask them, "Really? What makes him worse than say, Martin Van Buren? How does he stack up against Chester A. Arthur? Can you give me a comparison of Obama vs. John Quincy Adams?
That was a bit of a recurring thing during the Clinton administration: some columnist or other would compare him to one of the more obscure 19th century presidents (I remember Hayes and Fillmore being among them), and letters to the editor would come out of the woodwork extolling the virtues of those great early statesmen and how dare anyone compare Boy Clinton to them?! The amusing thing was, those letters usually made it clear that the writer had simply copied down everything s/he had read in some encyclopedia article about the late president. So odds are they didn't really know anything about the other president, but by golly, no one deserved to be compared to Clinton!



Quote:
Originally Posted by RichardM View Post
Given that Ronald Reagan was selected as the best president in this era, I strongly queston the intellegence of the people polled.
As tempting as that is, one has to remember that the right wing noise machine has put a LOT of effort and resources into lionizing the Gipper. It's almost funny the way his worshipers always cite things he either didn't really do ("he shrank the government") or that are really only a matter of opinion ("he made America walk tall on the world stage again"). It's annoying to see him at the top of surveys like these, but I always find some comfort in the fact that his continued popularity is based far more on propaganda than anything else.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
President Obama's mysterious scar Jenn Fauxtography 35 28 February 2012 08:54 AM
Reasons why President Obama is the Worst President in History lord_feldon Politics 43 14 September 2010 07:25 PM
Obama's father served in WWII? Jenn Fauxtography 1 03 August 2010 10:08 AM
Donald Trump on President Obama snopes Questionable Quotes 5 10 August 2009 06:44 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.