New Poll: Obama Sucks Even More Than Carter

[dales]

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/lik ... 48085.html

Likely Voters: Carter Was a Better President than Obama


11:55 AM, Jul 3, 2012 • By JEFFREY H. ANDERSON


According to a Newsweek/Daily Beast poll of likely voters, Barack Obama now rates behind Jimmy Carter in the pantheon of great presidents. The poll asked likely voters to list the two best and the two worst presidents the history of the United States. Here are the tallies, based on net results:




Voters’ list of the 10 best presidents:

1. Abraham Lincoln, +27 points (28 percent place in top-2, 1 percent place in bottom-2)
2. Ronald Reagan, +25 points (31 percent place in top-2, 6 percent place in bottom-2)
3. Franklin D. Roosevelt, +22 points (23 percent place in top-2, 1 percent place in bottom-2)
4. John F. Kennedy, +19 points (19 percent place in top-2, 0 percent place in bottom-2)
5. (tie) George Washington, +15 points (16 percent place in top-2, 1 percent place in bottom-2)
5. (tie) Bill Clinton, +15 points (28 percent place in top-2, 13 percent place in bottom-2)
7. Thomas Jefferson, +6 points (6 percent place in top-2, 0 percent place in bottom-2)
8. (tie) Teddy Roosevelt, +5 points (5 percent place in top-2, 0 percent place in bottom-2)
8. (tie) Harry S. Truman, +5 points (5 percent place in top-2, 0 percent place in bottom-2)
10. Dwight D. Eisenhower, +4 points (5 percent place in top-2, 1 percent place in bottom-2)

Voters’ list of the 10 worst presidents:


33. (tie) Andrew Johnson, -2 points (0 percent place in top-2, 2 percent place in bottom-2)
33. (tie) Warren G. Harding, -2 points (0 percent place in top-2, 2 percent place in bottom-2)
33. (tie) Calvin Coolidge, -2 points (0 percent place in top-2, 2 percent place in bottom-2)
36. (tie) Lyndon B. Johnson, -3 points (1 percent place in top-2, 4 percent place in bottom-2)
36. (tie) Gerald Ford, -3 points (1 percent place in top-2, 4 percent place in bottom-2)
38. Herbert Hoover, -4 points (0 percent place in top-2, 4 percent place in bottom-2)
39. George H.W. Bush, -9 points (4 percent place in top-2, 13 percent place in bottom-2)
40. Jimmy Carter, -20 points (5 percent place in top-2, 25 percent place in bottom-2)
41. Richard Nixon, -24 points (2 percent place in top-2, 26 percent place in bottom-2)
42. Barack Obama, -25 points (11 percent place in top-2, 36 percent place in bottom-2)
43. George W. Bush, -39 points (4 percent place in top-2, 43 percent place in bottom-2)

Note: there are only 43 (rather than 44) presidents because Grover Cleveland (who tied for 25th) was both our 22nd and 24th president.

[dgs49]

Racism. Pure racism.

[dales]

43. George W. Bush, -39 points (4 percent place in top-2, 43 percent place in bottom-2)

Was he also half-black?

[Andrew D]

Past Presidents routinely rate higher than they did when they were Presidents.

Just look: Recent polls are showing Ronald Reagan as the greatest President ever. No one who was there and was paying attention agrees with that assessment.

And as for this poll, let's not forget:

George W. Bush: 3.8 times lower than Carter as against Obama.

That's what the Republicans brought us: the worst President (charitably construing him as even that) ever.

And whom do the Republicans offer us now? George W. Romney.

If he gets elected -- or, like Shrub, purports to have been elected -- the only question will be: Will he be the worst or only the second-worst?

[BoSoxGal]

Obama is young and vital. If he pursues a post-Presidency of peace accords and work that benefits the poor, he's very likely to end up more popular than Carter. For all the rednecks who hate his blackness, there are far more of us who love him for being the first black President we weren't sure we'd live to see. And yes, his flaws are easier to overlook given that.

[rubato]

Reality.


(graphic From professor pollkatz.)

yrs,
rubato

[dgs49]

The authors have chosen a dubious methodology to answer an unanswerable question.

Polling the general public, or even "likely voters" means in the first place that most of the respondents have a typical American's knowledge of history - which is to say almost none. They (we) would be much better prepared if the questions were about the "greatest" television sit-coms of the past 50 years.

And even if they polled "historians," the results would likely reflect the political biases of that population more than any objective assessment of Presidential competence or accomplishments.

And what constitutes a "great" presidency?

Most of what Roosevelt (the Greater) accomplished was either counterproductive or stupid, or would have happened no matter who was President. Reagan offered leadership and a well-articulated alternative to the sappy "great society" bullshit that the other side was offering, but he was unwilling or unable to deal with "details."

Clinton was a master of "followership," which is the practice of studying what the public wants, then pretending to give it to them. His greatest contribution was pragmatism - he made peace with the ideologues in his own party but didn't give them everything they wanted.

Carter was dealt the worst hand of any post WWII President, but his biggest failing was not playing well with Congress.

Barry is a great example of why the public should be very wary of electing legislators to executive offices. And why it is dangerous to elect someone who has never actually had a real job or worked for a real company.

[Lord Jim]

For all the rednecks who hate his blackness, there are far more of us who love him for being the first black President we weren't sure we'd live to see.

And then there are those of us like myself, (probably the vast majority, regardless of who they voted for) who couldn't have cared less about his skin color and voted the way they did without any regard to it one way or the other.

And yes, his flaws are easier to overlook given that.

BSG, that sounds an awful lot like you're saying that you're willing to hold Obama to a lower standard than you would another President because of his skin color.

Why would that be any less racist than the "rednecks" who voted against him based on race? Why shouldn't any President, regardless of race or gender be held to the same standard?

[Joe Guy]

I voted for Obama mostly because he can sing just like Al Green and I liked a couple of his songs. Other than that, I'm kinda watching this health care thing because I heard it's important.

[BoSoxGal]

LJ, you take every opportunity to misinterpret my political posts in the light most unfavorable to my point.

Let's just establish for the record that what you think I may, or could mean, is 98% likely to be wrong - as in this case.

I don't hold Obama to a lesser standard. I'm always disappointed by my Presidential choices because they always end up compromising on some things I wish they wouldn't. My affection for Obama is enhanced by his historic status - there is no shame in that. I also think he's one of the smartest and most sincere Presidents - of either party - in my lifetime.

[dgs49]

I think you're on to something. Last time we got "Hope & Change." This time, "Smart & Sincere."

Equally vacuous and equally compelling.

Send this along to the DNC.

[Lord Jim]

LJ, you take every opportunity to misinterpret my political posts in the light most unfavorable to my point.

Actually, my interpretation is perfectly logical, based on what you said. This can be illustrated quite simply:

When one says a person's "flaws are easier to overlook" they are:

A. Holding that person to a higher standard of acceptable conduct than they do others.
B.Holding that person to the same standard of acceptable conduct than they do others.
C.Holding that person to a lower standard of acceptable conduct than they do others.

When one says "there are far more of us who love him for being the first black President we weren't sure we'd live to see. And yes, his flaws are easier to overlook given that", they are saying that the person's "flaws are easier to overlook" based on:

A.That persons eye color
B.That person's hair color
C. That person's skin color

I'm not surprised that my perfectly logical and straightforward interpretation of your remarks makes you uncomfortable; after-all you were trying to draw a distinction between your enlightened self and those ignorant "rednecks"...Having it pointed out to you that when you say you are more likely to give Obama a pass for not meeting your standards because of his race means that you are making judgments about him based on his race, (much like your villainous rednecks ) I'm sure is not the sort of thing you would care to have pointed out to you.

Now in your subsequent post, you did offer some clarification. Apparently you are not holding Obama to a lower standard based on things like competence or intelligence; this comment:

I'm always disappointed by my Presidential choices because they always end up compromising on some things I wish they wouldn't.

Given your expressed political views, would seem to indicate that what you are willing to cut Obama more slack about (based on his skin color) is the fact that he has not pursued a rigidly enough liberal agenda for your tastes.

[Lord Jim]

BTW...

LJ, you take every opportunity to misinterpret my political posts in the light most unfavorable to my point.

Let's just establish for the record that what you think I may, or could mean, is 98% likely to be wrong - as in this case.

My observations about your post had nothing to do with the fact that you posted it....

When I read your post I was immediately struck by the irony of someone condemning one group of people, (quite appropriately) for judging Obama differently based on his race, and then in the very next breath, patting themselves on the back for doing the same thing.

I would have noticed the irony and commented on the post, no matter who had posted it.

[Sue U]

Any poll that includes Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford among the worst presidents is automatically suspect, and any poll that does not include Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce and Buchannan among the worst presidents can be dimissed out of hand.

Barack Obama, while a disappointing president, is far far above the bottom 10. But just because I'm dissatisfied with Obama does not mean I will be voting for Rmoney or that I'd want the Republicans in control of the Congress.

[Lord Jim]

I'm inclined to agree with pretty much everything you said there Sue, (except of course for the the last sentence)

I think it's way too soon to start ranking Obama's Presidency anyway; it seems to me that a President should be out of office at least 10 years before they should even be included in a poll like this.

One thing that always strikes me about these polls is the way John Kennedy always ranks so highly. If you look at it objectively, there really weren't a whole lot of major accomplishments in his Administration. (Except of course for the historic tax cut....he had a much more "go slow" attitude about civil rights legislation than LBJ, and his foreign policy certainly didn't have any notable successes....You can give him credit for standing up to the Russians in the Cuban Missile Crisis, but you can also give him the responsibility for the fact that Khrushchev thought he could get away with it in the first place.)

[rubato]

'... does not mean I will be voting for Rmoney or that I'd want the Republicans in control of the Congress.

You don't want more poverty, 8 years of stagnation and falling incomes and another economic collapse worse than the last one? Another war based on lies? A veterinarian running the FDA? A White House who fires scientists and stacks advisory panels with industry hacks? Higher deficits caused by borrowing to give to the rich?* Karl Rove using all of the cabinet offices as partisan political tools?




yrs,
rubato

* Hey, Thanks!

[Lord Jim]

any poll that does not include Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce and Buchannan among the worst presidents can be dimissed out of hand.

Especially Buchannan....

The man stood by and did nothing while his country disintegrated.....

Even Jimmy Carter might have found the balls to be more proactive in that situation....

[Sue U]

any poll that does not include Tyler, Fillmore, Pierce and Buchannan among the worst presidents can be dimissed out of hand.

Especially Buchannan....

The man stood by and did nothing while his country disintegrated.....

Even Jimmy Carter might have found the balls to be more proactive in that situation....

What about Tyler? He went on to serve in the Confederate Congress, fer chrissakes!

[Lord Jim]

I've been meaning to respond to this:

Carter was dealt the worst hand of any post WWII President

That's not accurate; his predecessor, Jerry Ford was....

Laying aside the unique circumstances under which Ford came to Office which he had to contend with, and the way he compounded his political problems with The Nixon Pardon (an act for which The Kennedy Foundation later gave him it's "Profile In Courage" award, which was presented to Mr. Ford by Ted Kennedy) the economy Ford inherited was an absolute disaster....

As I have shown before with stats I have posted, by the time he left office the economy was turning around; inflation was down, interest rates were down, unemployment was down, consumer spending was up, GDP was back in the black....the economic recovery began in the second quarter of' 75...

Carter inherited a recovering economy....

And of course we all know what it was like when he left....

[Scooter]

Yes, he left an economy in which inflation was being squeezed out by high interest rates, which of course made it miserable for everyone, in order to achieve a payoff of low inflation and a once again booming economy down the road. If those hard choices had not been made during his presidency, the problems would have just been kicked down the road.