Skip to main content

Worse than Nixon? Easily. Worse than Carter? No contest. Worse than Reagan? Don't make me laugh.

Worse than Bush?  It's close, but yes.

A new Quinnipiac poll finds that Obama is the worst President since WWII. And that the country would be better off if Mitt Romney had won.

...

This result is so absurd I have to think that there has to have been a methodology error somewhere in this poll. Oversampling of Tea Partiers?

Or is that my own liberal bias talking? Am I unreasonably dismissing results I don't like? What do you think?  Take the poll and then head below the fold for a couple additional tidbits.

If you look at the actual poll results, a few explanations present themselves.

First, consider that they simply asked respondents who was the "best" of the twelve and who was the "worst".  They didn't ask for rankings, so people who think Nixon was second-worst aren't counted at all, even if that number would dwarf the people who think Obama or Bush was second-worst.

Second, Obama finished fourth in the "best" question, behind Reagan, Clinton, and Kennedy, something which the article I linked didn't see fit to mention.

Those polled were also split when asked whether Obama or Bush was worse.

So maybe these results aren't as unusual as the article made them seem.

Poll

Explain the results of this poll:

20%53 votes
43%110 votes
21%56 votes
10%28 votes
3%8 votes

| 255 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  HR for diary title (5+ / 0-)

    I ♥ President Barack Obama.

    by ericlewis0 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:28:50 AM PDT

    •  It's the headline of the actual NEWS story, Eric! (19+ / 0-)

      This is a bullshit h.r. The diarist is merely REPORTING the news of the POLL! If the only reaction of people in this community is to H.R. the NEWS, whether you like the slant of it, or not--that's not the point--that's a pretty pathetic thing to do.

      "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

      by bobswern on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:34:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Another thing... (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        auapplemac, blackhand, raincrow, Mr Robert

        The President will continue to get hammered on the ECONOMY throughout the remainder of the election cycle. Of course, and that's the way it would roll--given the state of our economy--regardless of who was in the White House!

        "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

        by bobswern on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:35:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Eric, I'm H.R.'ing your comment, and I'll... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          raincrow

          ...remove it once you remove your h.r. from the tip jar.  Your action is TOTALLY out-of-bounds.

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:38:37 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Thank you! (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            raincrow, Indiana Bob

            I just removed the h.r. from your comment, too.

            "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

            by bobswern on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:42:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  You are speaking of HR'ing Eric because he happens (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            freakofsociety

            to upset your sensibilities in pushing back what he thought was a blatant falsehood written in a headline. The diarist appears to have understood why Eric got the impression he did and settled the matter by correcting the headline.

            But here you are, stepping in to declare your willingness to HR someone over what I'm sure you detected as a defense of the President.

            Now it is also curious that you wrote this:

            The President will continue to get hammered on the ECONOMY throughout the remainder of the election cycle. Of course, and that's the way it would roll
            This is your tacit way of agreeing with any ridiculous poll which claim that Obama is the worst President in history.

            I think you will need a whole lot of whole cloth to make that claim. Beyond the fact that he pulled the economy from the wreck where George W. Bush drove it, and saved the auto industry, he also passed a healthcare law that is helping tens of millions of people.

            There is no way, even with a slow economy anyone can seriously suggest Obama is the worst President in history. Your "The President will continue to get hammered on the ECONOMY" notwithstanding.

            Nice try; big fail....

            •  You're so far over the freakin' line in this... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Indiana Bob

              ...you'll never find your way back to reality. The thoughts and bullshit you're attributing to me, and the contortions you're going through are there for the entire community to see. Good luck with that.

              (For the record, I don't think Obama's anywhere near close to being the worst President since World War II. In fact, if I compared him to Bill Clinton--on most, not all but "most, issues--I think Obama would come out above him on my "list.")

              That's some truly nasty SHIT you're peddling there, Ned!

              If I wrote those types of gross, off-base lies and insinuations about you (regardless of the topic), there'd be 20 H.R.'s on my comment in this community in a New York minute.

              Sorry to harsh your buzz, Ned, and the buzz of a dozen or two like-minded, misbegotten folks in this community--all putting forth bullshit, divisive propaganda and blatant lies--but I don't "hate" Obama, in the least. In fact, I voted for him in '08 and '12.

              "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

              by bobswern on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 10:50:22 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, the President WILL continue to get... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Indiana Bob

                ...hammered on the economy between now and election day. It's, perhaps, our Party's biggest vulnerability this year. Of course, if you have a problem with that inconvenient reality--and obviously you DO--perhaps you should take it up with Democratic pollster Stan Greenberg and pundit James Carville, who've both heavily advised all Dems running for office to not even use the word, "RECOVERY," in their campaign rhetoric or media.

                Looks to me, Ned, like you're just another person dealing with an absurdly high level of cognitive dissonance. And, it's causing you to fly off the handle in comments in this community, too. Clearly, at least it's to the point where you're engaged in pushing these truly nasty, lying SCREEDS about me in comments at DKos...apparently, WITH some degree of IMPUNITY, too! (Since you've done this many times, as you well know! Funny how that works 'round here!)

                 

                "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                by bobswern on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 10:57:38 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I could care less about your "I don't think (0+ / 0-)

                  Obama is the worst President in history" protestations. You have a record of diaries written in this community, which speak volumes! One particular nasty one last week where you suggested that the President is continuing to "betray" America. Yes, argue that away....

                  You ask the tens of millions of individual who have benefited from the ACA if Obama is betraying America.  Ask women, who the President has been fighting for in terms of equal pay and in terms of contraceptives if Obama is betraying America.

                  methinks thou dost protest too much....

        •  I disagree about any President (6+ / 0-)

          Getting hammered on the economy.  I'm sure Yertle McTurtle and his rancid crew would've loosened up the purse strings considerably for a fellow Republican, much like they did for The Idiot Son.

          •  Democrats controlled Capitol Hill in '09-'10 n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Victor Ward

            "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

            by bobswern on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:48:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

              •  104 "weeks" n/t (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Victor Ward

                "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

                by bobswern on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 10:37:50 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I don't think so... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  freakofsociety

                  Remember the Al Franken race? He was the 60th vote that was needed to break through the Senate's fillibuster rules and his seat was held up by Coleman's endless lawsuits contesting the election.Then even after Franken rightfully took his seat he was there maybe a couple of months till Ted Kennedy died so once again the Democrats were down to just 59 votes which wasn't enough to overcome cloture in the Senate.

                     We all know about all of these Obama nominations that were held up by the GOP's fillibustering in the Senate till Reid used the nuclear option in December,2013. The GOP kept blocking nominations by coming with 41 votes to block cloture but when said nominations would come up for a vote one would see votes of 95-4 or 91-8 or whatever.

                    So no the Democrats didn't totally control things for 104 weeks.

                  •  And he was not there for the stim. In fact it need (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    freakofsociety

                    ed 3 Thug votes to get past filibuster.  The pay for that was slashing $100 B from what was in hindsight an inadequate amount requested( tho at the time not an unreasonable ask, albeit less than progressives wanted, but then adding another $Trillion to the deficit was a hard pill once the RWnoiseMachine geared up against it) just because.

                    And the American Jobs Act - proposed once it became clear the whole was far deeper than ARRA amount) didn't even get subcommittee hearings.  Same for BO's other jobs proposals, in the House at least.

                    Of course, the marketing on this by the WH has been horrible.  There is no excuse for BO not having monthly primetime addresses with 1) a review of his efforts and who killed them, and 2) a new proposal every time.  Yes, they won't pass, that's the whole point.

      •  Quotes would have made that clear. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rb608, ericlewis0, doroma

        Leaving the quotes off just seems like someone is looking for angry eyeballs.

        Dick Cheney 2/14/10: "I was a big supporter of waterboarding"

        by Bob Love on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:53:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Actually, I receive LOTS of flack for using... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Just Bob, ColoTim

          ...quotes in headlines, because some in the audience simply don't like the subject matter. Happened just the other day, here, in fact! Worse yet, folks then start attributing those comments from others to ME (after I've gone to the trouble to make it crystal clear that they're coming from another source). And, that's happened HUNDREDS of times to me, both inside of this community and outside of it (on other blogs, in regard to whatever it is I happen to be writing about). General observation: Folks will DISTORT whatever the story might be if they're predisposed (i.e.: it's the very definition of cognitive dissonance, in fact) to reacting accordingly to that information.

          The fact that this type of behavior (over-the-top reaction to FACTS/NEWS) is not better-moderated in the community speaks for itself, too!

          Please remind me: Who are the "adults in the room," again?

          "I always thought if you worked hard enough and tried hard enough, things would work out. I was wrong." --Katharine Graham

          by bobswern on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:06:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  This Was a Headline I Woke Up to on TV This (6+ / 0-)

      morning, the diarist didn't make it up. I think he's using it as commentary, suggest considering removing HR.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:35:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I really do think your HR (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis

      is misplaced.

      We view "The Handmaid's Tale" as cautionary. The GOP views it as an instruction book.

      by Vita Brevis on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:35:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The title is the headline from the AP article (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, ColoTim

      It is not the LtPowers making the statement.  Consequently, you should remove the HR.

      "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

      by blackhand on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:35:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  No, no no. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, ColoTim

      This diary is in response to the results of a Quinnipiac University Poll, which is now appearing on USA Today, Google News, etc. The diary is not flamebait. You should remove the HR, it is not appropriate here.

    •  You should remove that. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blueoasis, ColoTim

      Even if the diarist did believe it, which they clearly do not, it is not grounds for an HR.

      So endith the trick.

      by itsjim on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:39:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  HR removed, but title is still lame (9+ / 0-)

      I ♥ President Barack Obama.

      by ericlewis0 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:40:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A President with a Nobel Prize (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ericlewis0

      Some poo-poo his Nobel Prize. Say it was a fluke. Say it was undeserved. Say he is being manipulated by forces outside our country. Saying ANYTHING & EVERYTHING and throwing anything against the wall to see if it sticks.  It doesn't stick.  This man is a STATESMAN and A LEADER. Pure. Simple. Critics do not have a clue what that means.  Its easier to poo-poo than lead.

      "The loneliest people are the kindest. The saddest people smile the brightest. The most damaged people are the wisest. All because they do not wish to see anyone else suffer the way they do." ...... Anon

      by AJDJR73 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 10:42:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Are you serious? (9+ / 0-)

     photo 95f8bb55-acb9-4c85-9e34-5f88d5c2b075_zps28b7697a.jpg

    .

    GOP: We could afford to stay in Iraq forever but this taking care of veterans stuff is just too expensive.

    by Gordon20024 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:32:28 AM PDT

  •  Remember the Greatest AMerican Who Ever (12+ / 0-)

    lived was Ronald Reagan according to another national poll years ago. He beat out Washington, Jefferson, King, Lincoln and Randolph Scott.

    There've already been more jobs created under Obama than by all 3 terms of Bushes combined, I think he beat them in his first term, and the perennially despised Carter beat the 3 Bushes plus Ford combined in job creation too.

    I think there's impetus behind posing this survey not much different from that which spends so much treasure painting the negative pictures of Mr. Obama. Let's just say I don't think they said "the President is near."

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:33:30 AM PDT

  •  He's the man in the arena. (16+ / 0-)

    Of course he's going to catch the most hell.

    He's the best president of my lifetime, and he will ultimately land in the great/near great category.

    He won't reach FDR/Lincoln/Washington status, but his accomplishments -- particularly in the face of a relentless and duplicitous opposition -- are astonishing.

    It's none of my business, but you may want to throw a question mark at the end of your diary title.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:36:00 AM PDT

  •  Maybe the diarist should (9+ / 0-)

    put a question mark after the title to prevent any confusion. Or add "Poll Says: ..."

    We view "The Handmaid's Tale" as cautionary. The GOP views it as an instruction book.

    by Vita Brevis on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:37:01 AM PDT

  •  I voted something else (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    auapplemac, radmul, sunbro, doroma, unfangus

    I think that the poll results reflect an overall dissatisfaction with the state of things and that dissatisfaction  is being projected on to Obama.  

    "It's not surveillance, it's data collection to keep you safe"

    by blackhand on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:38:29 AM PDT

    •  This is what happens when there's a drip, drip, (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blackhand, unfangus, Victor Ward, AlexDrew

      drip of bad news.

      No in any particular order:

      ACA screw-up and the fact that the appreciation of ACA is still not overwhelming

      Benghazi

      Bergdahl v. 5 released terrorists

      ISIS

      Slow economy

      Highest gas prices in 4 years

      kids at the border

      VA screw-up

      With the RW bull horn blasting away at every turn, is it any wonder that his numbers are so low.

      It’s the Supreme Court, stupid! Followed by: It's always the Supreme Court! Progressives will win only when we convince a majority that they, too, are Progressive.

      by auapplemac on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:05:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Just looking at Reagan's scores, relative to... (3+ / 0-)

    ...everyone else makes me suspicious.

    So endith the trick.

    by itsjim on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:41:26 AM PDT

  •  Unwavering loyalty to, and defense of Obama is not (4+ / 0-)

    free; it costs the Democratic party credibility.

    The best remedy to an honest mistake is to admit it and learn, not to deny it and double down.

    Rivers are horses and kayaks are their saddles

    by River Rover on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 07:51:37 AM PDT

  •  Shoddy survey design (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabienne, ColoTim, GWinkler, unfangus

    When you have a politician or other prominent individual who drives a significant portion of the population absolutely nuts, or at least riles up a significant portion of the population that was nuts to start with, derangement syndrome takes hold.

    ODS.  Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    Separate best and worst rankings is a sitting duck for being overwhelmed by this because the 20 percent of the population that truly hates Obama will all rank him as the worst and that's all it takes to comfortably win a poll like this.  A separate best and worst ranking system doesn't actually rate overall public opinion about the worst and the best; it simply rates whether or not a significant number of people feel intensely about that politician.  But pollsters like them because cheap and click bait -- it's really only two multiple choice questions, as opposed to in effect the 20-step procedure of ranking every postwar president for best, and every one for worst, and aggregating the result.

    •  that, and the primacy effect (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim

      People are living the Obama presidency right now and they aren't doing well, so they blame and have stronger feelings about him than the other presidents whose awfulness is long forgotten.

      "Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

      by quill on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:56:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  One-Third believed that Obama is the "Worst (4+ / 0-)

    President since WWII"?

    That is just another example of how many idiot Tea Baggers we have in this country. Darwin failed to mention that we have several humans in our midst who are still very near chimpanzees in their level of intelligence...and they generally vote Republican.

    -4.75, -5.33 Cheney 10/05/04: "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

    by sunbro on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:10:22 AM PDT

  •  there was a recent ranking based on (0+ / 0-)

    objective quantifiable impacts, e.g. war casualties,  destruction of environment, bad domestic decisions, or absence of same, etc. As good as Nixon's record was on the environment, New Deal and civil rights, he still came out worst because of the enormous impact of his Southeast Asia crimes. Carter rated highly despite East Timor. Reagan low because of Central America, but he did reduce nuclear war tensions, although more Nancy Reagan's accomplishment, the last two years Reagan wasn't really there. Obama's record was considered mixed given the escalation in Afghanistan and drones. Obama is a charismatic moderate whereas Bush II was an uncharismatic extremist. The problem with the system will come when there is a charismatic extremist, the second coming of Reagan. Perhaps a Wilsonian war monger or a general who will nudge us into corporate martial law as a favor to national security. The right hasn't had any political generals since Goldwater, and Reagan seems to have been a product of his era. The new system would seem to favor straight forward organized crime bosses like Christie.

  •  It's simply a bullshit question. (6+ / 0-)

    Not long ago, there was a poll that asked how many people would leave their state if they had a chance.  My state, MD, was one of the highest; but the poll didn't measure what it purported to measure.

    Nobody wants to leave this state; but state Republicans and Tea Partiers don't like the current Governor, Martin O'Malley.  They're angry about a lot of progressive legislation being passed, so they express it with an, "I'd leave the state if I could," poll response.

    I suspect this Quinnipiac poll is as poorly structured.  Few sentient beings think Obama is the "worst" POTUS since WW2.  Hell, how many respondents were actually alive to remember any but the last 4 or 5?  No, all this poll does is play into the hands of the rabid partisan right.  It doesn't measure anything substantial.

    You can't spell CRAZY without R-AZ.

    by rb608 on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:13:05 AM PDT

    •  35% of respondents named Reagan the "Best" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rb608, unfangus, doroma

      Many of those "sentient beings" are probably inclined to think Obama is the worst.

      “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

      by Catte Nappe on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:26:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  look at question #35 in said poll.. (0+ / 0-)

      Obama was voted  the worst president in question # 36 but in question #35 he was behind only Clinton,Reagan and Kennedy as the best.Look it up!!!!

  •  As of 11:15... (8+ / 0-)

    the choice "Nothing to explain: Obama really is worse than Bush" has received 11 votes.

    Any of you 11 deep thinkers care to explain to the entire class why you feel this way?

    Please. I could use a laugh.

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:16:43 AM PDT

    •  26 now... (3+ / 0-)

      If those aren't from right-wing trolls, but from actual Kos users, this place is actually more ridiculous than I've been led to believe.

      •  I know our party is a big-tent party... (0+ / 0-)

        but there's a hardcore couple dozen people here who mystify me as to why they're here, seeing how they're not actually Democrats.

        This place is actually pretty awesome, but the hardcore Obama bashers, like many fringe groups, tend to be the most vocal.

        Of course, I've offered them the invitation to expand on why they voted as they did, but, surprisingly, none has taken me up on my gracious offer.

        I'm in my mid-40s. Obama's been the best in my lifetime. Clinton grabs the silver. Then, admittedly, it gets pretty tricky -- sort of a NonRushmore springs to mind.

        How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

        by BenderRodriguez on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 12:49:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  First President I haven't HATED since.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    freakofsociety

    ....they murdered JFK.

    I've HATED every one of them since, and only eased up on Jimmy and Bill since they left office....

    Seems like the only measure of "Best/Worse" I've got.

    President Obama generally only rises to "I'm not happy with how he handled THIS" (whatever "this" happens to be this time) and never gets to "I hate this fucker and I wish he would mysteriously exlode at a press conference"(visualize White House Press Corpse guys blinking while splattered with Presidential Gore- usta think that regularly about Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, and both of the Bushs)

    As to the poll question? I don't care. I have my own internal/historical memory poll, and it sez "these people are FULL of SHIT!"

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 08:35:08 AM PDT

  •  Two things explain this result: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, Catte Nappe, unfangus

    1. The economy sucks.  2.  White people don't like President Obama.

    Regarding number 1, obviously Obama inherited a financial crisis and crashing economy.  But clearly his policies, while averting a much worse cataclysm, have not revived the economy.  A lot of folks will argue that the Stimulus we got was the best he could get out of Congress, and that may be true.  But he could've pursued a much more aggressive housing rescue which was entirely within his purview, not Congress's, yet Obama chose to listen to Geithner who advised against such a plan.  Also, on the political end, Obams could've exploited for political advantage the anger against the financial sector to a much greater degree.  This may have helped preserve Democratic control over the House in 2010 and thus preserve the possibility of passing further measures to boost the economy.  At the very least it would've avoided blows to the economy from the 2011 debt ceiling standoff, the sequestration that came from that, and last year's shutdown.

    As for number 2, the numbers don't lie, in poll after poll Obama does great among nonwhites but horrible among whites.  It's not all racism.  Whites are and have been for some time far more politically conservative than the rest or the public.  Bill Clinton's approval throughout his presidency among whites was considerably lower than his approval among nonwhites and lower than his overall approval rating.  Whites overwhelingly think Reagan was a better president than Clinton, even though the economy did much better under Clinton.  That should tell you a lot.

    But at the same time, you'd have to be pretty blind and clueless to not see racial animosity playing a role in why Obama is doing so much worse among whites than even previous Democratic presidents like Clinton.  Remember, Clinton won states like Kentucky and West Virginia and Arkansas.  Obama was trounced in those states in 2008, when he was still popular, and despite there being an economic collapse under a Republican administration.  That whites overwhelmingly think Obama is worse than Bush tells you about the level of derangement among many whites, and it's hard to escape the conclusion that race plays a role in that.  In addition, what also needs to be considered is the extent to which race plays a role in the greater political conservatism of whites.  It's no secret that the New Deal Coalition, of which working class whites were the backbone, collapsed over racial fissures and resentment against government benefits going to minorities.  The fallout from that lingers to this very day.

  •  in the (3+ / 0-)

    post-Snowden era this president gets hate from every direction. Combine that with the fact that he's the one currently in the office, and the result is hardly a surprise.

    These kinds of questions can never be fair by their own nature. Ask who is the worse president before WW2.

    "It's almost as if we're watching Mitt Romney on Safari in his own country." -- Jonathan Capeheart

    by JackND on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:04:17 AM PDT

  •  agree - totally silly question (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raincrow, doroma, GWinkler

    All it showed was the focused intensity of the 30% who have spent the last six years hating Obama. The R presidents split the vote.

    Quinnipiac apparently doesn't have anything better to do....

    •  PPP is known to ask the occasional silly question. (0+ / 0-)

      A lot of pollsters do it.

      New Republic: So are the left-wing blogs as bad as the Tea Party ones in this case? -------------------------Chuck Schumer: Left-wing blogs are the mirror image. They just have less credibility and less clout.

      by AlexDrew on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 02:37:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Says something about their sample I think (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    edwardssl, doroma

    Ronald Reagan won "best" by a sizeable amount. That strikes me as about as strange as Obama polling worst.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:21:08 AM PDT

  •  Translation: Obama blackest President since WWII (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    crystal eyes, oxfdblue

    and, for a variety of reasons, most voters have no idea what has / has not been accomplished during his administration.

    Fight them to the end, until the children of the poor eat better than the dogs of the rich.

    by raincrow on Wed Jul 02, 2014 at 09:35:25 AM PDT

  •  Yeah, the Chicago Tribune is playing this up. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    doroma

    Joy in Wingnuttia over this poll.

  •  It's pretty simple: (2+ / 0-)

    there are many people, like me, who believe he's the best President of our lifetime.

    There are other liberals, like me, who would pick Clinton (times were much better), or JFK (the romanticism of Camelot runs strong in the post-60 generation). There are WWII types who go to "give 'em hell, Harry."

    And there are people who would say Carter, of course, who has been the best ex-President and has left an indelible mark on the world.

    On the flip side, there are 35% tea party Americans who viscerally loathe this President beyond all reason and beyond anything I have ever witnessed in my lifetime. To them, there is only one answer for "worst."

    So in a poll such as this, the current President is doomed.

    And by the way, 45% saying we'd have been better off with Romney is actually a BOON to Obama, since 49% voted FOR Romney.

  •  Ok here goes I know you will let me have it!!! (0+ / 0-)

      I think both Bush and Obama have did  good considering the hands that were dealt them. So go ahead crucify me!!!!!  I didn't vote for Bush either time though just to be clear. I just happen to grant our presidents a lot of slack.

       I have a question how many people who rank Obama so low are liberals who think he's not liberal enough?

      The GOP's main demographic is the older/over 60 crowd as they die off you think Obama's rating might improve?

  •  This is not a big surprise... (0+ / 0-)

    ...based on the tone of media coverage the last several years, and the number of low information voters in this country. In the mainstream media, it is accepted that terms like "Benghazi" and "IRS" are representative of scandals. If you pay loose attention to the news, it seems like Obama is mired in scandal and isn't doing anything. ACA is a historic flop because of, well, a bad web site, right? Educated voters know the background details, but low information voters look at this on the whole as a bad presidency. Here are some cliches I have heard from my low information voter friends, that- while anecdotal- I don't think are uncommon view points:

    1. "It takes two to tango"- the idea here is that sure Congress isn't doing anything (and thus even less popular than Obama), but if Obama was a good leader he would have brought Congress over to his side. There's enough blame to go around in their minds, because that is "usually" how it goes.

    2. "Every president faces an opposing Congress, Obama is a failed leader"- these thinkers are not aware that the obstruction Obama is facing is deliberate and unprecedented in scale, as their common reply is that the Dems voted down Reagan bills and Republicans voted down Clinton bills.

    3. "He's had enough time"- these thinkers argue that over five years in, the White House has enough power to at least accomplish some things. Oh, but he has. Low information voters also have short term memories and forget the past positives of this administration since current media coverage is so negative.

    4. "He is going it alone"- This one is my favorite due to the irony. Low information voters are upset he can't get Congress on board, but also bothered by this media-perpetuated idea that he is abusing his power by using Executive orders. He really is damned either way as long as media coverage remains negative and uninterested in actual facts.

    I also think as our nation's political system evolves, people don't want to be grouped in with others as much anymore. Thus the rise in registered independents. So being critical, regardless of whether criticism is deserved, gives low information voters a feeling of intellectual independence. I find this trait most common in low information Democrat voters that feel Obama hasn't done well.
     

  •  Why not look at question #35? (0+ / 0-)

     In the question about who was the best president since WW2 Obama finished ahead of Bush, Bush sr., Truman,Ford,Nixon,Johnson,Carter & Eisenhower finising behind just Clinton, Reagan and Kennedy.

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site