Skip to main content

President Barack Obama stretches to shake the hand of a young girl held aloft during a U.S. Embassy meet and greet at the Sofitel Hotel in Manila, Philippines, April 28, 2014. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)
ZOMG! Mostest unpopular president everrrrrr!

In order to cull new election data for our polling database (which you should take a gander at), I frequently will search Twitter with the search term "new poll."

Boy, oh, boy ... I really wish I hadn't done that midweek, when the new national survey from Quinnipiac was released. It was a poll that asked respondents to select their picks as the best and worst president in the United States since World War II. I'll assume you have heard of this poll.

Within milliseconds of the Q poll release, Republican Twitter damnnear broke with gleeful dollops of pure, 150-proof derp. Here are just a few nuggets:

  • "Obama beats Bush as 'Worst President' since WW2 in new POLL  TRUTH!! (As we all know, caps lock and multiple exclamation points make an argument unimpeachable)"
  • "#IAmthe33Percent : Obama worst president since WWII" (Obama was selected by 33 percent of those polled. Points for cleverness here.)
  • "New Poll - Obama is the worst POTUS since World War II. Can he resign now?" (Because of a poll. Mmm-hmm. I'm sure he'll get right on it)
  • "New Q poll just out: Useless illegal Kenyan crack-head WORST
    (faux) President since WWII." (Um ... well ... nope. I got nothin')
  • "We already new this >> Poll: Obama Worst President Since WWII" (Presented without comment)
As gleeful as the Obama haters were about the poll, there are any number of reasons why the poll is little more than fodder for their Twitter glee. Its probative value, alas, is pretty close to nil. Follow me past the jump as I explain why.

The funny thing about the heap of attention paid on this Quinnipiac poll is that, for the Democrats, there are legitimately worrisome data points, but the "worst president since World War II" line is not even close to being among them.

The Q poll does have some severely cautionary notes in it for Obama and the Democrats. The president is near his all-time low (with Quinnipiac, at least) in terms of job approval (40/53). What's worse: Obama's numbers on foreign policy and terrorism (a comparative strength of his in the latter half of his presidency, at least in terms of public opinion) are the lowest that they have been in Quinnipiac's series of national polls dating back to 2009.

Furthermore, unlike some polls, a look at the demographic sample of this survey makes "unskewing" this poll very difficult. A D+5 sample, with only a 73-percent white population, is a more than fair sample of a presidential year electorate, let alone a midterm electorate.

But everyone is focused on that "best/worst president" question. Which is lame, because it is a fairly dim measurement of ... well ... anything. Here is why:

1. Incumbent presidents are always going to do bad on this measure

As it happens, this is not the first time Quinnipiac has done this type of survey. They conducted this exact same survey back in 2006.

Let's compare the top three worst, shall we?

"Worst Presidents since World War II (Quinnipiac—2014)

1. Obama—33 percent
2. GW Bush—28 percent
3. Nixon—13 percent

"Worst Presidents since World War II (Quinnipiac—2006)

1. GW Bush—34 percent
2. Nixon—17 percent
3. Clinton—16 percent

Lo and behold—in both cases, the winner was the incumbent at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. In fact, in 2006, it wasn't even close.

In both cases, the top three were the two most recent occupants of the office, and Richard Nixon (i.e. the only guy to be driven from the office in disgrace).

And why, oh why, is this shocking to anyone? It might be breaking news to some folks, but most of us who analyze politics long ago figured out that adherents to the party out of the White House usually work up a pretty strong case of the hates for the sitting president. It's been that way since Congress passed the Alien and Sedition Acts to try to tamp down critics of John Adams, for chrissakes.

Therefore, it should be entirely predictable that 63 percent of the Republicans surveyed picked Obama. Republicans hate President Obama. This is neither breaking news, nor does it say anything about 2014 that we did not already know.

This tendency to only use short-term memory in historical judgment is hardly new. In 2005, Gallup asked respondents to name the greatest president in American history. Reagan and Clinton were No. 1 and No. 2, respectively. To call that judgment a bit suspect, given some of the giant figures that have graced the presidency in our two centuries-plus as a nation, would be a pretty ginormous understatement. Yet every poll of presidential greatness/awfulness falls in this predictable pattern.

(Fun fact—in 2011, when Gallup surveyed this question again, an equivalent number of Americans picked George W. Bush and Thomas Jefferson. I kid you not.)

2. All this poll really proves is Republican groupthink.

A very solid reaction to the Quinnipiac poll by Bloomberg's Jonathan Bernstein tells this story well:

On "best president," Republicans are unified around Ronald Reagan: 66 percent pick him, with no one else getting more than 6 percent. Republicans are similarly in agreement on "worst president," with Obama clobbering Jimmy Carter, 63 percent to 14 percent, and no one else better than 5 percent.

Democrats, however, have a competitive race for best president: Bill Clinton, at 34 percent, John Kennedy and Obama, at 18 percent. For worst president, Democrats again split between George W. Bush, at 54 percent, and Richard Nixon, at 20 percent.

With Republicans united and Democrats split, the "winners" simply reflect that Republican unity, so Reagan wins "best" and Obama "worst." That would be the case even if Obama was quite a bit more popular.

Among the many half-brained conservative memes in the era of Obama, the one that has the greatest ironic/comedic value is the "ZOMG! You guys think Obama is your messiah!" line. Has there, in American history, ever been a more enduring example of one party's drooling devotion to a singular political figure than the Republican Party's enduring crush on Ronald Reagan? Bear in mind, the man has been out of the White House for a quarter century now.

But Bernstein is right. If you add up each individual president's total, 50 percent of the respondents picked a Democratic president, while 46 percent picked a Republican. But because Republicans nearly unilaterally picked Reagan, he was the runaway individual winner.

The same thing happened in the "worst president" vote: voters split evenly (48-48) on whether they thought the worst president was a Democrat or a Republican. But since Republicans were so lopsided in dinging Obama on this score, he took the overall lead.

At the end of the day, there is not a whole lot in the recent polling data to give fans of President Obama (and Democrats, by extension) cause of complacent optimism. But this particular poll, despite the outsized attention it received, it is certainly not one of those data points that should keep anxious Democrats up at night. It is sideshow material and little more.

Originally posted to Daily Kos Elections on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:29 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

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

  •  Saw this and thought that wingnuts are just (49+ / 0-)

    trying to erase the devastating stupidity of George W. Bush, the WORST President in the Entire History of Time.

    They can try, but they will fail: there's no getting away from this reality.



    Mission afailed


    The ONLY Thing Bush was ever right about....
    Smug Bush impeachme

    Legal means "good".
    [41984 | Feb 4, 2005]

    by xxdr zombiexx on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:38:49 AM PDT

  •  We should wear it honor. (42+ / 0-)

    If they think Obama is the worst, good. That means hes doing a good job. Anytime a Republican gives you directions, go the opposite way. They dont even believe in science, therefore cant be taken seriously.

  •  Whatever floats your boat Goopers....Winter is (8+ / 0-)

    coming....the Wilderness beckons.

  •  I find the best list more interesting. (25+ / 0-)

    Only 1% will volunteer W. as the best.  That makes a much bigger statement, I believe, than how many volunteer him as the worst.  

    Look for Reagan to start sliding down this list rapidly, judging by the age breakdown.

    Always nice to see such solid support for Bill Clinton.  It's easy to forget that his presidency is the only era of sustained national peace and prosperity that many Americans can remember.

    Obama, like Clinton, will do better with time.  If we give him a cooperative congress for the last two years, he might even leave office with decent approval numbers.  But in the long run, his presidency has been short on scandal and long on long-term changes that will ultimately play out in his favor.

    •  Must disagree on Clinton; I think he will do (8+ / 0-)

      worse over time, as more and more people realize the corporate sellout he presided over.

      Yes, yes, I know had he vetoed Gramm Leach Blily and the Commodities Trading Act the veto would have been overridden.  He still should have vetoed it.  Both were disasters for the working people of the US.

      And his foreign policy was part and parcel of the disaster that US foreign policy since WWII has been.

      Fiat justitia ruat caelum "Let justice be done though the heavens fall."

      by bobdevo on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:14:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agree with bobdevo (5+ / 0-)

        I like Bill, but his presidency had issues. Exhibit A: NAFTA

        Always nice to see such solid support for Bill Clinton.  It's easy to forget that his presidency is the only era of sustained national peace and prosperity that many Americans can remember.
        What about USS Cole attack, African embassy attacks, 93 WTC bombing, Waco, Rwanda genocide, Oklahoma City, etc?

        Their cause must be our cause too. Because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome. -- Lyndon B. Johnson

        by AllTheWayWithLBJ85 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:25:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Compare to 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan wars. (11+ / 0-)

          Nineties are far more peaceful by comparison in the minds of Americans.

        •  Absolutely, Clinton was NOT GOOD ENOUGH (5+ / 0-)

          Another thing I  keep hearing, he brought in a budget surplus! The economy was strong! Except - the real income, and standard of living, for all us li'l folk just kept right on declining. The rich fuckers liked Clinton, but ALL his "economic strength" came from further destruction of infrastructure and allowing the rich fuckers to sell off real assets and convert them to Cayman Island treasure chests. To say a President is great just because "Well, he wasn't George Bush" sucks dog weenie. We need to kick the entire bell curve way, way, way left, and it ain't gonna happen with a centrist.

          People DO realize that  Obama was fully vetted and approved by Wall Street, right? Howard Dean was the one that scared them, but by yelling once at a rally, he proved himself to be hopelessly insane. "THE SCREAM".... which was grossly amplified, reverbed, distorted, ran through cookie monster sound processing and then played thousands of times as irrefutable evidence that Dean was a deranged baby-roaster screwing goats in the graveyard.

          Doesn't it seem as though the pigs can elect whoever they they want? So, they put in a Republican, who fucks everything up in every way possible, but just before it turns all to shit - they allow a token, pig-vetted Democrat in, so they get all the blame? Then another Republican for more greasing the skids to hell, then another Democrat to take the blame. THEY NEVER OWN IT. We're fucking doomed.

          •  Clinton signed NAFTA into law. (0+ / 0-)

            That will always be why I dislike him. He killed "blue collar" America. He deregulated much of the economy too--including signing the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which gave us the recession.

            The part that makes me so mad at Clinton was I truly believe he knew better...but just like Obama, can't truly be a strong Dem president like LBJ, let alone have the titan-sized balls of steel of FDR.

            Speaking of which, could you imagine how badly Charlie and David would shit themselves if we did ever get another FDR?

      •  That might hurt him with some. (8+ / 0-)

        But the fact is, Clinton's presidency is the only time of national peace and prosperity that many Americans can remember.

        If all that Reagan did to destroy the country hasn't hurt him with the general public, why would Clinton's far more distinguished record be any different?

      •  He's already doing better with time. (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z, Tommy Aces, Janet 707, Shawn87, TLS66

        If anything sinks his numbers, it will be a Hillary Clinton presidency returning him to a partisan figure in the minds of Americans.

    •  until reagan does (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      snazzzybird, Tommy Aces, Shawn87

      become less popular, we  can take comfort in the irony that evangelicals claim the best president is an adulterer and is celebrating him living with his mistress.  If there is a reason I don't take evangelicals seriously, that is I fear them because I know many are willing to kill me but I don't think they have anything of value, is Reagan.

      She was a fool, and so am I, and so is anyone who thinks he sees what God is doing. -Kurt Vonnegut Life is serious but we don't have to be - me

      by lowt on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:34:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  PBO worst, "We miss W" (10+ / 0-)

    and right before a big family 'get together' holiday so it gets maximum exposure. Oh, and let's not forget Chuck Todd's declarative (and ridiculous) statement about the end of Obama's presidency.  Makes a guy wonder. The corp news media surely wants to please it's masters.

  •  Not entirely meaningless... (21+ / 0-)

    If the poll illustrates anything, it is the gullibility of the masses and the brutal effectiveness of the Right Wing propaganda machine.  Goebbels would be proud.


    In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our minds. In loyalty to our kind, We cannot tolerate their obstruction.

    by mojave mike on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:54:41 AM PDT

  •  Not entirely meaningless... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sunbro, collardgreens, Janet 707, Shawn87

    If the poll illustrates anything, it is the gullibility of the masses and the brutal effectiveness of the Right Wing propaganda machine.  Goebbels would be proud.


    In loyalty to their kind, they cannot tolerate our minds. In loyalty to our kind, We cannot tolerate their obstruction.

    by mojave mike on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:55:09 AM PDT

  •  Dubya had a 30% or so approval rating when he (12+ / 0-)

    left the White House. I suspect those dead-enders are the main source of Obama's haters.

  •  I don't get their love of Reagan. He increased (18+ / 0-)

    taxes 11 times during his presidency.  Aren't they always complaining that taxes should never be raised?  

    Misremembering history seems to be a right-wing trait.  Oh they love the Twitter, but don't know how to use the Google...

    "We know too much to go back and pretend" - Helen Reddy (humble cosmos shaker)

    by ditsylilg on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:58:00 AM PDT

    •  And he put Sandra Day O'Connor on the SC, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RhodeIslandAspie, METAL TREK, TLS66

      and she helped preserve Roe v. Wade.

      My theory? When he fired the air-traffic controllers, he had their hearts forever.

      This is why we should keep an eye on Scott Walker for 2016.

      How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

      by BenderRodriguez on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:29:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Reagan (8+ / 0-)

      increased taxes on poor people and increased taxes on middle class people, but cut taxes on the wealthy and corporations. This is exactly what Republicans want.

      Republicans do not support tax cuts in general. They support tax cuts for the wealthy and for corporations. They support tax increases on the poor and middle class.

    •  Ever here those tax hike EVER mentioned (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      METAL TREK, ditsylilg, Shawn87

      In any regular media when presidencies are discussed? No. And when you add in that those who love Reagan are more prone to only remembering what comports to their version of "truth" and forgetting or even acknowledging a demonstrated fact, this should be no surprise. Damn, Reagan was a great actor, which is perfect for those who loved him.

      The 1% are becoming sociopaths. PERIOD. That wealth is making them sick. Entitled and unanswerable to anyone.Personal responsibility is for the suckers, er, the middle class and poor.. -- cagernaut, 30 October 2013

      by billlaurelMD on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:01:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Because of strong cultural identification (12+ / 0-)

      The first step in understanding their love of Reagan is to realize that it is not based in logic, or on his actions as President. Indeed, Reagan was not a fiscal hawk, for he exploded the budget deficit far beyond any president before him. It was on Reagan's watch that nearly 300 poorly protected Marines were killed by suicide bomber, after which, Reagan turned tail. Not to mention the illegal, Constitution shredding, Iran-Contra treason of his administration.

      The right irrationally loves Reagan for exactly the same reason it irrationally hates Obama; because of their bigoted cultural identifications with him. Don't waste your time or intellect attempting to rationally analyze the motivations of the GOP's base. There is little rational thinking taking place there, it is mostly tribal cultural association, and hateful feelings toward those they deem outside that tribe. Their tribe is, of course, ethnically white, Christian, heterosexual, English speaking, and authoritarian male dominated.

    •  If You Were Alive In The 1980s... (4+ / 0-)

      ...then you remember a sunny period from about 1982 to when Reagan left office where things were "good", the nation seemed "strong", and we had a amiable uncle in the White House that made us "proud."

      Or least that's the way things looked and felt if you were a white, middle class, suburban person and took much of the mainstream coverage of the news at face value.

      And Reagan was always exactly what the white American right (I know....what other kind is there?) wanted: someone who projected and confirmed THEIR values without question, and was constantly dealing with everyone outside the GOP/suburban/preppy/aspiring middle class demographic as "those people."

      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

      by Bring the Lions on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:23:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Oh, yeah... it was peaches and cream, all right... (0+ / 0-)

        14% interest rates on mortgages, jobs tanking everywhere except in defense-industry contractors. Blowhard bigotry, both racial and religious on an industrial scale... Social Security payroll deductions and Federal taxes going through the goddamned roof - That's my recollection of those years - and I'm white! I didn't share the bastard's values then, and I don't share them now... and I'm still white.

        Try substituting the words "Wealthy Elite" for "white American" sometime... the likes of Allen West, Clarence Thomas, Condoleeza RiceThomas Sowell and the rest of their creed freely admit to being beneficiaries of Reagan's neocon rampage. Your point might be better received by those of us who haven't contributed to this train wreck we now call "America".

        •  I Was There (0+ / 0-)

          I was in college all through the Reagan years.  I hated every minute that he was president, but most of my peers (white middle class) did not.  

          They liked the jingoism.  The winners under Reagan were professionals, and many of my college friends were getting business and engineering degrees.  Those that were getting liberal arts degrees like me were less enthusiastic.  It was also clearer to us how the lower and working classes were getting the shaft.  My other Reagan-loving friends saw themselves joining the professional class and abandoning the "losers" left behind.

          Oh, pretty much every black conservative is known to anyone that follows politics.  You could fit all the prominent ones into a cab, which speaks to their novelty and how the right wing media machine promotes them.

          In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

          by Bring the Lions on Tue Jul 08, 2014 at 01:55:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  They only love the Reagan they remember. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dunkerque, MichaelNY

      The version propped up by nostalgic propaganda, and viewed only through rose-colored glasses by people who don't remember paying any taxes from 1981-1988, can't find Iran OR Contra on a map, and think Ronnie single-handedly tore down the Berlin Wall.

      “Humanity's capacity for justice makes democracy possible, but humanity's inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary.” ― Reinhold Niebuhr

      by ktowntennesseedem on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 03:50:04 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Keep wanting to remind (yell at) these twits that (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wary, METAL TREK, Shawn87

    Obama doesn't have to run for anything anymore!
    And for the idea that this could be collaterol damage to Dem's that do, I don't know how effectively that's played out before.

    For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbours, and laugh at them in our turn?'' ...

    by QuaintIrene on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 07:58:03 AM PDT

  •  I guess I don't really care (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I'll never vote for the GOP again but Obama has been just as bad on civil liberties (worse in some ways).  So I'm just hoping a real progressive runs in 2016.

  •  Context (19+ / 0-)

    Yes, Obama's approval ratings are down, but so are those of every government institution.  Obama is doing considerably better than Congress, the Supreme Court, and Republicans.

  •  Worst because? (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reflectionsv37, sunbro, Shawn87

    We could be back in a golden age of America (although the total obstruction and divisiveness propagated by the right has prevented any chance of that!) and the Conservatives would still say Obama's the worst. Rallied by Fox News and hate radio, they've dehumanized the president in their minds, and they'll do the same with Hillary.

    "Inequality is the root of social evil." ― Pope Francis

    by GoodGod on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:06:58 AM PDT

    •  I do think (6+ / 0-)

      it'll be more difficult for a white president to be dehumanized the way a black president is.

      they did it to Clinton and he left office with a 60% approval rating, and that after a lot of bad news, from Lewinsky to the Balkans to the tech bubble bursting.

    •  If a white GOPer had gotten Osama bin Laden, (6+ / 0-)

      the petition to have that Prez's face on Mount Rushmore would have been turned into law years ago.

      As it is, they're trying to find a way to impeach Obama for Presidentin' While Black.

      “[Sir Arthur Conan Doyle] created Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Watson - which proves he was way ahead of his time on gay marriage.” - Bill Maher

      by gardnerhill on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:42:08 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Actually, Presidentin' while Democratic (0+ / 0-)

        If, let's say, a white male had been nominated by the Democrats in 2008, won, and got OBL, he'd not be on Rushmore and the GOP would still be trying to impeach him, as they did with Clinton.

        "Valerie, why am I getting all these emails calling me a classless boor?"

        by TLS66 on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 07:28:52 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Because he's a Democrat. (0+ / 0-)

      It's a stupid poll question, and always was (even when GWB was pres).  No matter what, 40% of the respondents will pick a Democrat, and 40% will pick a Republican, and around 20% in the middle might go either way.

      So which Democrat will the R respondents pick? Surprise! They don't like the incumbent. At this point, they've forgotten how much they hated Bill Clinton, and most voters don't remember anything about Jimmy Carter or anybody earlier.

  •  1 In 4 Americans Think He Could Be The Antichrist (9+ / 0-)

    So only 33% thinking he could be worst President since WW II is not surprising

  •  Hmm. I see "best" as a close call between (4+ / 0-)

    Lyndon Johnson and Harry Truman.  But on Johnson I'm in a small minority, even among Dems.

    The Voting Rights Act, the Civil Rights Act, Medicare.

    I know, Vietnam.  But it isn't as if he forced Vietnam on the establishment of either party.

  •  Second term drop-off is common. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    People got tired of Ike too.

    I'd like to see a year-by-year comparison of each president's popularity. If anyone finds one, diary it!

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

    by Bob Love on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:15:55 AM PDT

  •  Are these the same pollester McDaniel relied on? (4+ / 0-)

    Repugs have done notoriously bad in interpreting polls, recently.

    •  I own a TV station = I am a millionaire (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      drmah, LordMike

      Is there any single owner or part-owner of any television station, network, newspaper, or new service who ISN'T militantly one of the One Percent, "militantly" in terms of using everything they got to keep shellacking the American Mind with unmitigated bullshit? Do you ever actually expect to hear something true outta one of the sewage pumps? Oh sure, I have 150 million dollars and I'm in it for the little guy. The only time any of these pig-rich motherfuckers have an attack of conscience is when somebody with a conscience runs up and attacks them, and they've gotten really, really good at avoiding that, haven't they?  

    •  Nixon's lies didn't kill anyone. W forced an (3+ / 0-)

      unnecessary war on us resulting in thousands dead and many, many more lives ruined. W should be in a jail cell.

      •  Are you maybe forgetting that entire (7+ / 0-)

        Vietnam War business? Lots of dead bodies there.....

        I ask him if he was warm enough? "Warm," he growled, "I haven't been warm since Bastogne."

        by Unrepentant Liberal on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:36:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Um, Cambodia? n/t (4+ / 0-)

        Their cause must be our cause too. Because it's not just Negroes, but really it's all of us, who must overcome the crippling legacy of bigotry and injustice. And we shall overcome. -- Lyndon B. Johnson

        by AllTheWayWithLBJ85 on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:47:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  and Laos . (4+ / 0-)
          Operation Menu was the codename of a covert United States Strategic Air Command (SAC) bombing campaign conducted in eastern Cambodia and Laos from 18 March 1969 until 26 May 1970, during the Vietnam War.
          For four years Menu remained unknown to Congress as a whole although as previously mentioned five Congressmen had been informed. That situation changed in December 1972, when Major Knight wrote a letter to Senator William Proxmire (D, WI), asking for "clarification" as to U.S. policy on the bombing of Cambodia.

          "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

          by indycam on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:21:15 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I was focusing on Watergate. (0+ / 0-)

            The Johnson administration escalated our involvement in Vietnam. You're right about Nixon's secret war in Cambodia and Laos but I think a democratic president would have done much the same.

            •  Nixons lies , (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              forced an unnecessary war on us resulting in thousands dead and many, many more lives ruined.

              "please love deeply...openly and genuinely." A. M. H.

              by indycam on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:35:39 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Okay, you proved me wrong. (0+ / 0-)

                I'll go cry in a corner after such a lesson. Not. You can pase my words all you want but I stand by my assertion that Bush is worse than Nixon.

                The same type of logic can be used on Obama's drone usage as well. I still say Bush and Company are worse because they marched us into a totally unnecessary war. Bush started his war, Nixon did not. Nixon escalated the war in hopes of pressuring North Vietnam into a more acceptable peace. It failed and turned everyone against the war. No one died from Watergate and Nixon had to resign in disgrace from it. I hope Bush gets the same dose of karma as Tricky Dickie felt.

                •  Charles Manson - 8; George Bush - 600,000. (0+ / 0-)

                  Although Charles Manson was not specifically known to have killed anyone himself, it is true that his followers, acting under his orders, did manage to murder 8 people, possibly even 10 or 11. Although George W. Bush was not specifically known to have killed anyone himself, it is true that his followers, acting under his orders, did manage to murder 500,000 completely innocent civilians, and another 150,000 or so people who were defending their homes.

                  You know the joke about the "cowardly terrorists, hiding behind women and children?" Well, what if the children are your children, the women are your wives and mothers, and you're hiding among them because it's YOUR home and where the HELL else are you supposed to go? It's where you fucking LIVE*.... and if you disrespectfully refused to run down to the boulevard to greet the American troops as your liberators, maybe it's because it's not customary for liberators to bomb the living fuck out of you 24 hours a day for a whole week straight before they come in to "rescue" you from that growly ol' Saddam guy.

                  Interestingly enough, ALL the print reporters and swarthy-maned TV dimplets DID know that exact same joke too; they just forgot to mention it, because you could lose your press pass or even your country-club membership over that kind of disrespect. Gads!

                  *(We kinda muffed that one in that... Vittnam, Veetmen... whatever... that place too. Fucking foreigners.)

                  P.S. (if there's a bit of slop in my casualty numbers, no worry! We haven't counted mere "collateral damage" for oodles now. Just foreigners, after all!)

  •  I'm surprised his numbers aren't lower. (25+ / 0-)

    Obama has a 24/7 propaganda channel otherwise known as Fox "News" aimed at him. He's got so many billionaires funding his opponents I lost count. He has a Congress that won't pass anything meaningful without some sort of poison pill attached to it. Now Boehner is going to try to sue him for going around his roadblock. I'm no Obamabot but I've never seen a president try so hard to govern with so much stacked against him.

  •  "Worst President" is way up from "AntiChrist" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FDR in 08, RhodeIslandAspie

    which is what they were thinking before. They're admitting he actually is the President and not an unconstitutional, Kenyan, anti-colonialist pretender.

    •  Romds mez How quickly Newt, Sarah Palin and all... (0+ / 0-)

      Romds mez

      How quickly Newt, Sarah Palin and all the crazies drop away. Never

      More deserving.

      BUT They will all be back for 2016 Pres race.


      Hillary wants to DESTROY 'Murka!!!!

      Run for your Lives!!!!!!!!!

  •  The average American has the attention (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    span of a fruit fly. That's why so many of them think Lebron James is the best basketball player in the history of history.

    I ask him if he was warm enough? "Warm," he growled, "I haven't been warm since Bastogne."

    by Unrepentant Liberal on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:34:45 AM PDT

  •  damage is done- RW radio works! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FDR in 08

    this is one of many polls used over the years to attack democrats, move media, and define "popular" sentiment.

    in many cases they are created and fudged deliberately so they can be used to move the perception of the political center.

    regardless of the absurdity of the results, this poll, whether distorted or even made up by weighing the sample, is a testament to the right's ability to dominate media in the US, and in particular, their ability to swiftboat whoever they want and create alternate realities to suit their purposes.  

    unless this poll is a complete fiction it is sadly also another example of the ineffectiveness of the left to  "get their representatives' backs" and the stupidity of ignoring rw radio.

    it's just standard propaganda and their rw radio monopoly megaphone allows them to pick and choose and push this stuff effectively.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:43:56 AM PDT

  •  Republican Congress... (5+ / 0-)

    less likeable than the clap.

    So, there's that.

    Just a guy made of dots and lines.

    by BobX on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:45:09 AM PDT

  •  A poll of public opinion structured this way (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    leftykook, cherish0708

    is almost meaningless. There is strong incentive for the voters to thumb down current and recent Presidents they have voted against.  Right on mark, SS.

    Maybe the Quinnipiac  poll folks need to take some refresher classes in scientific polling? Where's the validity? Almost wondering if the GOP has some moles there organizing this. Probably not. Just some inane survey design.

    Just another underemployed IT professional computer geek.

    by RhodeIslandAspie on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:49:07 AM PDT

  •  Republican Groupthink? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FDR in 08, Dunkerque


    A more reasonable interpretation is that there has been only one great Republican President in that time and a bunch of Democratic mediocrities.

    Plus the aforementioned haze of time.

    That seems especially the case when Democrats pick Bill Clinton over LBJ.

    LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

    by dinotrac on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:55:17 AM PDT

    •  But young Democrats split between Clinton and JFK. (5+ / 0-)

      LBJ's not a visible part of our shared American history, which seems a shame, given his incredible accomplishments.

      Maybe coming between the dazzling young, cut down in his prime Kennedy and the shockingly corrupt Nixon makes him less a part of the conversation.

      Shame, given his extraordinary accomplishments and him presiding over the period of American history that still seems to define where the battle lines are.

      •  JFK was the greatest President in the history of (0+ / 0-)

        our nation, bar none.  Why?  Because of Nixon had won in 1960, his service in running a naval store in the Pacific during WWII gave him no insight into the workings of the military mindset that was then prevalent during combat.  Nixon would not have had the intellectual or moral authority to overrule the Joint Chiefs when during the Cuban Missile Crisis when they were screaming for an air attack on Cuba, followed by an invasion.  

        JFK, with his combat experience in the Pacific, knew exactly how things get fucked up in the military and how their routine thinking could lead to events getting out of control, and that not everything that the military states or requests is the gold plated, unvarnished truth.  

        Little did either Kennedy, or the Joint Chiefs know that the lower level Russian missile commanders in Cuba had free reign to launch the intermediate range missiles rather than see them captured by the Americans which most likely would have resulted in an all out nuclear exchange that would have ended civilization on earth as we know it.  JFK's confidence in overruling the military probably saved the world and allowed most of us to continue living the lives we live today on an admittedly polluted, but basically green planet, rather than a charred, burned out cinder devoid of life.  

        For that reason, IMHO, JFK is the greatest President who ever lived.

        And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

        by MrJersey on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:33:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nixon was Nixon, and would not have allowed the (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          MichaelNY, Bourbaki

          Bay of Pigs.  Nor would Cuba had been a problem because the missile crisis was a result of Kennedy's blunders and perceived weakness/naivete.  Khruschev respected/feared Nixon, didn't think much of Kennedy.

          Kennedy made some nice speeches and really got on board the space bandwagon.  Who knows what might have happened if it weren't for Dallas in 1963?  But Dallas did happen and Kennedy will always be unfulfilled potential and major blunders.

          LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

          by dinotrac on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 12:48:58 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I agree. LBJ accomplished a lot, whereas JFK (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        looked and sounded good and had his heart in the right place.
        He also launched a disastrous invasion of Cuba and nearly got us into a nuclear war with the Soviets.

        LG: You know what? You got spunk. MR: Well, Yes... LG: I hate spunk!

        by dinotrac on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 12:44:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Reasonable interpretation"? Hmm.. Only a shith... (0+ / 0-)

      "Reasonable interpretation"? Hmm..

      Only a shithead GOP apologist would "interpret" Reagan as great. Clinton was and Obama is far better than Reagan.

  •  What? No poll at the end of this diary? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    indycam, FDR in 08

    I'm bummed.

  •  Mostly group think. (6+ / 0-)

    The group think by the repubs is a major factor. If you ask almost any repub to explain why they think Obama is the worst, you only get talking points without any specifics. When push harder, what comes out is usually lacking in fact.

    Right wing radio, TV reporters and every repub politician has been spouting how bad Obama is since he was elected the first time, again, without specifics, and, as good little repubs, the base swallow every word and regurgitate on demand. They push as many hot buttons as often as they can with everything from fascist, socialist, communist, dictator, to king, without any evidence or examples to the validity of any such claims.

    I think that a lot of the 'Obama is the worst president' is coming from people just repeating what they've heard without ever engaging their own brains.  The ol' line about repeating a lie enough times....

    The power of willful ignorance cannot be overstated. (Marketing dictum)

    by NWGuy on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 08:59:31 AM PDT

  •  Think about G.W. Bush vs. Obama (8+ / 0-)

    for a second.

    Accomplishments of G.W. Bush:

    Ignored threats of planes being hijacked and thousands were killed in an attack on his watch.

    Invaded the wrong country, Iraq, grossly mismanaged the war for years. Thousands were killed and the taxpayers had to spend hundreds of billions on this grossly mismanaged war.

    Grossly mismanaged the Afghan war for years, costing the taxpayers hundreds of billions and thousands of lives.

    Crashed the economy in the worst recession since the 1930s.

    Accomplishments of Obama:

    Mostly got us out of the 2 wars.

    Millions more have health insurance.

    Millions have gotten jobs. The unemployment rate is steadily moving down.

    The stock market is at record highs. Dow just reached 17,000 for first time in history.

    Now how stupid does one have to be to think that Obama is the worst?

  •  I've said it before (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    and I'll say it again: Polls are only as reliable as the person who paid for/commissioned them is honest. Period.
    I'll decide (for myself) who the "worst" POTUS is and PBO ain't on that list.

  •  well, he is the worst DEM president since wwII (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FDR in 08

    but he still manages to squeek ahead of several repubicans.

    Doesn't matter though, if the republicans take the senate they will impeach him and the senate will convict him.  Doesn't matter what the specifics are, he will be gone.

    The only question is whether they will have the ballz to take biden with him.  I say yes.  

    This is all just fuel for them.  The house is already convinced america would support impeachment, now this will be used to convince any waivering republican senators (if any exist).

    Say bye-bye.  

    •  Not worse than Carter. Jimmy Carter was/is a great (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FDR in 08, anshmishra

      guy in general, but he was not good at being president.

      We no longer ask if a man has integrity, but if he has talent. - Rousseau, Discourse on the arts and sciences

      by James Allen on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:38:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  This Is Just Nonsense (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lysis, cherish0708

      The GOP wins the Senate, they don't impeach him.  

      Even as bad as the GOP is, they still need a REASON to impeach him.  The reasons they give the moronic base of the party is good enough for all of them, but there's still the matter of actual law.

      And I believe they need 2/3rds of the Senate to agree and they won't get that, just let's just put this nonsense to bed already.

      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

      by Bring the Lions on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:28:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  haven't you been paying attention? (0+ / 0-)

        The house files charges of impeachment.  They are the prosecutors.  Several not-as-far-right-as-they-get members have already publically discussed impeachment.  They say they have the votes.

        The charges are basically irrelevant.  The constitution just describes them as high crimes and misdemeaners.  Basically, the house leadership has already laid the charges out - extraconstitutional actions outside of his powers.

        They just need to make a case.  Nobody but them will vote on it.  Nobody but thm will debate it.  Once it goes to the senate, members of the house will press the case formally.  After some debate, there will be a vote.

        At that point, 51 votes sends a private car to the white house to remove the former occupants.

        That is the process.  No actual law, statute, or even common sense argument needs to be applied.  It just comes down to votes.

        •  I Have Been Paying Attention (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          For one thing, the House Republicans can all vote for impeachment and send it to the Senate....but they still have to vote for a REASON.

          If the "reason" boils down to President While Being Black or just for being the Kenyan Usurper, that will be fine with the 23% of Americans that still approved of Bush at his worst, but it won't be credible with everyone else.

          Again, this is isn't about WHAT they do or not (and there is enough sanity left in the GOP to not fall for this), this is about whether it's serious or not.

          In the Senate-

          A conviction on an article of impeachment requires a two-thirds vote of those Senators present.
          The GOP won't have 2/3rds, no matter what happens in November.

          Again, this isn't happening.  And IF it does, no one will take it seriously, and the Senate DOESN'T have the votes to remove Obama.  Just stop with this.

          In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

          by Bring the Lions on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:59:03 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are there enough Republicans in the Senate who (0+ / 0-)

            are not sufficiently afraid of the crazy Tea Party and evangelical Republican base to have a profile in courage and stand up to the Republican mob and vote against conviction in the Senate.  These days, with a Republican mentality that has been flogged over and over again by Fox News, I just don't know.  

            And it feels like I'm livin'in the wasteland of the free ~ Iris DeMent, 1996

            by MrJersey on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:40:47 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  2/3 does not apply to anything here... (0+ / 0-)

        The process is constutional, not based on senate policy.  

        This was all on display when clinton was impeached.  Once the house votes in the affirmative on articles of impeachment, the senate is COMPELLED to hear them.

        The chief justice will preside over the proceedings.  No 2/3 vote applies.

        Read the constitution.  It's right there.  Or go back and use the google to look at how it worked under Clinton.  Do you really think the Dem senate would have heard the case then if they could have stonewalled it?

        •  2/3rds Needed to Convict (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          The House has the votes.  What it DOESN'T have is a REASON.  Like, a real reason you would impeach a president.

          That doesn't matter to the base, but they are out-numbered by everyone else.

          If they vote to impeach, it will be on a trumped up charge that no real legal expert will find credible.  And they will have a trial in the Senate as with Clinton, and as with Clinton they won't have the votes.

          You need 2/3rds of the Senate to vote to impeach.  No matter what happens in November they won't get that.  And they know that too.  Which is why talking about this is complete nonsense.

          In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man may be king.

          by Bring the Lions on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 11:02:43 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  It applies to conviction. (0+ / 0-)

          "At that point, 51 votes sends a private car to the white house to remove the former occupants."

          This is just wrong.  Take your own advice to Google Clinton's impeachment:

          "The perjury charge failed with 45 senators (all Republican) voting "guilty" and 55 senators (45 Democrats and 10 Republicans) voting "not guilty". The obstruction of justice charge failed with 50 senators (all Republican) voting "guilty" and 50 senators (45 Democrats and 5 Republicans) voting "not guilty". In both cases, a two-thirds majority of 67 senators would have been required for conviction."
    •  2/3 vote in Senate required for impeachment con... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      2/3 vote in Senate required for impeachment conviction. GOP will never get 2/3 of Senate. Ever.

      •  They'd need to win all but two races this year. (0+ / 0-)

        To get to the magic number of 67.

        If the Dems lose all but two races in a year that includes races in Hawaii, Mass., NH, NJ, RI, Illinois, NM, and Delaware, we've got bigger problems to worry about than impeachment.

        I suspect the winds might be blowing in the opposite direction, if anything.  I think there's a better shot of us picking up seats in Maine, Georgia, Kentucky, and even Mississippi than there is of the GOP making inroads in any Democratic stronghold.

        To even get the majority, they're going to have to win a lot of competitive races.  Two-thirds of the Senate?  Not with this GOP.  No way.

    •  He's the best president of my lifetime going (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      MichaelNY, cherish0708

      back to Carter.

      He got more accomplished in 1 term than any president since LBJ. He's leaps and bound ahead of Clinton. And just imagine what he could have accomplished if he didn't have to spend most of his first term cleaning up messes from Bill and W.

      President Obama at Madison Rally 9/28/2010 - "Change is not a spectator sport."

      by askew on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 02:44:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  considering... (5+ / 0-)

    that the people that call themselves "independents" in the contemporary era are dominated by small r republicans that are embarrassed to wear the big R jersey, calling this poll D+5 is quite misleading. The numbers here among independents strongly make that suggestion.

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

    by JackND on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:32:29 AM PDT

  •  I find all the little ads disgusting (7+ / 0-)

    WHENEVER you look at CNN, Newser or the like - even Sports Illustrated, websites about all sorts of stuff besides poli-news -you see all the little ads around the side and bottom -

    "Worst Disgrace in the White House since Clinton?"

    "Is this the end of Obama?"

    "Obama Impeached?"

    Just all this CONSTANT shit, every single day, with variants in the wording and pictures. And if you poke on any of them, there's absolutely nothing to them - total bullshit - but it's simply all about placing those phrases in front of people, day after day, year after year. And now of course they're starting in on Hilary. And there's no way for li'l ol' me to figure out WHO THE FUCK is placing this stuff, all over the entire fuckin' internet. And OF COURSE it weighs in on the groupthink of the Great Unwashed. GRRRRRR. Back to my cave.

    •  100 % of the 33 % are Republicans... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Where have these Republicans been for the past 6 years?  Are they that clueless?

      Does everyone in America know that Republicans hate President Obama, except Republicans?

      If ever you required evidence that a Republican should NEVER be allowed to choose another President, you have it now.

      This "News" (that Republicans hate President Obama) is common knowledge and apparently everyone in America knows but Republicans.

  •  These polls are a propaganda tool (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    They can be manipulated to mean what their pollsters want them to mean.

    Survey type polls are more reliable. I did these as exit polls during the 2006 election and was impressed with their accuracy.

    Republicans are crazy, Democrats need to be useful and its up to us to save our democracy. Get to work.

    by Citizenpower on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 09:46:13 AM PDT

  •  On Republican behavior (0+ / 0-)

    Republicans have set themselves up for failure more than once by jumping on irrelevant information coming from polls simply because it makes them feel better. Its how they keep themselves on the same dead end track that they are on. I say let they take all they joy they want from the Q Poll,  it will do nothing but help Democrats and hurt the very people jumping for joy.  I do not need them to know that President Obama has done better than most Presidents considering he was handed two unfunded wars, a financial crisis, a non-functioning Congress, and too many Radicalized Conservative Republicans that are impossible to deal with.

  •  100% of the 33% are Republicans... (0+ / 0-)

    Where have these Republicans been for the past 6 years?  Are they that clueless?

    Does everyone in America know that Republicans hate President Obama, except Republicans?

    If ever you required evidence that a Republican should NEVER be allowed to choose another President, you have it now.

    This "News" (that Republicans hate President Obama) is common knowledge and apparently everyone in America knows but Republicans.

  •  All polls have merits and limitations (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Bring the Lions, Lysis

    As I have often expressed on DAILYKOS, one must evaluate every poll on both its merits and limitations.  There is no doubt that President Obama will fare much better in hindsight that he does now.  

    And there is no doubt, as has long been the case with Bill Clinton, that there has been a concerted and ceaselessly sustained effort by the Right Wing Noise Machine to destroy him.  And unlike Bill Clinton, President Obama has had to endure a very racially charged incendiary element.

    President Obama is impassioned and brilliant, a superb speaker with a supreme intellect and with many achievements to his credit that will call him to great positive light in the broader view of history.

    However, whether for right or wrong, whether through propaganda (President Reagan was a product made in Hollywood, filtered through General Electric, propagated by Roger Ailes and the "Fox News" Network and Right-Wing Radio--and remains sustained by the fact that the MSM and its acolytes never cease to try to elevate him far beyond his much more limited popularity in his own lifetime) or through an extraordinarily active post-presidency (save for possibly John Quincy Adams, not even Theodore Roosevelt has had a greater, more productive longevity after his presidency than has Bill Clinton), public perception at any given period does matter.

    And that public perception is ever based upon a fact that to be a widely admired President, one must be viewed with a favorable nostalgia for the period in which one reigns.  Thus, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are quintessential "founding fathers"; Abraham Lincoln is the Civil War prophet and philosopher; Theodore Roosevelt the young exponent of "the rigorous life," Franklin Delano Roosevelt the calming and courageous father figure of The Great Depression and the Second World War; Dwight Eisenhower the soldier-president in the aftermath of World War II and John F. Kennedy the youth-and-beauty embodiment of the New Frontier.

    Likewise, whether right or wrong, Reagan is perceived of as the avuncular leader who concluded the Cold War and Clinton as presiding over possibly the last period of American sustained peace and prosperity.  Their detractors may scream to the heavens all manner of objections, crying foul, but that is the reality of public perception all the same.

    This is a conundrum for President Obama.  Like President Clinton, he will exit his terms as President as still young and vigorous.  But unlike President Clinton, it seems now unlikely that he will exit his presidency with soaring approval ratings, born of affirmation of sustained peace and prosperity.

    Like President Clinton, President Obama will be a globe-trotting figure immersed in all manner of philanthropy and state-craft after his presidency.  But unlike President Clinton, it is unlikely that any tune, such as Clinton's now emblematic Fleetwood Mac trademark "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow," will bring thrillingly fond memories of the period in which he ruled.  (For even at the height of his Impeachment, Bill commanded soaring high sixties approval ratings, leaving office with the highest approvals since the years of JFK.)

    The great forerunner of dynamic leadership in the aftermath of presidential reign is President Jimmy Carter, like President Obama and the near-President Albert Gore, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate (a Prize that will forever elude Bill Clinton, even though his Global Initiative Conferences and Foundation have had far greater impact and relevance than ever has had the Norwegian Nobel Peace Prize Committee).  And President Barack Obama is likewise surely bent to follow his example after January of 2017.

    However, although President Carter commands great respect internationally, and although his personal conduct is always held as being exemplary from all political stripes, the sad reality is that there lacks any consensus of nostalgia for the period of his presidential term.  

    And even historians, assessing by way of the long view, who now regard the achievements of LBJ and Harry Truman as being potentially great if not near-great, cannot themselves endear these figures to the masses--not when the former is yet remembered for the escalation of the War in Vietnam through the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, or the latter is seen, at least by a sizeable share of the electorate, as the man who gave the order to annihilate an entire population through the dropping of the Atomic Bomb.

    In short, if a President leaves office with high or very high approval ratings, the demand for his post-presidential appearances will also remain high.  Sadly, however, if the ratings are middling or meager at his (or her--inevitably there will be a female President after all) term's end, then however noble one's post-presidential achievements, that allure, as an "admired" or "loved" President cannot be sustained.

    Thus, I fully understand why Reagan and Clinton are now ensconced at the very top of the presidencies following the Second World War.  I personally believe that Reagan was the very worst of my sixty-one year lifetime, with policies that have proven all but lethal for the United States and beyond.  However, I also appreciate the influences of media and public perception.  It is why I also believe that Bill Clinton--leaving office with soaring approval ratings and with potentially the most dynamic post-presidency of any Chief Executive, will inevitably surpass Reagan, overwhelming even the Right Wing Noise Machine, particularly if he survives and remains in good health another ten years or so--the sheer breadth of his world influence will take him there.

    Those who contend that President Obama has the potential over time to outpace President Clinton fail to consider, however, that even the hindsight of history is never enough to endear one to the masses.  Those job approval ratings, and the wider perception of the Chief Executive, whatever their limitations, are still keenly important.  Indeed, to many of us who are inveterate followers of the political scene, such polls and perceptions are not just important--but trump all else when determining any presidential influence, past, contemporary, current, and future.  

    •  Thanks for this. (0+ / 0-)

      Especially this:  "It is why I also believe that Bill Clinton--leaving office with soaring approval ratings and with potentially the most dynamic post-presidency of any Chief Executive, will inevitably surpass Reagan, overwhelming even the Right Wing Noise Machine, particularly if he survives and remains in good health another ten years or so--the sheer breadth of his world influence will take him there."

      The Clinton Foundation isn't discussed too much around here, but it's doing transcendantly amazing work.

  •  I'm guessing... (3+ / 0-)

    that a lot of the respondents who labeled Obama "the worst," think that WWII ended with GWB's invasion of Iraq.

  •  Polls don't vote, and polls after the fact (0+ / 0-)

    33% say he's the worst!  Yes, that means the Republicans who didn't vote for him in 2012 stuck where they are at.

    What I notice, though is that it's down from the 46% or whatever, so 13% of Republicans at least aren't so headstrong about 'worst ever' and they've moved on.

    Gandhi's Seven Sins: Wealth without work; Pleasure without conscience; Knowledge without character; Commerce without morality; Science without humanity; Worship without sacrifice; Politics without principle
    >Follow @tmservo433

    by Chris Reeves on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:04:00 AM PDT

  •  This is proof that Republican-Lite doesn't work. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Nor does trying to be the most reasonable folks in the room.

    Nor does it work to work for bipartisanship, and prenegotiate everything with yourself first, hoping that you will appeal to the Republicans.

    All of that has failed, and failed utterly. And it has set back "liberalism" a generation, not to mention made anything to the left of that impossible.

    Each time the Dems and Obama try to craft something that might appeal to the Republicans -- as in, start the game on the right side of the aisle -- they make that the new "far left." Every time they take a conservative idea, like Romneycare and the Heritage Foundation mandate scheme and embrace it, this becomes the new "far left."

    Cap and trade? That used to be mainstream Republican.

    Cuts to Social Security and Medicare? That used to be the far right dream. Now it's on the table thanks to Obama and the Dems, and their idea of cuts now becomes the new "far left."

    Deficit commissions in the middle of recessions? That used to be unheard of, even from Republicans. Now, this is the new "far left" because the economic suicide preached by the (disunited) commission wasn't immediately adopted.

    And if you want to know why Obama has slipped among young people, look no further than his continuation of Bush's foreign policy, drug war, deportations and the surveillance state, while actually ramping them up.

    This is on the Dems. Don't blame the Republicans for this. They're still the same old psychotic, reactionary crowd they always were. But the Dems have decided, all too often, to act like them.

    •  ^^ This is so true but you forgot an important one (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      You also forget the nomination of conservative judges to the federal bench by a Democratic president and how several seats are still empty thanks to Leahy's lame blue slip policy. Hell, some of the people Obama has nominated are so far to the right that you'd never know it was a Democrat that nominated them--you'd swear they were Bush picks.

      •  True again. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        It's amazing that things got to this point. Democrats rallying around conservative policies or people, in hopes that the GOP won't replace them with something or someone even worse.

        And in this dance, it's the Republicans that keep winning even when they lose. They certainly aren't going to try to appease those of us on the actual left once they take full control. They're going to keep doing what they've been doing for the last forty years. Pulling America further and further right and into economic apartheid hell.

        The Dems are complicit in this. If they're not in full battle mode opposing this, 24/7, they're complicit, and that includes all "**compromises."

        **The only way for that not to be the case is if they knew how to negotiate, and asked for far more than they thought they'd ever get, and the final deal is what they wanted all along.

        Like, asking to save one million acres of wilderness, while really desiring 500,000. If they get that 500,000 as a "compromise," then they're not complicit, etc. etc.

  •  Nixon was a much better president than Reagan, ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Nixon was a much better president than Reagan, and I hated Nixon.

  •  the world laughs again (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MrJersey, cherish0708

    Obama is greatly admired around the world - mainly because he is an adult, he's cool under pressure and has righted some of the heinous activities and crippling problems created by the man whose administration almost destroyed America, killed countless innocents, and put the world economy back 100 years.

    The world is collectively no longer afraid of the rogue state that was W's America (illegal war, murder of millions, torture state, theft of $ billions, losing staunch allies, trading democracy and innocent lives for oil, etc. etc.).

    So the laughter continues as you let the scurillious and treasonous liars at false news tell y'all what to think while the rest of the planet looks on with amusement. Stuff like this confirms what folks think of the average murrican - dumb as a bag of hammers and living a bubble. Apologies for insulting what remains of the reasonable people in the U.S. but this nonsense is just beyond the pale. Grow the f*%k up.

    "Please proceed, Governor"

    by portlandzoo on Sun Jul 06, 2014 at 10:37:10 AM PDT

  •  Not that I needed... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cherish0708, fdrobama

    a reason, but this just further validates my decision to never give credence to polls.
    They are always skewered to reflect the politics of those who are taking them.
    I will pay attention as soon as one comes out with the REAL truth...
    Namely, that Ronald Wilson Reagan was the worst president in this nations history...
    Perhaps I, or someone else will take the time to post a complete accounting here making this case...
    It certainly won't be all that difficult.
    Suffice it to say, that his was the presidency that planted many of the seeds that are now bearing 'ugly fruit' in the Middle East....
    Anyone remember Iran Contra?
    His administration drove a deeper wedge between the classes as well as the races.
    Anyone remember his opposition to a national holiday honoring Martin Luther King?
    Anyone remember his refusal to utter the word AIDS, or fund research into it while 1000's were dying?
    "Trickle Down", and "Compassionate Conservatism" are memes that we are still struggling to rid ourselves of...
    Hell, George W. Bush would never have been possible were it not for The Gipper.
    So again, to this latest right-wing/Twitter poll, I say buzz off.

  •  Funny how conservatives are happy with that 33% (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, cherish0708

    …result deeming Obama the worst President since WWII. I say funny because they rejoice on 33%, yet opposing 97.1% reports from the scientific community saying climate change is real!

  •  Most people don't remember.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LordMike, MichaelNY, cherish0708

    ...the circumstances in which Reagan left office. The Iran Contra scandal had put massive dark clouds over his presidency. Conservatives were worrying about his legacy. It was then the GOP hatched a plan to rename everything in his name ..

    •  Myself, I always thought Reagan was the worst. (0+ / 0-)

      He is the original architect that started all of this divisive political problems we have today. He is the one who helped arm people like Bin Lauden, just to hurt Russia's war in Afghanistan (yes, that means I at least partially blame him for 9/11). He was the one who propped up Saddam and made him more powerful to hurt Iran. He was the one who gave us stupid ideas we can NEVER EVER get rid of, no matter how many times they're proven wrong--like trickle down economics and extremely heavy handed drug policies that ruin more lives than the drugs themselves (including the bad shit, not weed). And finally, he gave us Justice Scalia.

      And that's just the shit most people forget to mention when they speak of him. America would be a much better place if Carter beat him in 80. That's why he will always get my #1 vote for worse. Bush was bad but the effect of Reagan's bad has been felt for generations.

  •  obama poll's (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MichaelNY, TheDudester

    does anyone know the details of these "he's the worst" polls?  how many people give him bad ratings because he is too soft on republicans?  that is my biggest and just about only gripe with him.  that is considerably different from saying he is incompetent.  is this info available anywhere?

  •  I may be wrong, but if 33% feel Obama (4+ / 0-)

    is the worst president since WWII, would that not mean that 67% do not?

    I never was good at math, but that seems obvious...

    "The tides go out, the tides come in...Nobody knows why." Glenn Beck, 2014.

    by old mark on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 02:49:54 AM PDT

  •  All I can say is (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I hope Hillary Clinton is the next worst president since World War II.

  •  who's the worst BEFORE ww2? (0+ / 0-)

    I am tired of laughing at the irony of their stupidity.

    by stagemom on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 03:13:31 PM PDT

    •  Ha! Great question! (0+ / 0-)

      My personal pick would be Warren G. Harding. But YMMV.


      "Every one is king when there's no one left to pawn" (BRMC)
      Contributing Editor, Daily Kos/Daily Kos Elections

      by Steve Singiser on Mon Jul 07, 2014 at 10:51:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site