Obama is the worst president since WWII

[johnny karate]

You're worrying about explaining a concept for which I've made no claim on. You were vague in your post, so I decided to:

A) ask for clarification on what you responded to
B) and then explain one of the reasons I thought the poll's results could have been derived from.

It's alright if you don't agree with me when I stated my opinion, or if you felt the second part was or wasn't relevant to you... but please, if you're going to respond in kind, at least read the post, or better yet don't be afraid to ask for clarification before giving an opinion. And the poll results could also be derived from bias of the respondents... really not a concern of mine since the poll doesn't make much difference to me

As far as you're contention is concerned, I don't care about the correlation between an opinion poll and his place in history. I just don't approve of his policies, and the interpretation I gave about the poll results is just a reflection of my own opinion of his direction. If you think I'm beholden to approval ratings viz his "place in history" I would then suggest that you're confused and probably should ask for the clarity.

My original post wasn't directed at you so I'm really not sure what you're going on about.

 

[Neally]

Gosh Neally, I think a president's place in history might be better determined by presidential historians rather than the general public.

Do you disagree?

Yes. I'm not all that confident with the appeal to authority angle particularly with a subjective thing like "place in history" from a small number of biased academics. I'd look for something along the lines some sort of comprehensive number that would take into account the job approval rating over the term and other objective economic numbers that could be directly attributable to presidential directives, if any.

 

[applecorped]

Gosh Neally, I think a president's place in history might be better determined by presidential historians rather than the general public.

Appeal to authority, screw the populace.

 

[tyr_13]

Appeal to authority, screw the populace.

Argumentu ad populum, screw the facts.

 

[Puppycow]

On October 24, 2008, a_unique_person posted this prediction: Obama will go down in history as being a worse President than Carter

I forgot about that thread. In it I said:

There will be a recession, but I think people understand that that's already baked into the cake. I don't think it will last 4 years.

I think that was basically right, but what I didn't realize is that the recovery would take so long (technically the recession lasted a year or less). The perception is that the recession lasted much longer because the recovery took a lot more time than the fall. Nevertheless, since Obama was reelected, I think most voters didn't blame him for the recession in 2012, so that part of AUP's prediction was wrong.

As far as "going down in history" as "worse than Carter", that won't be known until after he leaves office. As I mentioned earlier, Obama's lowest approval ratings are still higher than Carter's lowest approval ratings (by about 15%). And one thing he did accomplish that Carter didn't is to be reelected. So nothing really "spot on" about the prediction I'm afraid.

 

[Neally]

Argumentu ad populum, screw the facts.

What "facts" are those exactly?

 

[Puppycow]

What "facts" are those exactly?

Well for starters, that Obama's lowest approval rating in any poll is still higher than the lowest approval rating for most other presidents since WW2:

Does Obama have the lowest approval rating of any president since WW2? No:
http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/data_access/data/presidential_approval.html

In fact, with the exception of Kennedy, Eisenhower and FDR, they've all had lower approval ratings than Obama.

Obama's lowest approval rating so far is 39%.
Both Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, Carter, Ford, Nixon, Johnson, and Truman all had lower approval ratings during their tenure. G.W. Bush had the lowest of all of those at 19%.

 

[tyr_13]

What "facts" are those exactly?

If those numbers pan out with the relevant other numbers. Apart from what others have pointed out about fairly high approval ratings, to get a sense of who people actually think is the worst President since WWII, you'd have to have surveys that asked this same question during each of their presidencies to compare to each other. I'm all but certain that each and every president would have 'won' the 'worst president' title in the middle of or towards the end of their runs because their opposition will be united against them at that point while their allies will split their vote. The next president will be rated the worst then. Then the one after that. So you'd have to actually compare numbers longitudinally.

Besides that, there would of course be the facts of history such as the actual effects the actual actions of the president will have. Presidents get blamed and credited for an entire host of things that aren't in their control. There is no way the layman is going to be able to make that judgement. On that level, the basic question is deeply flawed. The idea that who the general populace believes is the worst president, and who is actually the worst president would line up is pretty laughable. Even experts would have a tough time making that call.

 

[Neally]

Well for starters, that Obama's lowest approval rating in any poll is still higher than the lowest approval rating for most other presidents since WW2:

In other words, incorporating public opinion into the rating, just like I said.

If those numbers pan out with the relevant other numbers. Apart from what others have pointed out about fairly high approval ratings, to get a sense of who people actually think is the worst President since WWII, you'd have to have surveys that asked this same question during each of their presidencies to compare to each other.

In other words, using public opinion to determine the ranking. I though you were against Argumentu ad populum and that there were other "facts" outside of public opinion that should be used. Below you mention some sort of objective measurments which I agree with, but it sounds like you also want to include job approval ratings.

I'm all but certain that each and every president would have 'won' the 'worst president' title in the middle of or towards the end of their runs because their opposition will be united against them at that point while their allies will split their vote. The next president will be rated the worst then. Then the one after that. So you'd have to actually compare numbers longitudinally.

BTW, I agree that surveying who people think was the worst is not an approach that should be used.

Besides that, there would of course be the facts of history such as the actual effects the actual actions of the president will have. Presidents get blamed and credited for an entire host of things that aren't in their control.

Which is also essentially what I said.

 

[johnny karate]

Appeal to authority, screw the populace.

You do realize that an argument from authority is always a fallacy, right?

Or maybe you don't and you get medical advice from your mailman.

 

[tyr_13]

In other words, using public opinion to determine the ranking. I though you were against Argumentu ad populum and that there were other "facts" outside of public opinion that should be used. Below you mention some sort of objective measurments which I agree with, but it sounds like you also want to include job approval ratings.

I wasn't arguing that it was a good metric, but that even if that was the metric one wanted for some reason, then more would have to be done to get an accurate one.

 

[johnny karate]

Yes. I'm not all that confident with the appeal to authority angle particularly with a subjective thing like "place in history" from a small number of biased academics. I'd look for something along the lines some sort of comprehensive number that would take into account the job approval rating over the term and other objective economic numbers that could be directly attributable to presidential directives, if any.

What if you didn't use some awful biased version of scholars that you clearly concocted to make it easier for you to reject this concept out of hand?

 

[johnny karate]

Oh boy... the perils of posting from a mobile device.

Post #110 should read:

You do realize that an appeal to authority isn't always a fallacy, right?

 

[Neally]

What if you didn't use some awful biased version of scholars that you clearly concocted to make it easier for you to reject this concept out of hand?

What if rather than trying to identify and qualify some impossibly unbiased hypothetical group of authorities, you use a metric like job approval, or is the public too stupid to use that as a factor in determining "place in history"?

 

[johnny karate]

What if rather than trying to identify and qualify some impossibly unbiased hypothetical group of authorities, you use a metric like job approval, or is the public too stupid to use that as a factor in determining "place in history"?

I guess if you want to use a public opinion poll on job approval, you can. But I doubt you'd be happy with the result. (See: Puppycow's post above.)

And doing so would only prove my original point. Which is that so far Obama has not gone down as the worst president in history.

However, I personally prefer to let the final word in certain fields of discipline be determined by the actual experts in those fields of discipline, and it has nothing to do with how "stupid" you desperately wish I would admit I think the general public is.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

My original post wasn't directed at you... </snip>

Yet you followed up on my response anyway insinuating I and another poster took a specific view of the poll results and that you "understood" what was being said. Now you claim you have no idea what's being discussed, pick one, but If you have no idea what I was talking about then it's a mystery why you even gave my initial reply any attention at all. Either way, I gave my clarification...

 

[Regnad Kcin]

Neally:

- Do you think Obama is the worst president since WWII?
- On what do you base your assessment?

 

[Unabogie]

Steve Benen has charts.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-best-and-worst-modern-presidents

Basically all Republicans agree: Reagan is the bestest and Obama is the worstest. Democrats split their best votes and worst votes across many presidents.

All in all, it's a done deal.

OBUMMER IS THE SUXXORS!!ELEVENTY!!!

 

[Neally]

I guess if you want to use a public opinion poll on job approval, you can. But I doubt you'd be happy with the result. (See: Puppycow's post above.)
And doing so would only prove my original point. Which is that so far Obama has not gone down as the worst president in history.

I've seen the post. Looking at the peak low exclusively is as of little value as looking at the peak high. A better metric would to look at both and everything in between as well as time spent at the various levels.

However, I personally prefer to let the final word in certain fields of discipline be determined by the actual experts in those fields of discipline, and it has nothing to do with how "stupid" you desperately wish I would admit I think the general public is.

Then we disagree on the approach.

Neally:

- Do you think Obama is the worst president since WWII?
- On what do you base your assessment?

Absent a more refined statistical metric as I've discussed, I'll go with overall averages. http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/presidential-job-approval-center.aspx Putting him in the bottom 4 but not the worst.

 

[Mike!]

I know what could settle this, once and for all, quite easily.
Simply request the thread title be changed to read: Recent poll says Obama is the worst president since WWII
Problem solved.
That way you can all get back to arguing some other meaningless bit of trivial political whatnot that currently has your sad little skid-mark stained panties in a bunch.