Quinnipiac University Poll: Obama worst president since WWII

[angus]

This poll was released today. Do you believe the poll? Thoughts?

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/poll-obama-worst-president-since-wwii-108507.html
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2056

Wow, he beat Jimmy Carter and GWB?  That's impressive.

He has become ugly, but I think we'll have to wait till he retires and the dust settles to get a good reading.

[AggregateDemand]

Dubya promoted the "ownership economy" based on people buying overpriced real estate through predatory lenders. That is unstable and unsupportable, and such doomed us to have the worst economic meltdown since the 1930s.

Energy expansion is a cannibalization of economic resources. Energy is a substitute for labor, and heavy use of energy cuts into job growth.

Americans are not going to buy the gas-guzzling vehicles of the 1970s.

Your post would be less ridiculous, if you would look at homeownership rates in the US. Furthermore, the US is not afflicted with Dutch Disease, nor do you appear to understanding the underlying economics behind the theory of Dutch Disease.

The USD had its highest relative value during a period of oil contraction.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Yeah, it's worth noting that all presidents always look better in retrospect than when they're in office. Not that Obama is doing a good job as president or anything -- he's clearly not.

[cinyc]

I believe that 33% of Americans think Obama is the worst president. I certainly don't believe that statistic is worth the sensationalist headlines. Isn't that only a little bit higher than the percentage of birthers?

Also, as already pointed out, Dubya and Nixon had to compete for Democratic/left-leaning votes whereas the right wingers had an easy choice.

Nixon was President a long time ago.  Anyone under 40 wasn't born or doesn't have many memories of the Nixon years.

And if 30-40 year old presidencies are fair game, Obama had to compete with Jimmy Carter for Republican/right-leaning votes.  Carter is still is one of the worst, least effective, jokes of a President since World War II.  He had weak foreign policy during a time of high gas prices, high unemployment, an alien invasion and general malaise.  Sound familiar?

[King]

Yeah, it's worth noting that all presidents always look better in retrospect than when they're in office. Not that Obama is doing a good job as president or anything -- he's clearly not.

Death has a lot do with it. Obama is worst and Reagan is best numbers in this poll are driven by 65+ and 50-64. Bush is worst and Clinton is best is the under 50 consensus. That's going to be the opinion of the history books this generation will be in charge of writing. That's how it works.

Older people did not like Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. He was anti-New Deal, anti-union. They remembered him being anti-Medicare in the 1960s. They were fearful. Carter and Mondale won the senior vote.

But the 50-60 year olds of today were the young adults of the 1980s and cast their first ballots for Reagan. Even the 60-70 year olds who came of age post-Watergate could look to Reagan as their first President who was Presidential. 

It's a never ending cycle.

[Lincoln Republican]

Bottom line, Obama worse than Dubya!  Ha!  Who knew?

I love how Democrats are trying desperately to rationalize this astounding poll.

If this poll showed Dubya as the worst President since World War II, they would be all over this saying I told ya so.

Told ya America should have picked Mitt.   

[Beet]

I actually don't think he's doing a bad job, apart from two issues. One, his response to the NSA leaks has been inadequate. He should have fired James Clapper and initiated more far-reaching reforms. Two, as you all know, I think the U.S. government should intervene to fight against the current ebola outbreak in Africa. However, I doubt the latter is the reason for Obama's high disapproval rating. Apart from that, I don't see how he's done such a horrible job up to now.

[Bull Moose Base]

I believe that 33% of Americans think Obama is the worst president. I certainly don't believe that statistic is worth the sensationalist headlines. Isn't that only a little bit higher than the percentage of birthers?

Also, as already pointed out, Dubya and Nixon had to compete for Democratic/left-leaning votes whereas the right wingers had an easy choice.

Nixon was President a long time ago.  Anyone under 40 wasn't born or doesn't have many memories of the Nixon years.

And if 30-40 year old presidencies are fair game, Obama had to compete with Jimmy Carter for Republican/right-leaning votes.  Carter is still is one of the worst, least effective, jokes of a President since World War II.  He had weak foreign policy during a time of high gas prices, high unemployment, an alien invasion and general malaise.  Sound familiar?

People aren't voting for Nixon because they have many memories of the Nixon years but because they have one big one: him resigning in disgrace. The effect that event has on the W vote in this poll isn't comparable to the effect on the Obama vote of Carter, a 90-year old man people like as a person if they can even remember his name. (Most born during his presidency or after probably don't.) Even after 6 years with Obama as incumbent, more people are still voting for a Republican as worst president than a Democrat.

I'd argue Obama is one of the best on the most important stuff: pulling the economy back from the brink of the biggest crisis since the Great Depression, biggest reduction in # of Americans with no health insurance since LBJ, muscling through new power plant emissions rules, presiding over operation to kill Bin Laden, navigating the expiration of Bush tax cuts on richest through a recalcitrant GOP House, presiding over the deficit being cut in half as promised, off-setting the damage Reagan and the Bushes did to the Supreme Court, staring down the GOP (and the media) on the debt ceiling, effectively forcing them to give it up as a weapon. And hardly any legitimate scandals in a climate where the GOP and the media desperately try to convince people otherwise.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

In retrospect, as a movement candidate, in the same manner of Lincoln or FDR or JFk, he didnt succeed in bringing the employment back down from elevated levels. But, he may be good enough when Historians write about him as a Dem that did to some extent reformed Wallstreet.

[Antonio the Sixth]

People are morons. News at 11.

[Brittain33]

I believe that 33% of Americans think Obama is the worst president. I certainly don't believe that statistic is worth the sensationalist headlines. Isn't that only a little bit higher than the percentage of birthers?

Also, as already pointed out, Dubya and Nixon had to compete for Democratic/left-leaning votes whereas the right wingers had an easy choice.

Nixon was President a long time ago.  Anyone under 40 wasn't born or doesn't have many memories of the Nixon years.

And if 30-40 year old presidencies are fair game, Obama had to compete with Jimmy Carter for Republican/right-leaning votes.  Carter is still is one of the worst, least effective, jokes of a President since World War II.  He had weak foreign policy during a time of high gas prices, high unemployment, an alien invasion and general malaise.  Sound familiar?

Yep, and Republicans picking Obama over Carter are being hackish.

[Bull Moose Base]

That poll being published the day before today's economic report... comedy is all in the timing.

[ElectionsGuy]

People are morons. News at 11.

People who disagree with you = morons.

[Antonio the Sixth]

People are morons. News at 11.

People who disagree with you = morons.

People who disagree with me on some particular issues (such as Obama not being the worst president since WW2) are indeed morons. And if you disagree with that you are a moron as well. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

[Phony Moderate]

Most people aren't students of history. That is a fact that is often forgotten on forums such as this one. There is a pretty good chance that Obama would also top a "Who is the worst President in U.S. history?" poll, and Buchanan probably wouldn't break 3%.

[Paul Kemp]

Bottom line, Obama worse than Dubya!  Ha!  Who knew?

I love how Democrats are trying desperately to rationalize this astounding poll.

If this poll showed Dubya as the worst President since World War II, they would be all over this saying I told ya so.

Told ya America should have picked Mitt.   

Brave.

[GaussLaw]

People are morons. News at 11.

People who disagree with you = morons.

People who disagree with me on some particular issues (such as Obama not being the worst president since WW2) are indeed morons. And if you disagree with that you are a moron as well. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

Gosh, I feel like Atlas is such a bubble sometimes.  I sense most people here live in urban areas and do not come into contact with conservatives very often.  Where I live, at least half would agree with Obama being the worst since World War II, and I can assure you that they are not morons.  


Rating presidents is an exercise in qualitative judgment.  We can disagree in how we judge them, but moral or intellectual superiority is not conveyed by having a certain ideology.  

I think it would do some posters some real good to spend some time in a small town or rural area.  It would be a good experience to understand what the other side thinks outside of some Internet abstraction.

[Antonio the Sixth]

People are morons. News at 11.

People who disagree with you = morons.

People who disagree with me on some particular issues (such as Obama not being the worst president since WW2) are indeed morons. And if you disagree with that you are a moron as well. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

Gosh, I feel like Atlas is such a bubble sometimes.  I sense most people here live in urban areas and do not come into contact with conservatives very often.  Where I live, at least half would agree with Obama being the worst since World War II, and I can assure you that they are not morons.  


Rating presidents is an exercise in qualitative judgment.  We can disagree in how we judge them, but moral or intellectual superiority is not conveyed by having a certain ideology.  

I think it would do some posters some real good to spend some time in a small town or rural area.  It would be a good experience to understand what the other side thinks outside of some Internet abstraction.

You can think Obama is a pretty bad President. That is a subjective judgment. But if you seriously think he is the worst, then you clearly have nothing worthwhile to say about politics.

[pbrower2a]

People are morons. News at 11.

People who disagree with you = morons.

People who disagree with me on some particular issues (such as Obama not being the worst president since WW2) are indeed morons. And if you disagree with that you are a moron as well. Sorry if that hurts your feelings.

Gosh, I feel like Atlas is such a bubble sometimes.  I sense most people here live in urban areas and do not come into contact with conservatives very often.  Where I live, at least half would agree with Obama being the worst since World War II, and I can assure you that they are not morons.  


Rating presidents is an exercise in qualitative judgment.  We can disagree in how we judge them, but moral or intellectual superiority is not conveyed by having a certain ideology.  

I think it would do some posters some real good to spend some time in a small town or rural area.  It would be a good experience to understand what the other side thinks outside of some Internet abstraction.

I live in a hick town, and the calumnies that I often hear about the President are still absurd. Barack Obama polarizes America because of what he is. We have never had a President like him, and much about him makes many Americans uncomfortable with him.

He is a poor match for rural America as a politician. He has succeeded in getting elected in part by  appealing to mass audiences in rural and suburban America -- and nobody wins that way in rural America. He is an egghead, and egghead types offend the sensibilities of people who get along with limited education. He can win over school teachers in town, and he still does well among unionized workers who would never vote for any right-wing Republican that those workers think seek to cut wages drastically.

The New York Times had an electoral tool that connected demographics (race, Hispanic origin, certain religious groups, income level, workers in manufacturing, educational attainment, and population density) to the Presidential vote of 2008. Edmondson County, Kentucky had the lowest proportion of college graduates (5% -- probably school teachers and perhaps a couple of attorneys, physicians, maybe an RN or two). It is very rural, poor, and white. Obama did horribly there.

Population density determined much. Indeed, aside from a combination of the 65 most-densely-populated counties, districts, and independent cities, Barack Obama lost the election. Most of those independent cities are in Virginia, but Barack Obama did well in those on the whole. Not only did he do well in Arlington and Richmond; he also did very well in such places as Fredericksburg, Charlottesville, and Harrisonburg.

But those 65 jurisdictions include the boroughs of New York, such independent cities as San Francisco, Denver, Baltimore, Philadelphia,  and St. Louis; and counties containing Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus (OH), Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Orlando, Miami, San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, the Quad Cities, the Twin Cities, Seattle, and Portland (ME or OR -- take your pick!)

In no recent election has there been so weak a link between income and voting. Obama did beautifully in such high-income areas as Winchester County in New York, Sacramento, Marin, San Mateo, and Monterrey Counties in California, and counties surrounding Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, and Washington. High income was long a good surrogate for partisan affiliation in America, but it was practically neutral in 2008.

People who might have voted for just about any Democrat in 1976 (Jimmy Carter won every former-Confederate state except Virginia) or the 1990s  are often extremely unhappy with Barack Obama. On the other side, Barack Obama picked up huge numbers of votes from people who would have never voted for a Democrat in the 1990s. The former likely think President Obama horrible. The latter have yet to get fully confident with voting for Democrats of any kind.

Except that Barack Obama kept the unionized Northern blue-collar vote practically intact, never won over America's extreme upper class, didn't win over the Mormons, and failed badly in getting the ranch-and-oilfield vote, Barack Obama won much like Eisenhower did in the 1950s. Like Eisenhower, Obama did badly in the South.  But like Obama would do 52 to 60 years later, Eisenhower won Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island together -- twice  -- which no subsequent Republican would do since Ike. On the other side, Barack Obama won Virginia, which hasn't gone D except in electoral blowouts for the Democrats since 1948. Indiana is a one-time wonder.   

By objective standards, the President to whom Obama is most likely to be seen in objective standards looks like Eisenhower, arguably the least-troublesome President since WWII.  Economic stewardship? So far he is FDR. My investments have done well under President Obama, thank you. War and peace? He got us out of one troublesome war not of his making (but at least Harry Truman had an iron-clad excuse for the Korean War). Major legislation? For two years only LBJ surpasses him. Avoiding scandals and diplomatic/military debacles? Check.

Barack Obama never promised to be as big a maven of free enterprise as his awful predecessor, but America is less socialist (from the standpoint of government ownership and management of productive assets) than when he became President. Think about it: Dubya stumbled into 'receivership socialism' as the economy melted down and giant enterprises failed. Many of the receivership assets have since been privatized.   

So he provoked a right-wing reaction that manifested itself in the loud, strident, and partly-successful Tea Party.  Sure -- but his economic rescue of many people who never would vote for him allowed the groups that funded the Tea Party movement to have the funds with which to contest him as President.

Barack Obama became President in the toughest time to be President since the 1930s. Reagan had it easy in contrast to Obama. The first year and a half of the economic meltdown beginning in the autumn of 2007 looks much like the first year and a half of the economic meltdown beginning in the autumn of 1929. The difference between the two meltdowns is that the one beginning in 1929 kept getting worse after the spring of 1931, and the one starting in the autumn of 2007 began to reverse in the spring of 2009. By 2020 we are going to see how good a President Obama really was. Either some Democrat completes the job that Obama started, or some Republican wins in 2016, probably bungles the Obama economy into an economic meltdown like that beginning in 2007 (if not worse). If the Republican nominee who becomes  President and tries to win a macho duel with Vladimir Putin -- then we will miss Barack Obama. 

Good stewardship of the economy? As good as possible. Effective foreign policy? Of course -- and so far he has solved more problems (one of them whacked in Abbottabad, Pakistan) than he has created. Avoiding scandals? Even Jimmy Carter had Bert Lance. Change? We got it when we needed it most.                   

[Foucaulf]

King is pretty much on the money here. Because the majority of the American population became adults during the Clinton, Bush and Obama years (i.e. the US median age is 37 years), there is a "checkbook effect" biasing negative judgments toward those three presidents. This could be rectified by biased weighing to older Americans, but since other questions asked in the poll are consistent with other polls that do not bias demographically, there's a good chance the pollsters didn't.

The poll is useless as it stands; the only way to compare presidents, I think, is to compare respective approval ratings at certain times during their tenure (something the French press does a lot)

There's a bigger question about the value of presidential popularity poll like these. Certainly they are valuable to political insiders, but varying economic factors need to be factored out of these polls - and there's no objective way to do that. All they can do is probably serve as a proxy for confidence in the state, I think.

[Lincoln Republican]

According to many posters in this thread

Poll that shows Obama in a bad light = A useless poll

Get over it!

[Paul Kemp]

According to many posters in this thread

Poll that shows Obama in a bad light = A useless poll

Get over it!

How it a useful poll, exactly? What does it matter?

Just because a certain segment of the population believes something doesn't mean that it is true. Keep in mind that according to this poll, not even a majority of those contacted believe this to be true - only 33%.

33% of the American people apparently also don't believe in evolution so that's a funny coincidence... or is it?

[Mr. Morden]

Wait, Winfield commented in this thread, and he didn't pick up on this question in the poll?

"In the Presidential election of 2012, if Mitt Romney had become President instead of Barack Obama, do you think that, in general, the nation would be better off than it is today or worse off than it is today?"

better off 45%
worse off 38%

[AggregateDemand]

Barack Obama polarizes America because of what he is.  

He is incompetent, without any justification, and that's what turns people off. He's an intelligent person, who went to Yale and seems to have respectable moral discipline, yet he fails quite spectacularly to wrangle Congress or achieve anything, without rampant deficit spending.

This is the story of Barack Obama, they guy who looks good on paper, but who gives in to his self-indulgent political impulses to the detriment of the nation.

I understand why people defend him, but he is easily the worst post-WWII president.

[ingemann]

It's hard to argue that Obama is a good president, but on the other hand, he's not trying active to weaken USA in misguided ideological fervor like some other presidents (Bush II and Reagan).