Question on Assessing Presidents

[Mister Mets]

If someone is trying to determine how effective an individual was as President, could the presidential campaign be considered (IE- Nixon's people sabotaging Johnson's Vietnam negotiations)? How about things the individual did as President-Elect? What about things the person ends up doing as a former President (IE- John Tyler's embrace of the confederacy)?

Or would the only things that count be actions performed after the inauguration while the person was President?

[Lincoln Republican]

A very good question.

I am of the view that in order to determine how effective an individual was as President, that it is mostly their performance in the Presidency itself that should be taken  into consideration.  After all, it is what they do while President that they are judged on as to the effectiveness, or otherwise, of their Presidency.

The future President's career before becoming President clearly does have a bearing on how they approach the Presidency, and on how well prepared they may be to become President, so yes, their pre-presidential career can clearly have a bearing on their Presidential performance, and should be considered, but to me, it is their performance in the office of President itself that will be the greatest determining factor on how well they are deemed to have carried out their duties as President.     

I do not believe that post-presidential performance should be taken into consideration when assessing the effectiveness of their Presidency.  This is after the fact, and there could be any number of reasons why a former President acts the way they do, e.g., to rehabilitate their image in the eyes of the public, if they have had been deemed to have had a particularly poor Presidency.   

[Mister Mets]

I'm asking this again, as the question got a bit more relevant following Trump's win.

When assessing how he does as President, does anything before January matter?