Scholars rank Trump as the worst President in American history

[SWE]

Why do people think we can't evaluate Trump after a year? He's done plenty that can be evaluated.

[Pandaguineapig]

Why do people think we can't evaluate Trump after a year? He's done plenty that can be evaluated.

Hindsight gives you a better view of how decisions/policies play out. Harding was viewed very positively when he dies and Truman was viewed as a failure when he left office

[dw93]

Somewhat surprised by the low ranking of Kennedy. The Cuban Missile Crisis alone ought to place him higher.

Sexcapades might be taking down his rating. Public attitudes toward reckless fornication by the rich and powerful have changed dramatically in the last few months. 

Not to mention he has very little if any legislative accomplishments and he was the one that sent the first combat troops into Vietnam.  I've said it before and I'll say it again, once the aurora of Camelot and the belief of "What would've/could've Been" fades, Kennedy's standing with the public and scholars will fall.

[pbrower2a]

This says more about academia than Trump. No matter how you feel Trump saying stupid/mean things does not surpass plunging the country into a civil war. Despite the partisan hysteria that surrounds every president, the worst presidents are the pre/post civil war era presidents: Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, and Johnson. Outside of that era any reasonable person would rate Tyler, Harding, and Hoover worse than any President from the modern era

But those stupid and nasty things that offend American sensibilities might be even harsher insults elsewhere.

[Gass3268]

Why do people think we can't evaluate Trump after a year? He's done plenty that can be evaluated.

Hindsight gives you a better view of how decisions/policies play out. Harding was viewed very positively when he dies and Truman was viewed as a failure when he left office

Which is why Obama jump up 10 spots from 2014 and is now better than Reagan.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Why do people think we can't evaluate Trump after a year? He's done plenty that can be evaluated.

Hindsight gives you a better view of how decisions/policies play out. Harding was viewed very positively when he dies and Truman was viewed as a failure when he left office

Which is why Obama jump up 10 spots from 2014 and is now better than Reagan.

Only Democratic analysts thought that, independents thought Reagan was better.

[Gass3268]

Why do people think we can't evaluate Trump after a year? He's done plenty that can be evaluated.

Hindsight gives you a better view of how decisions/policies play out. Harding was viewed very positively when he dies and Truman was viewed as a failure when he left office

Which is why Obama jump up 10 spots from 2014 and is now better than Reagan.

Only Democratic analysts thought that, independents thought Reagan was better.

On the overall list, Obama is now 8th and Reagan is 9th.

[Tartarus Sauce]

Not really a judgement one can make only year into someone's Presidency.

Usually not, but there is little reason to believe somebody like Trump will change due to new inputs and experiences. What you see now is all we're gonna get.

[fluffypanther19]

They shouldn't have included Trump and I say that as a staunch critic of Trump's. If I had to rank his Presidency thus far, it would be in the bottom 10, but certainly not below Pierce's, Buchanan's, or Andrew Johnson's.

With that said, let's move on to other Presidents. Obama doesn't deserve to be in the Top 10. He left the Democratic party in its' worst position since before the Great Depression, Income inequality sky rocketed on his watch despite a recovery from the Great Recession, and his Foreign Policy, while an improvement from Bush/Cheney's and while it's looking better and better every day compared to Trump's, it still wasn't without massive flaws. Reagan is also undeserving of the Top 10 as well. His response to AIDS was disgraceful, he set a bad precedent when it comes to taxes and spending and it was on his watch that the Debt and Deficit began to spiral out of control. His giving rise to the religious right was also damaging as well. It's also nice to see Wilson and Kennedy falling out of the top 10 as well, although LOL at Republicans ranking GW Bush over JFK in their ranking, and Speaking of GW Bush, he was NOT a better President than Richard Nixon. It's sad that even Democrats now rank him above Nixon.

couldn't agree more; this list is hot garbage

[The Mikado]

"One of the worst" is one thing, but I fail to see how Trump's Administration has been as disastrous as, say, John Tyler's yet.

Tyler is still my "President Trump is most like" pick.

[Badger]

Why do people think we can't evaluate Trump after a year? He's done plenty that can be evaluated.

Hindsight gives you a better view of how decisions/policies play out. Harding was viewed very positively when he dies and Truman was viewed as a failure when he left office

Which is why Obama jump up 10 spots from 2014 and is now better than Reagan.

Only Democratic analysts thought that, independents thought Reagan was better.

On the overall list, Obama is now 8th and Reagan is 9th.

In both overrated with those rankings, IMHO

[Reaganfan]

Kennedy, Trump and Jackson are WAY too low. LBJ is too high. So are Wilson and Obama.

I googled the three "scholars" and they are ultra liberal. Academics hate Trump, personally and politically.

[LabourJersey]

You can't compare modern presidents with earlier ones. John Tyler's job description was very, very different from Donald Trump's.

Anyway, you can make a good argument that G.W. Bush is still the worst modern president (until Trump starts a war).

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Not really a judgement one can make only year into someone's Presidency.

Usually not, but there is little reason to believe somebody like Trump will change due to new inputs and experiences. What you see now is all we're gonna get.

Oh, I doubt that. Unless he is removed or dies, we're going to see far worse.

[Middle-aged Europe]

Kennedy, Trump and Jackson are WAY too low. LBJ is too high. So are Wilson and Obama.

I googled the three "scholars" and they are ultra liberal. Academics hate Trump, personally and politically.

To which "three" scholars are you referring to? The NY Times mentions only two by name and these are the two who conducted that survey. Who is the third one you're referring to??

In addition, on what is your assessment based that these two scholars are "ultra-liberal"? Which sites did you find that specifically stated that the two scholars are liberal? Because one of these two is Justin S. Vaughn from the Boise State University. According to Vaughn's Facebook account, he liked the pages of the following Republican politicians:

- Steve Yates, former chair of the Idaho Republican Party and currently running for the Republican nomination for Lieutenant Governor of Idaho
- Brad Little, incumbent Republican Lieutenant Governor of Idaho, currently running for the GOP gubernatorial nomination
- Tommy Ahlquist, also a candidate for the Republican nomination for Idaho governor
- Mike Simpson, Republican congressman from Idaho's 2nd district
- Jeff Sayer, Republican candidate for the Idaho State Senate

Vaughn doesn't seem to have liked any Democratic politicians though. In your opinion, is supporting multiple Republican candidates an indication for being "ultra-liberal"?

https://www.facebook.com/justinvaughnphd/about?lst=1521762832%3A100012201306729%3A1519121070

The survey itself was conducted among 170 members of the American Political Science Association, among them also a couple of Republican scholars. According to the NY Times article, if you take only the Republican scholars' responses into account, Donald Trump ranks 40th among the 44 presidents. Which is still pretty bad, even though slightly bettter than the Democrats' und Independents' responses.

Do you have any reason to believe that the Republican scholars' reponses were in any way falsified, as you seem to accuse the two authors of the survey to have been done just that?

[emailking]

After one year? Junk rating.

It clearly states that there are three more years and that this ranking is where he stands RIGHT NOW.

Not hard to comprehend.

Yeah still junk, rating a president needs hindsight that can take 25-50 years. Eisenhower and Truman were viewed as failed presidents in the years after they left office

And in 100 years they could be viewed as failed Presidents again for all you know. Heck, Jackson just moved down 8 spots in this ranking from 2 years ago. There's nothing wrong with taking as assessment of where things stand now, subject to change.

[Badger]

Kennedy, Trump and Jackson are WAY too low. LBJ is too high. So are Wilson and Obama.

I googled the three "scholars" and they are ultra liberal. Academics hate Trump, personally and politically.

To which "three" scholars are you referring to? The NY Times mentions only two by name and these are the two who conducted that survey. Who is the third one you're referring to??

In addition, on what is your assessment based that these two scholars are "ultra-liberal"? Which sites did you find that specifically stated that the two scholars are liberal? Because one of these two is Justin S. Vaughn from the Boise State University. According to Vaughn's Facebook account, he liked the pages of the following Republican politicians:

- Steve Yates, former chair of the Idaho Republican Party and currently running for the Republican nomination for Lieutenant Governor of Idaho
- Brad Little, incumbent Republican Lieutenant Governor of Idaho, currently running for the GOP gubernatorial nomination
- Tommy Ahlquist, also a candidate for the Republican nomination for Idaho governor
- Mike Simpson, Republican congressman from Idaho's 2nd district
- Jeff Sayer, Republican candidate for the Idaho State Senate

Vaughn doesn't seem to have liked any Democratic politicians though. In your opinion, is supporting multiple Republican candidates an indication for being "ultra-liberal"?

https://www.facebook.com/justinvaughnphd/about?lst=1521762832%3A100012201306729%3A1519121070

The survey itself was conducted among 170 members of the American Political Science Association, among them also a couple of Republican scholars. According to the NY Times article, if you take only the Republican scholars' responses into account, Donald Trump ranks 40th among the 44th presidents. Which is still pretty bad, even though slightly bettter than the Democrats' und Independents' responses.

Do you have any reason to believe that the Republican scholars' reponses were in any way falsified, as you seem to accuse the two authors of the survey to have been done just that?

It's Naso. He's obviously suspicious of anyone smart. Well outside his baliwick and all that.

[MasterJedi]

Kennedy, Trump and Jackson are WAY too low. LBJ is too high. So are Wilson and Obama.

I googled the three "scholars" and they are ultra liberal. Academics hate Trump, personally and politically.

To which "three" scholars are you referring to? The NY Times mentions only two by name and these are the two who conducted that survey. Who is the third one you're referring to??

In addition, on what is your assessment based that these two scholars are "ultra-liberal"? Which sites did you find that specifically stated that the two scholars are liberal? Because one of these two is Justin S. Vaughn from the Boise State University. According to Vaughn's Facebook account, he liked the pages of the following Republican politicians:

- Steve Yates, former chair of the Idaho Republican Party and currently running for the Republican nomination for Lieutenant Governor of Idaho
- Brad Little, incumbent Republican Lieutenant Governor of Idaho, currently running for the GOP gubernatorial nomination
- Tommy Ahlquist, also a candidate for the Republican nomination for Idaho governor
- Mike Simpson, Republican congressman from Idaho's 2nd district
- Jeff Sayer, Republican candidate for the Idaho State Senate

Vaughn doesn't seem to have liked any Democratic politicians though. In your opinion, is supporting multiple Republican candidates an indication for being "ultra-liberal"?

https://www.facebook.com/justinvaughnphd/about?lst=1521762832%3A100012201306729%3A1519121070

The survey itself was conducted among 170 members of the American Political Science Association, among them also a couple of Republican scholars. According to the NY Times article, if you take only the Republican scholars' responses into account, Donald Trump ranks 40th among the 44th presidents. Which is still pretty bad, even though slightly bettter than the Democrats' und Independents' responses.

Do you have any reason to believe that the Republican scholars' reponses were in any way falsified, as you seem to accuse the two authors of the survey to have been done just that?

It's Naso. He's obviously suspicious of anyone smart. Well outside his baliwick and all that.

I'm surprised he even allows himself to use Google since it was created and run by liberals.

[pbrower2a]

Democratic scholars rank Obama sixth, after the usual trinity of Washington, Lincoln, and FDR and then what are usually the two greatest peace-time Presidents (Jefferson and T. Roosevelt).  Independent scholars rank Obama twelfth, which is decidedly above average. Republican scholars rate our 44th President sixteenth, which is still above average.

The problem that conservatives can have with Obama isn't the faults of recklessness, corruption, insensitivity, or inattention (none of which apply) that could bring down any President. The problem with Obama as a President to conservatives is that he was not one of them. Conservative scholars surely recognize that President Obama has virtues that would serve a conservative President well.

So if it is a matter of disliking the result, Ronald Reagan is fourteenth for Democratic, seventh for independent, and fifth for Republican scholars. Obama, who displayed much the same skill set as Reagan, will probably be seen very well for conducting himself well -- and Reagan will get credit for reshaping America in his direction. Even that is a matter of taste.

Now what about Donald Trump? Conservative scholars rate him 40th, which is awful. Democratic and independent scholars both rate Franklin Pierce 40th, and I have never heard anyone laud Pierce as President. Independent scholars rate him second-to-worst.  Style points? That may be part of it, but we have not had a President so ill-prepared for the job as Donald Trump for over a century. We had also never elected a demagogue.    

Scholars can look to the long term, and perhaps they see in Donald Trump many of the signs of failure. Catastrophe is hard to predict, and if it did, then current Republicans  (maybe 'conservatives' in the future) would assess whether he handled the catastrophe well. If Trump were to get us into a bungled war or if he were to preside over an economic meltdown that begins as severely as those beginning in the autumns of 1929 or 2007, then they might fault him for making the Republican Party highly unattractive for a very long time. It's hard to imagine any President facing so hideous a spiraling of events as James Buchanan, second-to-last for Democratic scholars and last for independent and Republican scholars.

If I have a fault for Obama, it is that Donald Trump follows him.     

[Since I'm the mad scientist proclaimed by myself]

This says more about academia than Trump. No matter how you feel Trump saying stupid/mean things does not surpass plunging the country into a civil war. Despite the partisan hysteria that surrounds every president, the worst presidents are the pre/post civil war era presidents: Fillmore, Pierce, Buchanan, and Johnson. Outside of that era any reasonable person would rate Tyler, Harding, and Hoover worse than any President from the modern era

The thing is that there isn't a fundamental fault line as strong as slavery to plunge the nation into war right now.

I thought you were gonna quit posting.

Things aren't quite as different as expected. Deal with it.

[Hollywood756]

Not to mention he has very little if any legislative accomplishments and he was the one that sent the first combat troops into Vietnam.  I've said it before and I'll say it again, once the aurora of Camelot and the belief of "What would've/could've Been" fades, Kennedy's standing with the public and scholars will fall.

So I have a portrait of James Dean tattooed on my left foot, along with the line "Life can be beautiful" from rebel without a cause.

As I've gotten older and seen more about his career, I've realized James Dean wasn't a great actor- he may have been very good, but he didn't have enough time to transcend to greatness. He is better understood as an icon. He is a symbol for american peak teenager, just as John Wayne is the icon for American rugged independence.

Kennedy is better understood in that light, as an icon, of the Gospel of Wealth era. 

[Orser67]

Trump is bad but I don't see how you can rank him lower than Buchanan, Pierce, or Andrew Johnson. His presidency hasn't been nearly as harmful as theirs were.

Otherwise, I see some real improvements in this poll. Obama in the top quartile, Clinton and Jackson moving from the first quartile to the second quartile, Grant moving up to slightly above average. I do disagree with Bush moving up; I thought 35 was about right (though he should be above Nixon).

[Yank2133]

Why do people think we can't evaluate Trump after a year? He's done plenty that can be evaluated.

Hindsight gives you a better view of how decisions/policies play out. Harding was viewed very positively when he dies and Truman was viewed as a failure when he left office

With any other president I would agree. But Trump is uniquely bad and has shown no hints of actually improvement.

[Yank2133]

Why do people think we can't evaluate Trump after a year? He's done plenty that can be evaluated.

Hindsight gives you a better view of how decisions/policies play out. Harding was viewed very positively when he dies and Truman was viewed as a failure when he left office

Which is why Obama jump up 10 spots from 2014 and is now better than Reagan.

Only Democratic analysts thought that, independents thought Reagan was better.

On the overall list, Obama is now 8th and Reagan is 9th.

In both overrated with those rankings, IMHO

No, they aren't.

Obama is the most accomplished president since LBJ, and has no major poltiical scandals to boot. Reagan as much as I hate him is the father of a political movement that is still going strong today.

Both are clearly top ten presidents by the metrics scholars use.

[pbrower2a]

One of my favorite ways to show the similarities of two Presidents is to show similarities in states in voting for one or the other. It is hardly surprising that Hoover in 1928 and Eisenhower in 1952 should win mostly the same states. Hoover promised peace and prosperity, and got only peace right; Ike could deliver. What is truly eerie is when the two presidents are from opposite Parties, as between Eisenhower and Obama. Partisan affiliations have changed dramatically  since the 1950s, but while much of the Democratic vote of the 1950s has since gone Republican and vice-versa, the similarities between Eisenhower and Obama present themselves in an odd way.

It is telling that Eisenhower won three states  (Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Rhode Island) that no Republican nominee has ever won together since 1924 -- and Ike did it twice. I'm guessing that Ike did best in the states with the highest levels of formal education -- which is much the same in the 2010s as in the 1950s.  Eisenhower and Obama both won Virginia after long dry spells for Republican Presidential nominees in that state for their respective Parties' nominees for President. 
..........................

When all is said and done, I think that the Obama and Eisenhower Presidencies are going to look like good analogues. Both Presidents are chilly rationalists. Both are practically scandal-free administrations. Both started with a troublesome war that both found their way out of. Neither did much to 'grow' the strength of their Parties in either House of Congress. To compare ISIS to Fidel Castro is completely unfair to Fidel Castro, a gentleman by contrast to ISIS.

The definitive moderate Republican may have been Dwight Eisenhower, and I have heard plenty of Democrats praise the Eisenhower Presidency. He went along with Supreme Court rulings that outlawed segregationist practices, stayed clear of the McCarthy bandwagon, and let McCarthy implode.

You can ignore the numbers which  indicate electoral votes from 2012.

 
gray -- did not vote in 1952 or 1956
white -- Eisenhower twice, Obama twice
deep blue -- Republican all four elections
light blue -- Republican all but 2012 (I assume that greater Omaha went for Ike twice)
light green -- Eisenhower once, Stevenson once, Obama never
dark green -- Stevenson twice, Obama never
pink -- Stevenson twice, Obama once

No state voted Democratic all four times, so no state is in deep red.