# Best/Worst Presidents?



## TedEH (Jun 25, 2018)

*MOD EDIT: This is a new thread based on the derails from http://sevenstring.org/threads/unpopular-opinions.289482/*



bostjan said:


> We elected the first every non-white skinned US president, and he was the best leader we had in decades, yet he was still lambasted by racist folks every moment of his time in office


This reminds me of an ad I saw the other day -> was a banner ad for a book titled "The Worst President In History" or something like that, with a pretty clear photo of Obama on the cover. I can't think of any particular president and think "yup, from what I know (which is very little), this guy was a great president", but the worst in history? My gut reaction is that you could twist any president into "the worst ever" by manipulating or creatively interpreting statistics and deconstructing their failings in isolation, outside of the context of the fact that no politician I've ever heard of has ever delivered 100% of what they promised. The second gut reaction is that I assume people are predisposed to think very little of him because of his race, and will gladly combine that with gut reaction #1.

I dunno what this adds to the conversations, just thinking out loud.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jun 25, 2018)

"best president in decades" Truly an unbiased opinion there. I'd love to see some quantitative data showcasing how he was the "best". 
I heard an interview with a political science professor on NPR a few years back who was explaining how people equate the president with both the good and bad things that happen during their terms (ie Trump rallying the construction stocks with his talk of improving infrastructure, Obama getting credited with killing Osama, Bush getting blamed for the 2008 economic depression, Obamacare, etc). The vast majority of people lack the initiative to look into events more deeply and see how there's so many other variables besides some talking head who lives in a white house.


----------



## TedEH (Jun 25, 2018)

KnightBrolaire said:


> unbiased opinion


Is there such a thing as an unbiased opinion? If there was no bias, it wouldn't be an opinion, would it?


----------



## synrgy (Jun 25, 2018)

In fairness, we don't have nearly as much hindsight on the Obama Administration's cumulative effects as we do any Admin prior, but considering we _barely_ average two Presidents per decade, to say 'best leader in decades' only has to put him ahead of Slick Willy and The Bushes, and I don't figure that'd be too much of a stretch.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 25, 2018)

KnightBrolaire said:


> I'd love to see some quantitative data showcasing how he was the "best".


Results of a scholastic survey of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...p-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html/ ranked him highest since Eisenhower. There have been other similar surveys with similar results.


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jun 25, 2018)

bostjan said:


> Results of a scholastic survey of Democrats, Republicans, and Independents: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive...p-against-the-best-and-worst-presidents.html/ ranked him highest since Eisenhower. There have been other similar surveys with similar results.


The self-identified democrats have him ranked in the top 10. Neither the self identified independents or republicans in the survey you cited have him in the top 10 or higher than Eisenhower. I could talk all about how that data isn't really statistically useful since there's an inherent self-selection bias with any surveys that target specific groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias

Looking at the earlier 2014 survey NYT created, he barely breaks the top 20. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/02/13/measuring-obama-against-the-great-presidents/
from the 2014 survey:
"First, President Obama ranks 18th overall, but beneath the surface of the aggregate figures lurks evidence of significant ambivalence.* For example, those who view Obama as one of the worst American presidents outnumber those who view him as one of the best by nearly a 3-1 margin. Similarly, nearly twice as many respondents view Obama as over-rated than do those who consider him under-rated.* One area where there is significant _expert _consensus about the president, however, concerns how polarizing he is viewed as being – only George W. Bush was viewed as more a more polarizing president.

Next, *Obama does not perform well on more specific dimensions of presidential greatness, often viewed as average or worse.* For example, he is the midpoint in terms of both personal integrity and military skill (e.g., 10thof 19 in both categories), but falls to 11th when it comes to diplomatic skill and 13th with respect to legislative skill. Even so, when asked which president should be added as the fifth face of Mt Rushmore, Obama ties with James Madison as the 7th most popular choice.....*Scholars seem to hold Barack Obama in high regard personally, but view his skills and performance as mediocre to poor. Few think of Obama as an excellent president, while many more rate his presidency quite low, with the bulk of experts appearing to give him a passing grade but not one that would get him on the Dean’s list*."

From the HNN survey of historians:
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/153229
"Barack Obama was a promising presidential candidate and possesses sterling personal leadership qualities, but *his administration has merely been adequate in delivering results. "*


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 25, 2018)

KnightBrolaire said:


> The self-identified democrats have him ranked in the top 10. Neither the self identified independents or republicans in the survey you cited have him in the top 10 or higher than Eisenhower. I could talk all about how that data isn't really statistically useful since there's an inherent self-selection bias with any surveys that target specific groups.
> 
> Looking at the earlier 2014 survey NYT created, he barely breaks the top 20. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/02/13/measuring-obama-against-the-great-presidents/
> from the 2014 survey:
> ...



The 2014/2015 article you linked brings up that he still has about two years left of his presidency.

And the current 2018 article, brings up the importance of looking at the context of the presidential terms after they've concluded and how policies shape the following presidency.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 25, 2018)

KnightBrolaire said:


> The self-identified democrats have him ranked in the top 10. Neither the self identified independents or republicans in the survey you cited have him in the top 10 or higher than Eisenhower. I could talk all about how that data isn't really statistically useful since there's an inherent self-selection bias with any surveys that target specific groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias
> 
> Looking at the earlier 2014 survey NYT created, he barely breaks the top 20. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/02/13/measuring-obama-against-the-great-presidents/
> from the 2014 survey:
> ...



I guess I'm missing your point.

The same survey conducted years earlier, superseded by the link I posted, ranked him worse? ... okay. That really doesn't make a point, for me. I mean, if, in 2000, I said that the Ibanez RG7620 was a good guitar, but then, in 2005, I said that it was a great guitar, which is more accurately my final opinion of the guitar?!

And again, I'm comparing his administration with GWB, WJC, GHWB, and DJT - we aren't exactly shooting for the stars here. GHWB got us involved in the Iraq debacle, promised not to allow congress to raise taxes (which he knew very well that he couldn't stop), and lost reelection. WJC was impeached, got us into the quagmires of Bosnia and Somalia, and let Janet Reno loose on tons of domestic issues that she handled very poorly and yet he allowed her to continue. GWB was a trainwreck of a president who governed by cluelessness his entire two terms, allowing our military spending to run rampant, and not pulling the handbrake on any of the economic steroids WJC injected into policy, which caused the banks to get overbloated and burst. DJT is still in office, so we will see how he does - he's not been very popular and I think there are a lot of good reasons why, but, ultimately, the jury is still out. What did Obama do? Well, he tried to clean up a lot of the messes GWB and WJC left behind, and was partially successful. The ACA was at least a band-aid over the gaping wound that is the American Health Care system. It's not difficult to be the star batter on your ball team when the average batting average is .002


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jun 25, 2018)

bostjan said:


> I guess I'm missing your point.
> 
> The same survey conducted years earlier, superseded by the link I posted, ranked him worse? ... okay. That really doesn't make a point, for me. I mean, if, in 2000, I said that the Ibanez RG7620 was a good guitar, but then, in 2005, I said that it was a great guitar, which is more accurately my final opinion of the guitar?!
> 
> And again, I'm comparing his administration with GWB, WJC, GHWB, and DJT - we aren't exactly shooting for the stars here. GHWB got us involved in the Iraq debacle, promised not to allow congress to raise taxes (which he knew very well that he couldn't stop), and lost reelection. WJC was impeached, got us into the quagmires of Bosnia and Somalia, and let Janet Reno loose on tons of domestic issues that she handled very poorly and yet he allowed her to continue. GWB was a trainwreck of a president who governed by cluelessness his entire two terms, allowing our military spending to run rampant, and not pulling the handbrake on any of the economic steroids WJC injected into policy, which caused the banks to get overbloated and burst. DJT is still in office, so we will see how he does - he's not been very popular and I think there are a lot of good reasons why, but, ultimately, the jury is still out. What did Obama do? Well, he tried to clean up a lot of the messes GWB and WJC left behind, and was partially successful. The ACA was at least a band-aid over the gaping wound that is the American Health Care system. It's not difficult to be the star batter on your ball team when the average batting average is .002


I stated exactly what my issue is with the more recent survey. That survey is inherently flawed due to self-selection bias and only the self-identified democrats had him in the top 10. I thought I made that point pretty clear. Also I wasn't trying to get into a whole discussion about who's "great", I was merely showing that other scholarly surveys contradict your claims about Obama somehow being objectively great.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 25, 2018)

Actually, you asked for some citation. When I provided it, you continued to disagree (in general, not on any given specific argument) by posting older surveys.

The survey, as I originally pointed out, ranked Obama as I claimed, based off of the aggregate of all scholars who participated. Your "bone to pick" seems to lie in the fact that the data was also presented, a la carte, broken down by political affiliation.

Did I say Obama was objectively great? No. On the contrary, I said he was comparatively better than the shit leaders we've had lately. I'm not sure how we arrived at this misunderstanding, particularly considering how tangential that statement was to the main idea of the post from which it was picked.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 25, 2018)

Illuminati puppet #44 is better.
No, illuminati puppet #whatever is better!

Seriously, who gives a shit? They're all shitters.


----------



## MFB (Jun 25, 2018)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Illuminati [...]
> [...] illuminati [...]



That's adorable you still think Illuminati are credible to being the real rulers, we all know Reptilians are what's really behind the curtain!


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jun 25, 2018)

bostjan said:


> Actually, you asked for some citation. When I provided it, you continued to disagree (in general, not on any given specific argument) by posting older surveys.
> 
> The survey, as I originally pointed out, ranked Obama as I claimed, based off of the aggregate of all scholars who participated. Your "bone to pick" seems to lie in the fact that the data was also presented, a la carte, broken down by political affiliation.
> 
> Did I say Obama was objectively great? No. On the contrary, I said he was comparatively better than the shit leaders we've had lately. I'm not sure how we arrived at this misunderstanding, particularly considering how tangential that statement was to the main idea of the post from which it was picked.


Had you said he was "comparatively better" from the beginning, then I wouldn't have bothered commenting asking for quantitative evidence of his greatness. I was just bothered by the hyperbolic phrasing and how people give presidents way too much credit for things that happen during their presidencies. 

If the data is skewed, then the result will be too. The author never addresses how many of the self-identified historians were in his data pool, or how he mitigates self-selection bias/bias in general (ie purging all that data from the average and only using data from people who did not self identify). Just based off of what I've seen in that survey, I'd hazard to guess that the majority of respondents swing democrat (they do teach at colleges after all) which would inherently skew the results. 
It's a poorly performed survey that doesn't break down its methodology, data or user demographics and doesn't mitigate self-selection bias via a stratified sampling of the historians. Getting an average from 3 unequal and biased groups is not going to give you any kind of truly useful data.


----------



## MaxOfMetal (Jun 25, 2018)

KnightBrolaire said:


> Had you said he was "comparatively better" from the beginning, then I wouldn't have bothered commenting asking for quantitative evidence of his greatness. I was just bothered by the hyperbolic phrasing and how people give presidents way too much credit for things that happen during their presidencies.
> 
> If the data is skewed, then the result will be too. The author never addresses how many of the self-identified historians were in his data pool, or how he mitigates self-selection bias/bias in general (ie purging all that data from the average and only using data from people who did not self identify). Just based off of what I've seen in that survey, I'd hazard to guess that the majority of respondents swing democrat (they do teach at colleges after all) which would inherently skew the results.
> It's a poorly performed survey that doesn't break down its methodology, data or user demographics and doesn't mitigate self-selection bias via a stratified sampling of the historians. Getting an average from 3 unequal and biased groups is not going to give you any kind of truly useful data.



Did you read the articles? Both surveys identified the who they questioned. 

From your own link:



> About the survey: 391 members of the American Political Science Association’s Presidents & Executive Politics section, the premier organization of experts of the American presidency, were invited to complete the online survey, which was administered by Brandon Rottinghaus of the University of Houston and Justin S. Vaughn of Boise State University. 162 surveys were completed online between May and November 2014. For more information, please contact the authors.



Then the later survey:



> 170 members of the American Political Science Association’s Presidents and Executive Politics section



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Political_Science_Association


----------



## KnightBrolaire (Jun 25, 2018)

MaxOfMetal said:


> Did you read the articles? Both surveys identified the who they questioned.
> 
> From your own link:
> 
> ...


Of course I read that, I'm talking about specific breakdowns in the sample. ie x number of self-identified democrats, y number of self-identified republicans, z number of self-identified independents and what percentages those groups make up of the total sample. It is very useful data for determining if there's an even distribution among those groups, since uneven populations/non-stratified sampling would lead to skewed/biased data. If the survey was mostly of democrats (which is what it looks like from the comparison of the aggregate to the democrat specific data), then the data is less useful for statistical analysis, since it might be too skewed to give an accurate representation of that particular population.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 25, 2018)

KnightBrolaire said:


> Had you said he was "comparatively better" from the beginning, then I wouldn't have bothered commenting asking for quantitative evidence of his greatness. I was just bothered by the hyperbolic phrasing and how people give presidents way too much credit for things that happen during their presidencies.
> 
> If the data is skewed, then the result will be too. The author never addresses how many of the self-identified historians were in his data pool, or how he mitigates self-selection bias/bias in general (ie purging all that data from the average and only using data from people who did not self identify). Just based off of what I've seen in that survey, I'd hazard to guess that the majority of respondents swing democrat (they do teach at colleges after all) which would inherently skew the results.
> It's a poorly performed survey that doesn't break down its methodology, data or user demographics and doesn't mitigate self-selection bias via a stratified sampling of the historians. Getting an average from 3 unequal and biased groups is not going to give you any kind of truly useful data.



Since this is an opinion thread, who was the best president, in your opinion, in the past 30 years?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 25, 2018)

MFB said:


> That's adorable you still think Illuminati are credible to being the real rulers, we all know Reptilians are what's really behind the curtain!


Illuminati is an umbrella term for a bunch of weirdo subgroups. And if Reptilians exist, then David Icke is one of them. But to be honest, I think it's meant to discredit anyone who thinks there is something nefarious going on behind the scenes. Case in point: Your reply to my comment.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 25, 2018)

bostjan said:


> Since this is an opinion thread, who was the best president, in your opinion, in the past 30 years?


Trump. C'mon, you had to have known someone would say it just to rile you lot up.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 25, 2018)

As much as I'm not a fan, I will reserve judgement until he's done. I will hand it to him that he *is* taking a _different approach_, for whatever that's worth.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 25, 2018)

Mad Maxine is a very low IQ person.


----------



## vilk (Jun 25, 2018)

Spaced Out Ace said:


> Mad Maxine is a very low IQ person.


What do you estimate her IQ to be? What's your IQ? 

I've never taken an IQ test. You might say the same thing about me and absolutely no one on earth could possibly know.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 25, 2018)

vilk said:


> What do you estimate her IQ to be? What's your IQ?
> 
> I've never taken an IQ test. You might say the same thing about me and absolutely no one on earth could possibly know.


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump...4?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

It's in reference to this.


----------



## vilk (Jun 25, 2018)

What an enlightening non-answer.


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 25, 2018)

vilk said:


> What an enlightening non-answer.


You wanted an answer to something you thought I was stating as my own opinion; I pointed out that it was a reference to Trump's tweet that I thought was funny. You got your answer.


----------



## vilk (Jun 25, 2018)

Oh, well, you wrote in the "unpopular opinions" thread as though it were your own opinion. I guess you were just copying some Trump opinions that you don't even share then? For sport? As some elaborate double-backwards bizarro trolling?


----------



## Spaced Out Ace (Jun 25, 2018)

vilk said:


> Oh, well, you wrote in the "unpopular opinions" thread as though it were your own opinion. I guess you were just copying some Trump opinions that you don't even share then? For sport? As some elaborate double-backwards bizarro trolling?


It's just a joke. Don't take them so hard, sporto.


----------



## Drew (Jul 5, 2018)

KnightBrolaire said:


> The self-identified democrats have him ranked in the top 10. Neither the self identified independents or republicans in the survey you cited have him in the top 10 or higher than Eisenhower. I could talk all about how that data isn't really statistically useful since there's an inherent self-selection bias with any surveys that target specific groups. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias
> 
> Looking at the earlier 2014 survey NYT created, he barely breaks the top 20. https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2015/02/13/measuring-obama-against-the-great-presidents/
> from the 2014 survey:
> ...


Wait, stop the presses! You're telling me there are _partisan differences in approval for a political leader?!?_ 

I agree it's probably still too soon to weigh in on Obama's legacy, but at a bare minimum I think it's hard to argue he's worse than average, and that compared to recent presidents he's likely to be viewed as one of the better ones a decade or two down the road.

It's of course far too early to weigh in on Trump, though unless he changes course soon I'll hazard that due to the reputational damage abroad, damaged relationships with our traditional allies, his assault on traditional checks of executive power at home, and damage done to the international systems that the US worked so hard to build, that things sure aren't looking promising.


----------



## wat (Jul 8, 2018)

1. Trump
2. Everyone else 
3. Obama


----------



## Randy (Jul 11, 2018)

*Poll: Obama tops list ranking best president in Americans' lifetime*


----------



## Vyn (Jul 11, 2018)

Adding a non American perspective, Obama was your best president and Trump is looking likely to be your worst.


----------



## Edika (Jul 12, 2018)

As another foreigner and during my lifetime I think the worst president by far is Trump. The amount of regression he has caused your country in terms of international relationships, science, social issues, common sense and reality itself is mind numbing. Whenever I hear/read one of his speeches I feel parts of my brain commit suicide in protest and soon I'll be a blathering half wit like him. I though GWB was bad. I was wrong.


----------



## lewis (Jul 12, 2018)

Best: Trump hahaha
Worst: Trump hahahah


----------



## narad (Jul 12, 2018)

Edika said:


> As another foreigner and during my lifetime I think the worst president by far is Trump. The amount of regression he has caused your country in terms of international relationships, science, social issues, common sense and reality itself is mind numbing. Whenever I hear/read one of his speeches I feel parts of my brain commit suicide in protest and soon I'll be a blathering half wit like him. I though GWB was bad. I was wrong.



I was the only American in an international lab in Europe during the election. First it was teasing ("Trump's going all the way!") and it ended with ("WTF's wrong with your country!?") and a lot of lunch breaks spent repeatedly explaining the electoral college and primaries. You could just feel the respect lost for the American people :-/


----------



## jaxadam (Jul 12, 2018)

Randy said:


> *Poll: Obama tops list ranking best president in Americans' lifetime*



*Poll: Obama worst President since World War II*


----------



## Randy (Jul 12, 2018)

I commend you on your use of Headline 1


----------



## jaxadam (Jul 12, 2018)




----------



## narad (Jul 12, 2018)

jaxadam said:


> *Poll: Obama worst President since World War II*



I was surprised to see any unbiased poll was going to definitively rank Obama as the worst president, especially when people know so little about most of the presidents' policy in that timeframe. Actually looking at the survey reveals why: best and worst were posed as two separate questions. 

The same poll places Obama as the 4th best, behind Reagan, Clinton, and Kennedy, in the best president since WWII polling. People just don't know anything about the other 8-or-so guys.


----------



## narad (Jul 12, 2018)

> In a new Quinnipiac University Poll, 33% named Obama the worst president since World War II, and 28% put Bush at the bottom of post-war presidents.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



Wow! Super deceiving way of saying the best of ranking was Reagan > Clinton > Kennedy > Obama.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 13, 2018)

jaxadam said:


> *Poll: Obama worst President since World War II*


Updated version of the same poll from the same pollsters: https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2526


----------



## Randy (Jul 13, 2018)

Wurst president was William Howard Taft


----------



## bostjan (Jul 13, 2018)

Sorry, couldn't resist the wurst pun temptation.

Back on track, though, assuming there is such a track: I have heard that the best ways to measure executive effectiveness is to look at how well the president is able to broker compromise in congress, and also if the president is re-elected or not. Meaning- Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush are good candidates, and Gerald Ford is an excellent candidate (since he was never elected in the first place and then lost re-election) for worst president.

Interestingly, Quinnipiac polls seem to bring up a dichotomy - the presidents ranking near the top of the list for "best" are also near the top of the list for "worst."

Most recently:
Best Six:
1. Reagan
2. Obama
3. Clinton / Kennedy (tie)
5. Trump
6. Eisenhower

Worst
1. Trump
2. Obama
3. Nixon
4. Carter
5. GW Bush
6. Clinton

And the older poll:
Best Six:
1. Reagan
2. Clinton
3. Kennedy
4. Obama
5. Eisenhower
6. Truman

Worst
1. Obama
2. GW Bush
3. Nixon
4. Carter
...

So, it looks to me like Bush hate has simply become Trump hate, and Clinton hate has become Obama hate. Same goes for love.

On the other hand, Carter, who lost re-election, and Nixon, who resigned amidst controversy, are universally viewed in these polls as a bad presidents, but the amount of hatred for them amongst the general population is eclipsed by the more recent flavor-to-hate-of-the-week.

Oh, and Taft lost re-election, too, only managing to win Vermont and Utah, which is pretty embarrassing for an incumbent, especially considering that his successor was not very popular at the time.


----------



## bostjan (Jul 13, 2018)

Doppelwurstposten


----------



## possumkiller (Jul 17, 2018)

I heard Grant was pretty bad. Hoover as well.


----------



## Bentaycanada (Aug 15, 2018)

I lived in the US during the George W Bush era, and back then I was Just discovering politics and couldn’t stand him or his administration. But shit, compared to now, he’s looking just fine! I say fuck it, Bush 2020!


----------



## synrgy (Oct 24, 2018)

^So, I get it - back then we thought it couldn't get any worse, ha ha, and stuff - but, seriously: America will still be dealing with the legal/economic/social/international affects of W's administration for another century; maybe longer. My largest disappointment with the Obama administration was that they didn't do much of anything to counteract that. I respect that they wanted to 'go high', but, damn: Least they could have done was taken a stab at The Patriot Act?!

Don't get me wrong; I've said similar stuff.. It's just completely bizarre that the situation has gotten _so_ bad that we're collectively getting nostalgia goggles for W's administration. Like, if one really follows the thought through, it can only get as far as 'aww, he's just old and feeble, now' before the details start to kick in: Dick "I shot my friend in the face and made him publicly apologize for it" Cheney; Donald "there are known unknowns" Rumsfeld; Condoleeza "Why We Know Iraq Is Lying" Rice.. Starting a war under false pretenses and without Congressional approval, the butchering of language/grammar; the butchering of _humans, _making an entire election about "I broke it, I bought it; also gay marriage is icky"..

I get that the bar is somehow _even lower,_ now, but let's not forget how we got here, either.

Hindsight stings hard on this one: Obama showed up as a Statesman, basically saying "I'm not here to erase the Bush years; I'm here to move forward", but then, Trump ripped in there like a tornado in a trailer park, basically saying "Damn right I'm here to erase Obama! Sit and spin, motherfucker!"


----------



## Bentaycanada (Oct 24, 2018)

^ but that’s it, I wasn’t being serious. 

I just meant that about Trump as a person, of whom I’ve never been fond of. But again, it wasn’t really that serious. 

For me, the audience is out on the Trump administration, for now at least.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 24, 2018)

I didn't necessarily think you were being serious. I guess I'm just worried about the amount of similar sentiments I've been seeing expressed in my travels through the 'Net these last couple years.


----------



## Bentaycanada (Oct 24, 2018)

synrgy said:


> I didn't necessarily think you were being serious. I guess I'm just worried about the amount of similar sentiments I've been seeing expressed in my travels through the 'Net these last couple years.



Yes, I know what you’re talking about. When Trump came into office, people suddenly became very warming towards W. I think it’s part the unusual personality of Trump and part W looks older, thus less crazy Texan. Plus, elder Bush’s are passing away, so there’s a sympathy motive there too. 

People did the same for Clinton after Bush was elected, for similar reasons. W (at the time) was unusual for a president, so people started warming to Clinton, while largely forgetting how much he sucked ass.


----------



## narad (Oct 24, 2018)

Bentaycanada said:


> Yes, I know what you’re talking about. When Trump came into office, people suddenly became very warming towards W. I think it’s part the unusual personality of Trump and part W looks older, thus less crazy Texan. Plus, elder Bush’s are passing away, so there’s a sympathy motive there too.
> 
> People did the same for Clinton after Bush was elected, for similar reasons. W (at the time) was unusual for a president, so people started warming to Clinton, while largely forgetting how much he sucked ass.



Well he also spends his time painting pictures of vets, and even speaks of his term like something he acknowledges as not the greatest presidency, just something he did his best at. Both are much more admirable directions than continuing to fuck up the country. The thought of Trump being even in some way modest about his shortcomings is something to save for fanfiction.


----------



## synrgy (Oct 24, 2018)

So, I was _just_ watching a mini-doc on the Clinton Presidency yesterday. 

In terms of polling, anyway, Clinton was mostly well-loved _during_ his tenure, whether deservedly, or otherwise. He eventually earned the nickname 'the comeback kid' because no matter how great his missteps, the majority of The People still loved him. Even _after _the impeachment, whenever polls were split on 'personal life' versus 'governing', the latter was in the upper 70th percentile approving him though only 10 percent approved of the former. His legacy (at the time) was that he was a great President but shitty husband.

I was 13-21 during his tenure. What I feel like I remember during those years, was _mostly_ approval, outside of the Bible-thumping circles. The situation between us and Congress was a lot different, then. Part of his shtick was that we was willing to reach across the aisle, and we bought into that. The People - at the time - punished a Congress that refused to work together. These days, we seem to be rewarding obstinance.


----------



## Drew (Oct 24, 2018)

synrgy said:


> Part of his shtick was that we was willing to reach across the aisle, and we bought into that. The People - at the time - punished a Congress that refused to work together. These days, we seem to be rewarding obstinance.


...which is ironic, of course, because part of the beginning of the end was Newt Gingrich and his Contract With America, where the GOP really began acting like a unified opposition bloc. 

Clinton benefited greatly from inheriting a good economy and having the common sense not to fuck it up. I'm not sure how much of the bull market run of the 90s was his doing, nor am I entirely sure how much of the market crash in '07 was his fault (certainly, policies to encourage home ownership in this country made the labor market a lot less liquid than it would have been in prior years, after the crash), but with the market going up he was given the benefit of the doubt a lot more than most. 

That said, I too remember the 90s as a pretty good time to be an American.


----------



## Randy (Oct 24, 2018)

synrgy said:


> outside of the Bible-thumping circles



Going WAY WAY WAY into the weeds on this one but decided to snip it for context. I agree with most of what you're talking about, in what types of behaviors were rewarded or reviled at the time, and how things are "different" today. Hard as it might be (not accusing anyone of this, just speaking generally) it's sometimes hard not to have an apocalyptic outlook because of the level of divisiveness but still, I try to make it a point to regularly remind myself that the news of the day ALWAYS feels pressing at the time you're living it. Not to diminish what we're going through now but I suspect we'll still have "OMG! What now?!" moments after this clown is gone.

Anyway, I wanted to grab the "bible-thumping" quote because that's the one item that is sorta framed (in a lot of people's minds, anyway) as a linear or at least attempted consistent position, but the outrage on that end is as manufactured and selective as anything else; maybe worse. I grew up in a "Christmas and Easter church attendance only" household but my best friend (who's family was like my second family) were WAY down the rabbit hole mega-Christians. They were (and still are) completely unapologetic of the fact they follow guys like Billy Graham and Pat Robertson, and will openly admit that their position on any issue comes directly from them. They will say one item is a matter of life and death and they'll pivot 180 degrees without the faintest hint of hypocrisy or embarrassment, even if that shift is full acknowledged.

And you know, most people honestly don't have the time or patience to be politically aware as a full time position. So you have people that'll be indifferent to politics, then have "an awakening" that lasts maybe long enough for one election, or maybe through one guy's term, and most people fall off of it, some forever and some until the next thing that their chosen leader tells them to be mad about. 

So to a lot of people, yeah, their leader tells them Bill Clinton is an immoral rapist or Barack Obama is the anti-christ and THAT becomes their calling in life. You have a lot of people who are either enraged about Trump or enraged at the left for being enraged at Trump, and THAT is their first foray into politics. They don't necessarily have the gift of 20+ years of this ebbing and flowing for them to be as apathetic and measured as the rest of us.

I say that because, the really dishonest things are people like the Billy Grahams and Pat Robertsons that HAVE the benefit of 40 or 50 years of perspective on these things and knowing damn well what their position was 20 years ago or 10 years ago and how that runs counter to their position now. And the answer is, they don't care because the morality argument is a smokescreen for lining their pockets. They made their blood pact with the Republican Party some time ago, and they know that their policies will enrich them, and they in turn, offer the party new Acolytes every two to four years. 

That's especially relevant to the news of the day because Trump certainly sets a new bar for how immoral a public official can be, and the contorting to find ways to frame supporting the guy as a matter of saving your soul are ASTOUNDING. It also serves as a scale model for the 'cult of personality' Trump has built for himself. At this point (love him or hate him), he's outgrown the GOP and even the christian faith, when it comes to being a bellwether for what people consider true/false, right/wrong.


----------

