The Worst President in History?

Mr. Cicerone Imposter-- YOU THOUGHT? Nixon had a lower rating. I derived my figures from an unimpeachable source. If you can show that the figure I gave is wrong, then do so using a link. If not, save your I THOUGHT for someone who does not post statistics from a reliable source.

Those who are interested in getting another look at Approval Ratings should reference Rassmussen Reports. This is a well known source which reports on all the political races as well as the Presidential Approval Rates.

To those who think the May Approval Ratings are written in stone, I offer three comments.

1. From the ever interesting and perceptive colleague onA2K,Mr. Asherman--"In politics. two weeks is an eternity.

2. Tip O'Neil- Top Democrat who was a political genius

and

3. at keast 44 Million people hold 401k'S. It is estimated that their gains so far this year have averaged 5 to7%--All of them vote!!

BR, Cool down; it was only a throw away post. Geesh!

Reliable source is in the eye of the beholder, but this one supports my previous post about Nixon's rating.

Bush is actually much lower than the end of that graph shows, CI, heh

Cycloptichorn

I don't know what that arrow is pointing to. I will take the word of the Presidential Historian, Dr. Greenfield, who has the data in his book.

Do you have a source giving a NUMBER! NUMBER! ?You know. like one, two, three,four, five six.

BernardR:

Please forgive cicerone imposter, he's under the idea that you know how to interpret that chart (as outdated as it may be that it doesn't represent Bush's current numbers)

astromouse, It doesn't matter who Nixon is being compared to. DUH! Look at the chart again, and go back to my previous post about Nixon and Carter.

CI:

:wink:

I know. But it was too good a chance to pass up.

Okay. No big deal, anywhos.

Credibility is important.I do not post bogus figures. If Cicerone Imposter wishes to check an article written at the end of 2005 comparing Approval Rates- such article coming from

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/02/opinion/polls/main1005327.shtml?CMP=ILC...

he will indeed find that Nixon's rating in 9/1974 was AS I HAD REPORTED IT FROM DR. GREENFIELD'S INFORMATION.--namely - 24.

I hope this will assure Cicerone Imposter that if I post a statistic, unless I make a mechanical error, that statistic is indeed the statistic that I obtain from what I judge to be a reliable source.

I remember you on abuzz , propounding the thesis that unemployment in Clinton's first year in office was worse than in Bush's first year in office, by comparing H. W. Bush's last year with W's first year. (You seemed to think that because Clinton was elected in 1992, that was his first year in office). You did it several times, under one of your many previous screen names. Does that constitute a "mechanical error"?

BRs chart shows:
Nixon- 35

Go back to my original post about Truman and Carter.

"he will indeed find that Nixon's rating in 9/1974 was AS I HAD REPORTED IT FROM DR. GREENFIELD'S INFORMATION.--namely - 24."

I think this was the post of yours c.i. was referring to, Bernard..


(emphasis added)

Compare that with the link you just gave yourself now:



---

In any case, I came to this thread just now to note that Truman, Nixon, Carter and Bush Sr are the only Presidents who ever polled lower than Bush Jr does now, since Roosevelt's times - but obviously, that ground is already well-covered.

And what happened to the presidents with those low ratings (and Bush Baby is now within one point of Bush Daddy, with no uptrends in sight)? A Republican won after Truman (who of course couldn't run again) ending a string of six Democratic turns. Nixon was corrupt AND a crook, no matter what he claimed, and the only president to resign, let alone resign in disgrace. Not a good omen for a pres. whose trend line looks like it's likely to intersect Nixon's in a few months. Bush Dad wasn't reelected, and the opposite party won the presidency. Carter wasn't reelected and the other party won the presidency. And people in general disapproved of Bush I and Carter, but it wasn't vehement. Now it's vehement, and not just amongst Dems, but independents too, who have deserted Bush in numbers almost equal to the Dems. And seemingly among traditional conservatives too. Which likely means that, while Bush, fortunately, cannot run again, those Reps who have the misfortune to be running this Nov. had better start running hard and fast away from him now (or better yet, three months ago).

It's the name that dare not give its previous names.

Just adding salt to the wound and in compliance of John´s law



Full article here(CNN.com)

Down, down, down it goes!

And where it stops, nobody knows!

I still believe 29% is still way to high for the worse president in American history.

Heehee. More people think Clinton is honest than think Bush is. Clinton outperforms Bush on national security issues. And this ain't lefties. This is the country at large. And the country thinks Bush lies.

You got Trouble, my friends, right here in Capitol city,
With a capital T and that rhymes with B, and that stands for Bush.

And TB has been known to be a "killer" during most of my life.