Barack Obama

Survey Says Obama is the Shittiest President Since End of World War II

|

Andy Thomas, artist

The folks at Quinniapiac College have just released a new poll that must surely be making the rounds of the White House bunker. After talking to about 1,500 registered voters nationwide, Quinniapic finds that one-third of Americans rate Barack Obama as the worst president since 1945. Another 28 percent say George W. Bush was the pits and a relatively tiny fraction call out Richard Nixon for the dubious honors.

Who did people say was the best president? Ronald Reagan pulled 35 percent, Bill Clinton a solid 18 percent, and John Kennedy took home the bronze with 15 percent.

Perhaps the worst dig at Obama from the poll? Forty-five percent of respondents said the country would have been better off if Mitt Romney had been elected in 2012 (38 percent said the country would be worse off).

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

222 responses to “Survey Says Obama is the Shittiest President Since End of World War II

  1. Barack Obama: Dumber than Carter; Dirtier than Nixon.

    1. An extraordinary accomplishment, really!

    2. I hang my head in shame that I never did anything with those bumper stickers. But, I still have them!

    3. Dumber than Carter isn’t totally on the mark. I would say “thinks he’s smarter than everyone in the room, but really isn’t”. And don’t knock Carter. Naval Academy grad, successful business owner. Only president to have successfully entered, secured, and disassembled (personally) a nuclear reactor after an explosion. Carter deserves tremendous cred that feat alone.

      1. So what. Barack Obama successfully killed (personally) Osama bin Laden.

      2. He also deserves credit his Habitat for Humanity organization which is pretty good.

      3. Carter wasn’t stupid, but his policies and “solutions” certainly were.

    4. All that and blatant contempt for the constitution.

      Got to agree with this poll.

    5. kinnath,

      When you become President, you will fix everything. Right?

  2. Great example of how little most people know of even recent history. I would have to seriously debate who was worse – Truman or Johnson. Both were truly awful. Then decide how their few colossal fuck-ups compare to Obama’s multitude of small fuck-ups and general lawlessness.

    1. It’s hard to compare Johnson, who was straight evil, to Obama, who’s just lazy and self-centered.

      1. Lazy + narcissistic + vast unchecked power = evil, perhaps?

        1. Evil is usually banal and lazy. Johnson would be an exception.

      2. I’m not sure you can say that. The “dirtier than Nixon” thing certainly seems apt, he’s just been able to get away with it thanks to having the personal charisma that Nixon lacked and a complicit mainstream press.

      3. Nixon and Johnson were completely immoral public servants.

    2. Johnson was much worse than Truman. Most of the damage Truman did was undone by Eisenhower. Johnson in contrast did damage that lives on today.

      1. Truman was very lucky not to have a disastrous outright loss in Korea with an entire Army Corps surrendering. Thanks to his stupidity, his SecDef, and MacArthur, it almost happened.

        Ironic that the First Marine Division saved his Presidency after he tried to disband the Corps.

        1. MacArthur had the right idea in that we should have nuked ’em from orbit as it’s the only way to be sure.

          1. Oh wait that was Ripley or was it Hicks? No I’m pretty sure it was MacArthur.

            1. Must have been MacArthur – he spent 5 years training the 7th Army like nukes were the only defense we would ever use.

    3. Johnson, for sure. Truman did screw up some things, but this was mostly undone by the R congress and Eisenhower and he was far less naive than his predecessor wrt the USSR.

      LBJ was a stone-cold POS.

      1. No other president (that we know of) recorded himself on the phone, in the john, grunting while pushing out a deuce.

        So, there’s that.

        1. Well if your wife was a lesbian you might be into some weird shit too.

          1. No, LBJ, not FDR.

            Let’s just agree to not elect initialed presidents. That hasn’t worked out too well for us.

            1. Lady Bird was a lesbian as well.

            2. Eleanor swung both ways.

              1. When you look like Eleanor, you take whatever you can get.

    4. I think the Gulf of Tonkin alone probably puts Johnson in close to top 5 worst ever, than you add the war on poverty and it approaches Roosevelt. However I believe Roosevelt was mostly ignorant on how his policies failed to help and made things worse, Johnson should have(and many argue definitely) knew better.

      1. I’ve never seen any evidence that would indicate Johnson or Roosevelt cared in the least what their policies did other than getting votes.

        1. Roosevelt used big government to buy votes where needed, New Deal was the explosion in crony capitalism. So much of our problems now were based on precedent he was able to force through in the New Deal. Throw in the known and predictable financial time bomb of Social Security he goes down as my worst.

          1. He is certainly the worst, with such stiff competition from Clinton, Bush jr/sr, Nixon, Carter, especially with LBJ and Obama. It’s unfortunate he was left off of this ballot, FDR was the early yellow brick road for Obozo’s imperialist arrogance and contempt.

      2. FDR gets a bump in my list simply for having the arrogance to run for a third term, just as Hillary gets an extra dollop of scum (even though she’s not on the list (yet)) for publicly calling all of Bill’s accusers liars when she knew they weren’t. Perjury, as far as I’m concerned, even if it wasn’t in a court of law, because she said it as an authority on the matter.

        I somehow don’t mind the ordinary everyday vote-grubbing evil as much as I mind FDR’s arrogance and Hillary’s particular perjury.

  3. Forty-five percent of respondents said the country would have been better off if Mitt Romney had been elected in 2012

    That’s a stinging slap to Obama’s face.

    OT: I watched a few minutes of Celebrity Wife Swap with Penn Gillette. Everything about his life is awesome: wife, kids, home, job. Either God will punish him in the next life for his atheism because he’s certainly not punishing him in this one, or there really is no God.

    1. Shhh. The cattle might hear and stop obeying.

      1. Don’t you mean the sheeple?

    2. Not sure why this is such a slap at Obama. That 45% is fewer than voted for Romney. Its verging on “landslide” territory.

      There’s still a majority that think we’re better off with Obama.

      1. (38 percent said the country would be worse off). [with Romney].

        I just read Nick’s post, not the entire poll, so I could be wrong, but the majority says we’d be better off with Romney.

        1. A plurality says we would be better of with Romney. There’s the people in middle who must think it wouldn’t be any different.

          1. Right. plurality is accurate.

      2. No, there’s only

        38 percent said the country would be worse off [with Romney]

      3. That’s just buyer’s remorse talking. I suspect that if he had won, the only thing that would have changed is the order of the names.

    3. That or success in this life doesn’t mean very much.

    4. or option three: man was given free will and Gillette has exercised it. I would like to think that as long as Penn is a decent human being, does right by his family and other people, god is not going to experience a great deal of heartburn over someone’s belief system.

      1. “How much do you have to HATE somebody to believe everlasting life is possible and not tell them that?” – Penn Gillette

        http://www.radicallychristian……evangelism

        1. He has a point, except that pretty much every atheist in this country already knows that Christians believe that (and obviously have rejected the claim). I’ve been told, believe me. Many times.

          Your message would be more efficiently direct at people who have never heard it, like Amazon tribes or something–unless you hate them.

          1. That second paragraph may well be true so far as it goes, though I admit I haven’t tried this out in the Amazon.

        2. I thought Christians believed that God applied mens rea? Meaning, in some respects, it’s worse to evangelize, since someone who explicitly chooses to reject God is in a worse place theologically than one who is ignorant.

      2. Ah, Penn Gillette. Gillette is a living god idolized by atheists everywhere.

    5. I watched most of that show. I hate to say it, but Penn came off as somewhat of a closed-minded jerk.

  4. Weeeeeeiggggeeeelllll, paging Weeeeeeiggggeeeelllll.

    1. Uhhhhh, BOOOOOOOOOOSH! Iraq!! You’re just a Christfag Tea Party republican redneck!!!!

      1. Or how about “Bush would have won this if Nixon weren’t there to pull down his numbers!”

    2. “Bad poll numbers for a Democrat politician (or Democrat legislation) don’t matter because some of the disapproval comes from progressives angry that the politician (or legislation) isn’t far enough to the left!”

  5. American People: Most racist since WWII.

    1. And, besides, the polls are wrong.

      They know that–because Sarah Palin is an idiot.

      P.S. Koch brothers!

  6. The “honor” of worst POTUS surely goes to W but Obama is probably third behind Nixon.

    1. Err, LBJ is #2 behind W. Whoops.

      1. Obama has done pretty much everything Bush did–except Obama also nationalized GM and gave us ObamaCare.

        I think it’s really important for swing voters to appreciate that Obama can’t hide behind a comparison to Bush–on any issue, really.

        In fact, Obama is so bad, he’s managed to accomplish what I once thought was impossible–Obama has made Bush look good by way of comparison.

        1. I despise Obama’s bellicose foreign policy as much as anyone but as bad as its been it’s no Iraq War. I can’t put Obama’s wars nearly on the level of W’s. I think it’s silly to do so.

          1. So your only standard for judging a President is “did he get us in a war?” Either you have a very simplistic notion of how to judge a President or you need to get over your emotional baggage surrounding the Iraq war, which BTW is still going on and Obama is committing more troops to about daily.

            1. No, that’s not my only standard for judging a president. I was mainly responding to the charge that Obama has done everything W has done. Also, W wasn’t exactly a small-government guy if you didn’t notice.

              It’s splitting hairs trying to determine who was worse (W or Obama) but the sheer magnitude of the disaster that was Iraq gives the “edge” to W.

              1. Syria is every bit the disaster Iraq is. Sure, the US hasn’t lost any lives there but there is more to the world than US lives. More Syrians have died in that war in a few years than Iraqis and Americans died in the entire US time in Iraq.

                You act like doing nothing has no cost. Had the US not invaded Iraq, Saddam would have eventually died and the country would have come apart and become just like Syria is today. So choice wasn’t to invade or do nothing and everything remain the same. It was not invade and watch Iraq turn into what Syria is today.

                We can debate all day about which choice was better. In fact, we can look at Syria and compare it to Iraq and judge from there. The results are hardly clear.

                Beyond that, not every “disaster” plays out immediately. Obama’s total fecklessness and mishandling of Russia is likely to be a pretty big disaster in the coming years. We are basically in the cold war with Russia again because Obama is a weak, incompetent idiot who needlessly antagonized Russia while also managing to be a complete chump that Putin sized up and immediately took advantage of.

                1. Had the US not invaded Iraq, Saddam would have eventually died and the country would have come apart and become just like Syria is today.

                  Uday and Qusay disagree with you.

                  1. You are absolutely correct. Uday and Qusay were not nearly as urbane and sophisticated as Bashir.

                    Sure Saddam was going to die, but he could have held on like Castro. Nobody know when that would have happened naturally. In any case, by staying out of that mess, the US benefits because it avoid making new enemies, which is a very expensive proclivity that it can no longer afford.

                  2. Uday and Qusay were batshit crazy. Likely worse than Syria.

                2. Syria is every bit the disaster Iraq is.

                  Which US president invaded and occupied Syria causing the chaos? Oh, none of them? Syria was caused by Assad, not Obama. Trying to equate Syria with the invasion of Iraq is…well, stupid.

            2. In fact, Obama left* Iraq precisely on Bush’s timetable… And only after they refused to let him stay longer. So Obama’s foreign policy actually is the Iraq War.

              *for the purpose of discussion we’ll just accept that it was “leaving”

              1. Please spare me the Team Red neocon crap. Iraq is Bush’s baby. Full stop.

                1. Ronny,

                  The facts are what they are. If you don’t like them, move to another universe. The rest of us are stuck in this one where Obama followed Bush’s policy in Iraq to the letter.

                  And BTW, throwing around “neocon” as invective just makes you look like an idiot and doesn’t help your cause.

                  1. Ronnie doesn’t strike me as all that bright. Maybe he hit his head a lot as a kid?

                2. Yeah, how could the President of the United States do anything about a war that the US was involved with for 6 years of his tenure?

                  And yup, criticizing Obama for staying in Iraq is totally neocon. If they have one defining trait, it’s being anti-Iraq War.

                3. Not after 2009 its not. Obama said he’d end the war and get us out in a year. He instead stayed until he was shown the door. After 3 yrs in Iraq, he is co-owner of that shit sandwich.

                  1. Yeah, I don’t really see a big difference between them there.

                    Going into Iraq was a strategic blunder.

                    Staying in Iraq after you already knew it was a blunder–and more or less campaigned on calling it a blunder, isn’t that just as bad?

                    Is perpetuating a blunder really better than starting a blunder?

                    I don’t know. Maybe. But what about Obama wading back in up to our hips again? We’re getting involved in Iraq again, now?

                    Suffice it to say, we can talk about the different flavors of awful all day, but I think both Obama and Bush were awful on the issue of Iraq. So, on that scorecard, next to Iraq, I got Bush = awful. Obama = awful.

                    What’s the next row on your scorecard?

                    I’ve got ObamaCare.

                    1. That’s some fucked up Bush apologetics Ken.

                    2. Tony|7.2.14 @ 12:29PM|#
                      “That’s some fucked up Bush apologetics Ken.”

                      Says the king of apologia!

                    3. That’s some fucked up Bush apologetics Ken.

                      Going into Iraq was a strategic blunder.

                      I think both Obama and Bush were awful on the issue of Iraq. So, on that scorecard, next to Iraq, I got Bush = awful. Obama = awful.

                      Citation needed

                4. Iraq is certainly Bush’s baby, but it had bipartisan support including Clinton and Kerry. Obama wasn’t in the Senate at the time, so he can say what he wants, though he probably would have voted “Present”. He can’t vote Present any longer. For the past five years, the Iraq War has been Obama’s war, just like the Vietnam War and the fall of Saigon belonged to Nixon.

                  1. Saigon fell during the FORD Administration. Nixon “ended” US involvement in the Vietnam War.

                    Jesus, doesn’t anyone read history anymore?

            3. So your only standard for judging a President is “did he get us in a war?”

              That’s not my only standard but it’s one of the most important if not the most important. The way Bushco got the US into the Iraq war and how the war was executed makes him a terrible president regardless of anything else. The other bullshit Bushco enacted (or allowed) like DHS, TSA, Total Information Awareness (NSA), torture, etc. seal it. W is the worst president since Woodrow Wilson.

            4. Good thing no one remembered Afghanistan. Someone “surged” quite a few US Soldiers into the shit hole resulting in 75% of all US casualties and defeat. Who could that have been ?

          2. Out of curiousity, how old were you during LBJ’s years in offic?

            1. Can’t tell if this is directed to me but I was negative double digits years old.

              1. It was a question for you and and I expected that answer from someone who thought W was worse than LBJ. You had to have been there to see the difference.

          3. yeah, I would put ‘Nam in a much higher category of stupidity than Iraq.

            LBJ gets my #1 slot.

            Obama is just one of many symptoms of our dying republic.

            1. I’d be okay with LBJ #1 over W. Especially since his domestic policy was — somehow — worse than W’s.

            2. Lord Humungus,

              When you become President, you will fix everything. Right?

          4. What a stupid way to judge a president, Neville Chamberlain must be your idol. How short sighted can your criteria be?

        2. You got it, expanded on bad Bush policy and then added more bad policy of his own. Throw in abuse of power worse than Nixon and complete economic ignorance and you have Obama.

    2. Nixon really wasn’t that bad. Yes, there was a lot of regulatory nonsense that got its start under his Presidency but he both wound down the Vietnam war and made a separate peace with China — both very challenging areas. The damage he did domestically is nothing compared to ObamaCare.

      1. And Nixon ended the draft. Name a single thing Obama has done that is anywhere close to being as important or positive as that?

      2. War on Drugs.

        1. Dirty as fuck, and established the EPA, price and wage controls, terminating Bretton Woods…that’s just off the top of my head.

          1. Yep, cutting that last string to sound money. Not so good.

            1. If you look at oil prices in gold, you’ll see that oil did NOT triple in cost; the dollar lost 2/3 of it’s intn’l value.
              The Saudis said ‘I’m not taking that paper at its former value!’

        2. Escalating the War on (Some) Drugs sucked and was awful, but the WoD in practice was really more of an escalation from several state-level initiatives + some federal assists in destroying liberty, to making the whole project a federal affair. Very bad, but not quite at the level of socializing the US’ medical sector (YMMV).

          1. ^^THIS^^ Nixon’s war on drugs is nothing like the one today. He deserves blame for starting it, but I don’t think you can pin its current excesses on him.

            1. Correct. Today’s excesses are Reagan’s because Carter tried undoing Nixon’s WoD shit.

            2. And might I add that “Nixon’s” WOD enjoyed widespread support across the political spectrum and party lines, except for isolated voices that were generallly ignored if not outright ridiculed. In fact, you can argue that Nixon was responding to what the public was demanding instead of imposing his own vision. It certainly was not a partisan issue in the way that, say, Obamacare was.

        3. Also, Wage And Price controls.

      3. The Immaculate Trouser|7.2.14 @ 11:19AM|#
        “Nixon really wasn’t that bad.”

        Uh:
        1) Closing the gold window.
        2) Fixing prices.
        The comment is that JBJ didn’t know much about economics, but I’d say he beat Nixon.

      4. Nixon allowed many bad things regul’n-wise, but he started the ball rolling on deregul’n with his commissions, which bore fruit over the following decade as their recommend’ns were adopted. One of them was the All-Volunteer Force.

  7. There’s a certain snowball effect to this unpopularity, no? It’s no longer considered poor form to criticize the president. Grievances have built up over the past 6 yeas and I predict we’re going to have the best festivus ever.

    1. It’s no longer considered poor form to criticize the president.Racist.

  8. I think this poll reflects on the polls, the polling method, or the people being polled rather than BHO.

    Not because of the bottom three, but because Truman and Kennedy both appear to have gotten a relatively neutral rating.

    Bugging the DNC earns you the third worst spot on the list, but nearly lighting the world on fire… meh.

    Better to be dead than live under oppression I guess. Maybe.

    1. Most people don’t know how close we were to war during the Cuban missile crisis and if they do blame it on the Russians.

      1. JFK gets the benefit* of having been assassinated early in his tenure, before the shine had time to wear off. Imagine how popular Obama would be if he’d been killed in 2010 or 2011. On top of avoiding all the crap he’s accumulated over the past 4 years, he would be seen as a martyr and that would boost his image even higher than it was at the time.

        *probably not the best word

        1. I think if you’d thrown “of the doubt” in there you could have salvaged it.

          1. “I think if you’d thrown “of the doubt” in there you could have salvaged it.”

            I’ve read several claims that FDR ‘died well’.
            Bullshit; the guy was guilty of criminal negligence for failing to get Truman up to speed.
            He knew he didn’t have long and the egotistical bastard left Truman hanging with a world war in process.

            1. Better Harry Truman than Henry Wallace, I suggest.

              1. OK, we’ll thank him for letting Wallace get tossed.

        2. By all accounts Kennedy was a jackbooted wanna-be dictator. Like so many of his pedigree.

          1. by all accounts that matter…

        3. Yes, “benefit” is the best word. He was done a tremendous personal favor by getting killed. Wait’ll it eventually comes out that he arranged it.

      2. In my experience even the people with the most balanced views, many who lived through it, don’t realize how much it was about him having drawn a ‘red line’.

        They see it through a post-cold war optimism or Reagan-era ‘Star Wars’ filter. Missiles were already in Cuba and a missile from Cuba was a trivially different threat than a missile from Moscow (let alone 10).

        1. It never made sense to me. We had missiles on the European continent aimed at Moscow. But we couldn’t live with missiles in Cuba? Enough that we were willing to risk nuclear war in demanding their removal.

          Why didn’t we just offer to remove ours if they removed theirs? After all, it only seems fair.

    2. Well, look at the breakdown for W and Barry. Are you sitting down? Try not to be too surprised, but as it turns out people who identify as Democrats think big B’s doing a dandy job whereas W was the antichrist, and vice versa. It only gets slightly less predictable when you look at indies, who give Barry an edge in shittiest president terms.

  9. Strange that the “worst” presidents tend to be among those who won re-election.

    1. something…something…. guests like fish

    2. All the damage happens in the 2nd term. Why do you think JFK is so good?

      1. JFK is awesome because he was young, reasonably good looking, and probably nailed Marilyn Monroe. Also, being a Democrat means he’s forgiven for being a privileged white male.

        1. Also, being a Democrat means he’s forgiven for being a privileged white male.

          Being Irish and Catholic, somewhat literally, made him a minority.

      2. Obamacare was not a 2nd term achievement. Hillarycare was a first term attempt as well.

  10. All I see here is more evidence that memories of pain tend to fade with time.

  11. I’d be interested in seeing a breakdown of those rankings by age.

    1. Oops it’s there, I blame the tiny text.

      1. Speaking of age…

  12. Survey Says Obama is the Shittiest President Since End of World War II

    Racist!!!!

  13. Who vote bill clinton? One of the best presidents in history!

    1. I voted for Clinton the first time.

      Then he got caught with FBI files of his political opponents in his White House.

      Yeah Nixon was better…at least he got kicked out of office for being a crook.

    2. Clinton was not one of the best Presidents in History, but he may very well have been the best since WW2.

      What Clinton was is smart enough to see what is going on around him and change course to sail into the wind. He very much wanted to be a transformational President issuing in a new liberal age, then he got his hand smacked in the 04 midterms did a 180 and governed as a centrist and did it very well. I’d put him somewhere in the 10 – 15 range for best Presidents.

      1. Good god, top 10-15? There were slave owning presidents with more respect for individual liberty.

      2. Most people drive to be President for what they can do. Bill wanted to be President for who he could be. He’s a C minus personality all around.

  14. Shittiest presidents since 1945. Yet have FDR right in the middle of the picture.

    1. Right where he belongs.

    2. He was so awful, he gets an honorary mention.

  15. Only a year and a half in and i miss fucking Romney…

    Fucking Mitt Romney.

    The cool thing about Obama is now we can answer that age old question of “who is worse, Hitler or Stalin?”

    1. Romney would have been a terrible president. Yes, worse than Obama.

      1. Romney would probably have had higher regard for Constitutional limits on his authority.

        However, with Republican Congressional support, the US would probably be mired in Libya, Syria and Iraq with ground troops and new US body counts in the thousands.

      2. Romney worse than Obama? I’d like to read the reasoning behind that.

      3. That’s a pretty high bar, there. Not saying I disagree, but I’d like to see your reasoning.

  16. So is that a look of horror on what i presume is Andrew Jackson’s face? That would be an interesting conversation.

  17. …”one-third of Americans rate Barack Obama as the worst president since 1945.”…

    News flash: Two thirds of Americans are still fooled!

    1. 99% of Americans are convinced that presidents are benevolent dictators and can right all wrongs with a sweep of their hand.

      AKA Hollywood depictions.

  18. Those poll numbers are compelling Nick? 33% say he was the worst?

    OK…let me show you really compelling numbers then from the same pollsters.

    http://www.quinnipiac.edu/news…..aseID=1847

    92% of Americans want universal background checks on guns. How come that didn’t hit your rave parade on polls?

    1. Because, you dumb shit, it’s not the subject at hand.
      Are lefties EVER capable of honest discussion, or are they all of the brain-dead type as Jack?

      1. Sevo,

        As usual, you continue to insult other posters. Of course you can’t stand it when anyone insults you back.

        I’m sure that if you called Jackand Ace a dumb shit to his face in “real life” there would be consequences.

        Anyway, at least your posts are consistent and predictable in your attacks, as most fascists always are.

        1. On The Road To Mandalay|7.2.14 @ 3:39PM|#
          “Sevo,
          As usual, you continue to insult other posters. Of course you can’t stand it when anyone insults you back.”

          You steaming pile of shit, if you don’t like being called on your bullshit, don’t post it.

          1. Sevo,

            You just proved my point. Speaking of “steaming piles of shit” don’t forget that you are a pile who lived after a retard jerked off on it, thereby fertilizing it, and that pile became you.

            Have a nice week, Ass Chunk.

            1. You left out
              FUCKKKKLK!!!!!!!!!!!

    2. How come that didn’t hit your rave parade on polls?

      “You wrote about a different poll on different subject then I wanted you to

      WHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!”

    3. “92% of Americans want universal background checks on guns.”

      Until you actually explain to them what this means, then support drops to well below 50%. Most people assume you’re talking about what we have now, and not the draconian proposals the gun control fanatics want to set up.

      1. My point is about polls in general, and Nicks’s selective use of them. He always trots out a poll that supports his way of thinking, and then allows you to draw a broader conclusion that “Hey, Americans know what they are talking about, and this is what they want.”

        Of course, he will never tell you what a poll says that goes against his thinking. To him, 33% is some kind of bellwether. But 90%? Nothing to see here.

        1. You are all fools. Polls don’t matter. The only thing that counts is what the POTUS says counts.

          Please get in line and follow the leader. 🙁

    4. It me 8% of those polled are libertarians.

      Would those background checks extend to Attorney General Holder running firearms to Mexican drug cartels or (previously) Hillary Clinton’s State Department running guns to “rebels” in Libya and Syria? Would the requirement also cover weaponized drones? You know, the ones that President Obama knowingly uses to murder innocent moms and kids in other countries?

      So let’s pretend universal background checks becomes the law. And I don’t comply. What happens? Paid agents of the state will pay me a visit. And they will be carrying assault-type rifles with high capacity magazines and use force to enforce that law.

      1. See my response to Bobarian.

        1. I think Bo is pointing out that refinement of the background check question results in much different results.

          And you so know that one poll has two options whereas the other has twelve.

          Just out of curiosity, how many articles have you written around a poll that didn’t support a position you hold?

          1. Fair enough. Everyone does it, not just Nick. Although Nick does it all the time.

            But my point is still valid…if your overriding premise is that polls tell you what the American people want and think, then its fair game to suggest that one poll citing a 33% response is CLEARLY dwarfed by a poll showing 90%. And if your take is that polls are flawed, then Nick’s entire foundation is meaningless in this article.

            Like I said, you don’t get to be selective about your use of polls. Getting called on it is fair game.

            1. To begin, one poll is over a year old whereas the one covered in the article was just released. How many news articles are written about 16 month old polls?

              I agree though that an article about that poll would have been interesting. Especially in light of Bo’s assertion that once those being polled are provided the current standard, their support for additional requirements drops below 50%. There would be plenty of opportunity to critique MSM use of the initial results. And provided that this is the case, citing this poll would be disingenuous without appropriate and detailed qualification.

              You can ALL CAPS any adjective you like, it doesn’t strengthen your argument. Your opinion is that an unqualified poll’s results, that are different once refined, is more compelling than another poll. The polls are constructed differently (choice of a dozen versus a choice of two). I’m the opposite. I think the current poll is more interesting. I’m already aware of publicly-educated, in-debt Americans’ penchant for attacking freedom. On the other hand, eleven times as many people picked Obama as the worst President since 1945 than those that picked Reagan. Even though I recall being told that Reagan was the anti-Christ (three names, each six letters; created AIDS, etc). That is an 1100% difference. A much bigger number than 92%. 🙂

              You’re not the authority on which polls Nick or anyone else can use. You can certainly call it out.

              1. Hey, have a great Independence Day weekend, chumby!

  19. I have this dream that Obama and Bush can be mashed together, and that they will (in the long run) be really good for the US. Together, they are a hybrid- the sand-trout and the prescient child (in that order).

    No Child Left Behind, ObamaCare and the Iraq War have been so unsuccessful and demoralizing to the average citizen that I am hoping the removal of God Emperor BushBama will lead to a flowering of the human spirit, a desire to expand away from the nanny state on humanity’s Golden Path.

    Perhaps too much to hope?

    1. I’m just gratified to see that someone else is seeing something Dune-like in the past several presidencies.

  20. Wow, all those people who just turned racist!

  21. My vote would have to be for Nixon. We have him to thank for the War On Drugs, then he ran a lawless regime that resulted in his resigning in disgrace.

    As for Obama, I’d say he’s one of the top two presidents of the 21st century.

    1. Shouldn’t having the “class” to understand you are beaten and resign be worth more points than these other hacks that know they are beaten, but continue to wreck the joint during their last “lame duck” years?

    2. As for Obama, I’d say he’s one of the top two presidents of the 21st century.

      Considering that there have been only two presidents of the 21st century, that isn’t saying much.

      1. You, Sir, are too quick.

      2. Not true. The 21st century began on 1-1-2001. Who was President on that date? I rank Obama in the top 3 of the 21st century.

  22. Wonder if/how results like these are delivered to the failure-in-chief?

    Do they huff it away as irrelevant data?
    Partisan strife that doesn’t affect their lofty status?
    Or does Valerie Jarrett coo in his ear “You’re still the BEST EVER and don’t listen to those bitter, gun-clinging yahoos. Your wise hand guides our poor, pitiful nation to ever greater heights of success!”…

    I mean christ, is he really drifting through his tenure, looking out the window and thinking “Everything’s going great!”?

    1. Nah. He’ll chuckle about it on his way to the links at your expense.

      Obama is much like Coleman Young. Young’s feelings of entitlement allowed him to loot Detroit for him and his cronies. Obama’s allows him to jet across the planet and play golf.

      He’s a slow thinking unsophisticate in well over his head.

  23. Ronald was a far better actor in the White House than he ever was in Hollywood.

  24. Interesting. I wonder what the American public thought about Reagan when he was in office at roughly the same time period as Obama…mid second term.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1987/03…..r-low.html

    “42 percent of those surveyed approved of the way Mr. Reagan was handling his job and 46 percent disapproved.”

    “About half the 1,174 adults interviewed by telephone said Mr. Reagan was LYING about key aspects of the Iran arms affair.”

    “Approval of Mr. Reagan’s handling of foreign policy was at the lowest level of his Presidency: only 29 percent of those surveyed approved; 58 percent disapproved.”

    “Only 24 percent said Mr. Reagan was in charge, while 66 percent said that others were running the Government.”

    And now? One of the greatest ever. So much for polls taken during the second term.

    1. A New York Times poll?

      BWA-HAAAA-HAAAAAA!

      1. Cherry picking; it’s how Jack comes up with data!

        1. Sevo,

          At least Jack comes up with some data, whereas your data is firmly lodged in your ass hole.

      2. Too professional for you?

    2. Reagan is dearly loved by a certain type of American. The type of American who likes a nice comfortable looking guy sitting in the West Wing, regardless of his intellect, or lack thereof.

      Obama is a far better speaker than Reagan ever was, but his style alienates a great many white Americans who get a bit nervous when confronted by “people of color”.

      Eventually the U.S. will have Americans of other races in the White House, and in time the racism will slow down a lot, although it will not disappear.

      It will probably be better for the American psyche in general if we get some white man or woman as President come 2016/17. Hoping it won’t be H. C.
      Preferably White and Republican.

      Things will probably be fucked up economically, but having a white person in the White House will relax a lot of people.

      Lots of Americans liked the Texan Bush with his “cowboy hat” and “friendly smirk”. Even Clinton’s style of reassuring bullshit appealed to a certain type of American.

      White and Republican is the way it is probably going to be from 2017 to 2025.

      1. Taste is an individual thing, but your buds are in your mouth if you think halting sing song of Obama is better communication than Reagan delivered.

        I’m also going with bullshit about the race thingey. Any number of white Republicans have tried to embrace the likes of Herman Cain, Alan Keyes and more recently Ben Carson. Unfortunately all of them opened their mouths and proved unelectable, but the Repubs have been enormously more approving of black presidential candidates than the Dims.
        You seem to be attempting to justify your own feelings here rather than making legitimate observations about others.

        1. The RePOOPlicans probably embraced Cain etc. etc. just to cover their racism. Very smart. Support black people (and other races) to show you are not a racist, but make sure they fail so they will never get in the White House. Very smart indeed. In fact, it is fucking brilliant.

      2. BS with the race crap. Reagan had that grandfatherly personna going on and his constant BS about “America”. It was what people who lived through the Cold war wanted to hear.

        Nobody disliked Reagan and his phony conservatism more than me but pretending that people who liked Reagan don’t like Obama because they are racist is getting old and pathetic.

        I don’t know how many times I get silly looks from people when I bring up the real Reagan to people on the right. They simply believe the myths that were created after he left office. Many believe he balanced the budget, he shrank government, and that he was a “patriot”. When you prove they don’t know what they are talking about they immediately blame somebody else for what happened under Reagan. They are no different than the mindless Obamatrons on the left.

        To a real conservative Reagan was the worst President. He never controlled the border, he looked the other way while illegals were used to break unions, he pushed for guest worker and free trade policies which have gutted the middle class. Coupling that with the only good thing he did, tying tax rates to inflation has gutted the tax base due to stagnant wages.

      3. He massively expanded the war on drugs and his BS in central America is the primary cause of all the central American gang problems here and there. MS-13 should rename themselves the Reaganistas since he was their founding father in reality.

        Reagan simply played the Hollywood part of a President perfectly and most people are too stupid to look beyond the style. There was no internet then as well. The national news was 30 minutes. There was no way to get an alternate view of the guy, unlike Obama.

  25. I doubt this country will ever again see any Presidents like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Monroe.

  26. It’s pretty remarkable that Obama has managed to make George Bush look competent.

    Well one campaign promise that Obama did keep: Hope and Change!

    1. George Bush was NEVER competent. He got us into two disastrous wars which we have never won, and fucked up the economy even more by spending billions and billions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, for millions of America he is almost on the same level as another “friendly and white” President like Reagan. If he were Catholic, Reagan would probably be canonized by the Pope. In andy event, the fact that a lot of Americans don’t like Obama does NOT male George Bush competent.

      1. You should read his comment before you start ranting:
        “It’s pretty remarkable that Obama has managed to make George Bush look competent.”
        Now, do you have any comment on that, or are you going to beat on another strawman?

  27. Don’t worry folks. In 2017 a new President will take office, and he will be white and republican, and many Americans will be happy again no matter what happens, and even if he/she fucks things up big time.

    1. Yeah sure, everyone who thinks the Obama administration has been sub-par is really just a racist. Keep telling yourself that. Don’t let reality interfere effect your point of view.

  28. I’m not letting your brand of “reality” interfere with my point of view in the least. However, I really believe that a lot of the dislike (probably a mild word here) can be attributed to the fact that Obama is Mixed Race, and beloved by a great percentage of African-Americans. A lot of racist whites (and there are more than people think) can’t stand a non white in the White House, but since they do not want to be identified for what they are, racist, they blast the man two to three times as hard as they would a fellow white such as Reagan and Bush. I have never seen a President maligned as much as Obama, and this seems to be true no matter what he does. Again, Americans in general will probably elect a white republican male in 2016, and he will probably be mediocre, but whites will feel more comfortable about him, because one of their own will sit in the West Wing. He will also probably fuck the country up even more than they ever imagined Obama could or would, but they will ignore it, because he is white.

    1. Ahh, another Shreek identity. Thought for a moment I was addressing something with an intellect.

      1. His posts are consistently well thought out and backed with solid evidence, such as:
        “A lot of racist whites (and there are more than people think) can’t stand a non white in the White House,”

        What more do you need?

        1. Sevo,

          Time for your medications, asshole. Also tonight is the night for your Ice Water, Castor Oil enema.

          You must be one of these Red Neck Assholes who pretends that racism does not exist.

          Have a nice evening, Anal Breath.

          1. You sure are an expert on enema’s OTRTM. I applaud your use of self experimentation to acquire such knowledge.

      2. You just don’t like my opinion. Fine. No problem. Disprove my premise (of racism) by posting an intelligent counter opinion instead of your one liner fart. Since your posting name is “Harvard” you should be an intellect. Right? Show me with a persuasive argument that I am wrong to say that a great deal of the vile that is directed at Obama is driven by racism, and not very well concealed racism.
        Calling someone names because you don’t like what they say shows you up as stupid. Disprove my race thesis or shut your damn pie hole.

        1. “Disprove my race thesis or shut your damn pie hole”

          You are a fucking idjit.
          No, I don’t have to “disprove” some cockamamie statement. You make the claim? YOU prove it.

          1. Sevo,

            Nice posting with you ace. See you around the site.

            Happy 4th of July.

        2. How does one “disprove” their “racism” to someone who attributes any act or opinion they don’t agree with as “racist”?

          You should have enough intelligence to know this is impossible and know it is the negative proof fallacy.

          http://logical-critical-thinki…..f-fallacy/

          1. “You should have enough intelligence to know this is impossible”
            Uh, this *is* the road guy; you presume too much.

            1. Sevo,

              Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you. Fuck you.

              Cordially,

              The Road Guy

              1. The most cogent argument you’ve made all evening.

                1. “The most cogent argument you’ve made all evening.”

                  It is pathetic and there are times I feel guilty about responding.
                  But then, if I find a mosquito, I do kill it, since it can cause discomfort and possibly spread disease.
                  So stamping on the road guy’s constant bullshit may be worthwhile, and it is occasionally amusing.
                  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ro5pfqpiLKA

              2. OTRTM. I thought you were never going to respond to Sevo ever again. You promised.

              3. Needs more profanity, and Ad Hom.

    2. Yes you are, Canada has never had a non-white prime minister, and only a woman PM by default and to cover for corruption after another stepped down. We must be racist and sexist as shit, as much as Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.

      Your boy toy Obama is a complete fuck up. I could say most GOP don’t give a shit what colour their candidate is, so long as they are the anti-obama philosophically.
      The fact that many racist democrats must denegrate black conservatives as uncle toms shows you the intellectual racism that is rampant in the Dem party. The US can’t stand for a marxist anti colonial narcissist in the white house.
      Replace Obama with Thomas Sowell and the GOP would not make a peep, however I could almost gaurantee “Uncle Thom” chants from the racist dems, striving to keep “minorities” next to their bussom tit, and in their philosophical pen.

      1. nrob,

        Obama might be a “fuck up” in your opinion. However, he is President of The United States of America, and you never will be.

        1. Now this has to be OTRTM’s last post.

    3. Reagan was maligned much more than Obama has ever been.

      I’m not exactly a Reagan fan and yet, I well remember the vapid ravings of the left during his tenure. They were over the top.

  29. Are there statutes of limitation or a memory barrier at play in this poll? The bottom ten (absolutely), arguably, DeBasemnt Fiv3, is where this Administration belongs, within the annals of history. A terrorist at the helm. IMPEACH, IMPEACH, IMPEACH! It doesn’t matter what the Senate will or won’t do, You do the right thing. I incline MY HOUSE to issue Articles of Impeachment immediately!

  30. How about the worst since the beginning if Time ! ..

    1. meant the beginning OF Time !

  31. In the end, who really gives a flying fuck at a running rodent who the most popular President was at any point in our history. The majority of the American people change their minds all the time about everything under the sun anyway, with the subject of of Presidents as no exception. People who miss Reagan probably believe he is in Heaven now, directing the world along with God.

  32. I still say that a substantial amount of the dislike of Obama is motivated by racism. Of course no one is ever going to admit that their opinions of him have anything to do with race. People will always say that they don’t like his policies.

    However, I still maintain that for a lot of people, each policy they say they don’t like is motivated in part by a dislike for the man’s racial composition. I also maintain that in another 2 and a half years the American people will elect another Republic White Male.

    When I say racism, I don’t mean racism against African-Americans, but against other races also. I also believe that not only White people are racists, but there are probably more White people who are racists. My guess is that 50% of White people in the U.S. are probably racists to some degree.

    Everyone have a great 4th of July.

    1. Your critical thought is severely lacking. My simple replacing for Thomas Sowell proves this point.

      1. Dear nrob,

        What is your fucking point? Give me an example of your fucking critical thought so I can become fucking enlightened. Have a wonderful fucking evening you fucking moron.

        1. Last post ?

  33. Don’t worry folks. Reagan will be resurrected and return to Washington to become President until the end of the fucking world, and all of you righteous right wing assholes can bask in his glory.

    1. Last post ever. I promise.

  34. Frankly, asking people who was the worst president since WW2 is like asking which layer of decomposing shit you’d rather have your head stuck in. They all were shit . . . which was the shittiest? Can’t we aspire to leadership that wasn’t crap?

    1. You are correct that asking “people” (useful idiots) this question is ridiculous. However, in the longer scheme of history, asking historians and scholars tends to have some accuracy. Rarely do the positions change much – because those folks are not bent one way or the other by Fox News, Talk Radio, the Kochs, etc……

      This is an accurate chart, IMHO:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H…..ey_results

      Obama is shown a bit ahead of Reagan and about with LBJ.

      FDR and TR are considered in the top five – FDR usually #2 or #3.

      Now…I know many of you live in different country than the rest of us (in your minds), so it’s natural that Abe, #1, is often considered the WORST among those “free market” American conservatives.

      You can make up all the history you like. Publish it – the Kochs will probably back you.

      1. “You are correct that asking “people” (useful idiots)”

        “historians and scholars tends to have some accuracy”

        Academia over public opinion. You must be a lefty….comrade.

        If life were so easy. Or, black and white. (That isn’t racist!)

    2. All hail the chief.

  35. FDR takes it easily for me if it’s after WWII. However if you count Woodrow Wilson I’d put him up there too, his presidency led to WWII and he started the Federal Reserve. HUGE FAIL.

    Counting all presidents, before and after WWII, Lincoln would top my list. And Hoover would be up there in the top 5 worst along with FDR and Wilson.

  36. Same “surveys” show the GOP House has the lowest approval in history EVER – and that the SCOTUS is near the bottom of their historical curve.

    In fact, the accurate story is that Americans are generally pissed off about everything! And why shouldn’t they be after being led to war(s), the great recession and now the do-nothing congress??

    Congratulations. You guys and the teabaggers are doing a fine job of NOT solving any problems and making others worse.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.