1969912 0 #1 November 17, 2007 Some statistics: Using the results of four national surveys asking who was the greatest US president, I selected the top 10 from each set of data. Next I deselected any president that did not appear in every top ten group (i.e. I only kept the ones that were within the top ten in each of the four polls.) There were six who were ranked in the top ten in all polls: Franklin D. Roosevelt Abraham Lincoln Ronald Reagan George Washington Theodore Roosevelt Dwight Eisenhower Adding one more piece of data: Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat) Abraham Lincoln (Republican) Ronald Reagan (Republican) George Washington (No Affiliation) Theodore Roosevelt (Republican) Dwight Eisenhower (Republican) So, there are four R's who ranked as one of the top ten greatest presidents in each of the surveys, one D, and one N/A. Four times as many R's as D's. What does the above imply? Comments please. -------------------------------------- ------------------------------------- Here are the polls used as data sources: FROM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents (under "Popular Opinion") C-SPAN viewer survey C-SPAN asked viewers in 1999 to rank the presidents, and 1,145 people participated. -------------------------- ABC poll An ABC News poll about presidential greatness, taken 16-20 February 2000, asked 1012 adults nationwide, "Who do you think was the greatest American president?" --------------------------- Rasmussen Reports poll A Rasmussen Reports poll taken June 13-24 of 2007 asked 1,000 randomly selected adults to rate America's presidents. ---------------------------- Washington College poll A Washington College poll about presidential greatness, taken 11 February 2005, asked 800 adults nationwide, "Thinking about all the presidents of the United States throughout history to the present, who would you say was America's greatest president?" ------------------------------- Gallup poll Ronald Reagan has fared well in recent public opinion polls Ronald Reagan has fared well in recent public opinion polls A Gallup poll about presidential greatness, taken February 9-11, 2007, asked 1006 adults nationwide, "Who do you regard as the greatest United States president?" "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
woodpecker 0 #2 November 17, 2007 Good on Ronnie for making the top 10. He is still my favorite president so far.SONIC WOODY #146 There is a fine line between cockiness and confidence -- which side of the line are you on? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kschilk 0 #3 November 17, 2007 Quote What does the above imply? That the only one really worth a crap, had no party affiliations. "T'was ever thus." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #4 November 17, 2007 QuoteFour times as many R's as D's. What does the above imply? Comments please. I t shows that the Party of Lincoln is no more. Moderation is gone. And Ronald may have had a chance at greatness but the boys in the basement tore down ANY chance he ever had with Iran Contra especially after the assasination attempt. He slept thru the rest of his presidency and let the plausible deniability flaw him far worse than a blow job. He let us.. the american people down by not doing his job. His place on the list is just a fluke based on partisan politics of those who believe the party of small government is still relavant... Delusion is such a terrible way to view your politics Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #5 November 17, 2007 The methodological problem with measuring the quality of ex-presidents by using popular polls, rather than surveys by historians and other scholars, is that polls tend to be most heavily influenced by personal perceptions and biases, whereas scholarly surveys - which of course are not free from bias, either - try to rely more upon consistent criteria and measurable, empirical data. For example, popular polls greatly discount Jefferson and Madison. The effect of "recency" also affects popular opinon. One example of this is that most historians view Eisenhower only as capable and average as a President, not as "great". JFK was absolutely deified for about 10 years after his assassination, until publicity of his compulsive sexual infidelity in the WH tore that down. Nixon is probably viewed far more harshly now than he will be 60 years from now; and Reagan probably gets a lot more deference now than he will in another 60 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #6 November 17, 2007 FDR was an awful resident who presided over a 12 year DEPRESSION! He and many others blamed hoover for something that happened within the first six months of his presidency, and FDR signed our country into bankruptcy, allowed an attack on Pearl Harbor, and tens of thousands to die in the PI, help is on the way my ass! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #7 November 17, 2007 Quote FDR was an awful resident who presided over a 12 year DEPRESSION! He and many others blamed hoover for something that happened within the first six months of his presidency, and FDR signed our country into bankruptcy, allowed an attack on Pearl Harbor, and tens of thousands to die in the PI, help is on the way my ass! Hoover didn't try to do a goddamed thing to prevent or end the Depression, or help starving people survive, other than to leave market forces to their own devices. You want to blame it on his predecessor? Harding was a Repub, too. History records what FDR did to try to manage that disaster in a humane and proactive way. He took over a country already in bankruptcy. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #8 November 17, 2007 Actually the whole mess was started into play by Harrison. Read up un it, it will make you sick and wonder why harrison was not brought up on treason charges. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #9 November 17, 2007 QuoteThe methodological problem with measuring the quality of ex-presidents by using popular polls, rather than surveys by historians and other scholars, is that polls tend to be most heavily influenced by personal perceptions and biases, whereas scholarly surveys - which of course are not free from bias, either - try to rely more upon consistent criteria and measurable, empirical data. For example, popular polls greatly discount Jefferson and Madison. The effect of "recency" also affects popular opinon. One example of this is that most historians view Eisenhower only as capable and average as a President, not as "great". JFK was absolutely deified for about 10 years after his assassination, until publicity of his compulsive sexual infidelity in the WH tore that down. Nixon is probably viewed far more harshly now than he will be 60 years from now; and Reagan probably gets a lot more deference now than he will in another 60 years. I just posted what the polls said. Popular polls are full of pitfalls, as are, I assume, historian/scholar rankings. I don't pay much attention to either one. Actually, the four popular polls put Jefferson in the top ten three times, and Madison two times. Jefferson had an "average scholar ranking" of 5 and Madison ranked 13, so there seemsto be some correllation between the scholar rankings and the pop poll results for them. The "avg. scholar ranking" for Eisenhower is 9, which also shows correllation with the pop polls. The "avg. scholar ranking" for post-WWII presidents are: Truman (D) = 7 (out of all presidents) Eisenhower (R) = 9 Kennedy (D) = 12 Johnson (D) = 14 Reagan(R) = 15 Clinton (D) =21 GW Bush (R) = 22 GHW Bush(R) = 25 Carter (D) = 28 tie Ford (R) = 28 tie Nixon (R) = 32 "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #10 November 17, 2007 QuoteHistory records what FDR did to try to manage that disaster in a humane and proactive way. He took over a country already in bankruptcy. And Bush took over a country already sliding into recession...but yet the Dems on this forum lay the blame fully at his feet.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #11 November 17, 2007 The strange thing is that Jefferson was far smarter than all the rest of them, and held in the highest esteem by none other than George Washington, who by all accounts was a very smart man. Read "American Sphinx" and you will gain some unusual insight into his mind. Jefferson was not only a phenominal thinker, but a man of action as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #12 November 17, 2007 QuoteDelusion is such a terrible way to view your politics I get a sexual tingle in my groin when you talk to me like that. More, please. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #13 November 17, 2007 The WORST ever lists also seem to feature a lot or R presidents, generally led by Nixon (R), Harding (R) and Coolidge (R). Bush (43)(R) seems set to join their ranks. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #14 November 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteHistory records what FDR did to try to manage that disaster in a humane and proactive way. He took over a country already in bankruptcy. And Bush took over a country already sliding into recession...but yet the Dems on this forum lay the blame fully at his feet. There is no comparison whatsoever between 1929 and 1999 economic conditions. Not even up to "lame".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #15 November 17, 2007 QuoteThe WORST ever lists also seem to feature a lot or R presidents, generally led by Nixon (R), Harding (R) and Coolidge (R). Bush (43)(R) seems set to join their ranks. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html Can't find a "WORST ever" list on the page you linked to. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #16 November 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteHistory records what FDR did to try to manage that disaster in a humane and proactive way. He took over a country already in bankruptcy. And Bush took over a country already sliding into recession...but yet the Dems on this forum lay the blame fully at his feet. You're spin-doctoring. Bush gets no blame for 9/11 or the sinking economy under his watch; but Clinton gets no credit for the first balanced budget in 30 years and prosperity under his watch. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #17 November 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteHistory records what FDR did to try to manage that disaster in a humane and proactive way. He took over a country already in bankruptcy. And Bush took over a country already sliding into recession...but yet the Dems on this forum lay the blame fully at his feet. There is no comparison whatsoever between 1929 and 1999 economic conditions. Not even up to "lame". Of course not - ALL information that makes a Dem look bad MUST be rigorously proven and discounted whenever possible - it's Rule #1.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,184 #18 November 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe WORST ever lists also seem to feature a lot or R presidents, generally led by Nixon (R), Harding (R) and Coolidge (R). Bush (43)(R) seems set to join their ranks. www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/01/AR2006120101509.html Can't find a "WORST ever" list on the page you linked to. That's because it's about Bush 43 (R) being about to become the worst ever.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #19 November 17, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteHistory records what FDR did to try to manage that disaster in a humane and proactive way. He took over a country already in bankruptcy. And Bush took over a country already sliding into recession...but yet the Dems on this forum lay the blame fully at his feet. You're spin-doctoring. Bush gets no blame for 9/11 or the sinking economy under his watch; but Clinton gets no credit for the first balanced budget in 30 years and prosperity under his watch. As are you - I never said things didn't improve under Clinton, or that we haven't been in a recession under Bush - merely rebutting that old lie about how the recession was all Bush's, when in fact it had already started under Clinton, since your comment opened the door for it. Just more info that has to be rigorously suppressed by the faithful, I suppose.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Andy9o8 3 #20 November 17, 2007 QuoteALL information that makes a Dem look bad MUST be rigorously proven and discounted whenever possible - it's Rule #1. No, that's Rule #2. Rule #1 is "Get the fee first." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #21 November 17, 2007 QuoteThe WORST ever lists also seem to feature a lot or R presidents, generally led by Nixon (R), Harding (R) and Coolidge (R). Bush (43)(R) seems set to join their ranks. Then what "WORST ever lists" were you talking about in the above statement? When was the last "Schlesinger study" done? "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #22 November 17, 2007 Quote Quote ALL information that makes a Dem look bad MUST be rigorously proven and discounted whenever possible - it's Rule #1. No, that's Rule #2. Rule #1 is "Get the fee first." "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #23 November 17, 2007 Quote Quote ALL information that makes a Dem look bad MUST be rigorously proven and discounted whenever possible - it's Rule #1. No, that's Rule #2. Rule #1 is "Get the fee first." Curses, foiled again!Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #24 November 17, 2007 Quote Four times as many R's as D's. What does the above imply? Not a whole hell of a lot. The current Republican Party doesn't have much in common with Lincoln's and not much with Roosevelt's either.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #25 November 17, 2007 The current democratic party has nothing at all to do with the Truman type of democrat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
