Curioser & Curiouser, But Very Typical

Solo -

You knew I couldn't leave this one alone.  Here is a cool link on Presidential rankings you have to try.  I cut/pasted a table from the article below for those of you who like the quick and dirty read.  The table didn't quite work out but the first number is the highest rating of the pres, and second number is the lowest.

The info below shows that since and including Truman, W has the HIGHEST ever "high" rating, and tied with his 'daddy' for the 4th worst "low" rating. 

Not bad for somebody who 90% of current historians rate as a failure. 

The table must be fair and balanced, it is CNN.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/presrankings1.html

PresidentHighest RatingLowest RatingHarry Truman87%23%Dwight Eisenhower79%48%John F. Kennedy83%56%Lyndon Johnson79%35%Richard Nixon67%24%Gerald Ford71%37%Jimmy Carter75%28%Ronald Reagan68%35%George H.W. Bush89%29%Bill Clinton73%37%George W. Bush90%29%

CCC,

Good to hear from you.  Thanks for the ratings table.  Of course the source is fair & balanced from CNN.  Heck the story I wrote @ came from one of my favorite news warehouses, the Drudge Report.  And from what I've heard, they are considered on the conservative side of the net.

Actually, I'm a bit surprised that Carter got a 75% for a high.  I also expected to see a higher rating for Ike.  I'm not surprised at the 90% for W.  If I'm not mistaken, he got the 90% right after 911.  Now, are these the ratings figures they had while in office or are they historical ratings?  You didn't say.  It looks as if they were while in office.  It makes a difference because if they were the ones while in office, they would be taken from the questioning of people before, during or after specific events.  If they are historical ratings, they would probably be the assessment of professional historians on an over all basis.  Big difference. JATFUR. 

RichK

Uncle Rich, I think the ratings CCC has posted merely reflect a one time event. As in Bush getting a 90% while standing in the rubble of the WTC. But with the war going very slowly and the general population tired of seeing their children coming home in body bags, one would expect low ratings to follow. It's really not all that unlike the Viet Nam war. Essentially the high/low numbers reflect a snapshot approach.

I also remember the first President Bush getting a 91% rating after the Gulf War was over in practically 100 hours. It was the primary reason all the celebrity democrat politicians decided not to challenge him in the '92 election. As much as I dislike Bill Clinton, I have to give him credit for even thinking he had a shot at the office much less actually getting there although I still maintain since he never gained a plurality he wouldn't have won without Ross Perot. I know many discount that idea but I haven't seen any hard and fast numbers telling me I'm wrong. It's just a gut feeling.

As for Carter are you surprised that he achieved a 75% rating because he did or did not deseve it in your opinion? I'm just curious. I think I am surprised that it was that high since I can't recall anything going his way in all his four years in office. I still believe he was the worst president of the 20th century.

Lily's Lore "I don't ever want to be rescued And I don't ever want to be saved I got a feelin' that I'm gonna be alive forever Dancin' on the edge of a grave..." Jim Steinman

Lily,

You're right @ the timing of the ratings.  After saying to myself, "Hey DUMMY, CCC gave you the site.  Get off thine arse & go to it!"  The site did say that the ratings were made while the presidents were in office.  It makes a difference, as I noted.  Any president will garner good ratings for winning a war, while the economy is good or in W's case, as you said, standing in the rubble of the WTC.  I would be more concerned of a rating in a historical perspective by professionals.  Let's face it, they have better training, access to archives and time on the job.  Although they are human, with human faults, I would think that any personal bias would be put aside.  Besides, if they did have such bias, it would probably be shown by peer review.

I was surprised that Carter's rating was that high.  I'm not ready to brand him the worst of the 20th century.  I'd have to do a heck of a lot more research & right now, I'm busier than a one legged man in a butt kicking contest, thanks to the godess.  Bless her heart.  JATFUR.

RichK

Now, truman was the most unpopular president in all of history upon leaving office with a 27% approval rating give or take due to korea.  However, and i don't have the link so do some research, he is rated as one of the best, he's been dead since 72, historians started to re-review him in the 80's and now he is one of the best President's ever.  I don't thin kbush will be rated as one of the best, but i do think he fall in with polk or some other middle of the road president.  As far as the worst of the 20th century, while carter was useless i'd give either harding or hoover the title of the wrost in the 20th century, damn both of those are republicans, it's just not fair.

While the link, subsequent comments & ratings of presidents have been worthy of note, the ranking & popularity of Bush & other presidents were secondary to the reactions & thinking processes that led to the comments were my main point.  I had hoped for some comments on the types of people who had such extreme reactions on literally no information.  JATFUR.

RichK 

Yeah, but i don't care about those people b/c they're stupid and probably liberals, ha, ha.  I'd much rather talk about presidents and their popularity, b/c i'm the dork who loves to talk about that.  Now, feel free to skew any of my future blogs.  JATFUF

Solo

For some reason this blog resurfaced in my grey matter this morning and your redirection back to what you said you intended, that is why the 'commenters' all labeled the historians as liberals. 

In the interest of history, correlation, and currency -

Why would Obama label all working class as 'bitter?'  Has he met them?  Has he ever been one?  What is his definition of "working class?"  Did he do his research on who they really are? 

He was trying to explain his troubles winning over some working-class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions:

Obama's words - "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."