Presidential ranking

[bird]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... biden-list

Huh, Biden ranked ahead of Reagan. How interesting.

[JoeMemphis]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... biden-list

Huh, Biden ranked ahead of Reagan. How interesting.

Not really. A survey of 154 “scholars”. I dunno who those scholars were but I would certainly bet there is a certain amount of bias in that population.

I don’t disagree with their ranking of Trump. I do disagree with their ranking of the current POTUS. I guess it just depends on who you ask and who you consider a “scholar”. Currently 2/3 rdsmm no of the electorate don’t think highly of either of the front runners for the Nov election so maybe those “scholars” are somewhat out of the mainstream.

[Glennfs]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... biden-list

Huh, Biden ranked ahead of Reagan. How interesting.

Aby legitimate board of schlars waits until a president is out of office usually for at least 4 years.
Also no legitimate board if scholars would have Biden in the too half. He has been an absolute disaster. Better than Trump yes he is but, that isn't a very high standard.

[Glennfs]

https://www.c-span.org/presidentsurvey2 ... ge=overall

Here is an honest and legitimate list. I do expect in the near future to see Obama at 9 and Reagan at 10.

[bird]

Ah, thanks. You don’t like the results.

Those things including the ones you love are opinions, period.

[JoeMemphis]

Ah, thanks. You don’t like the results.

Those things including the ones you love are opinions, period.

Yep. I get that. That was my point. Glad you got it too. Everybody’s got an opinion.

[bird]

Yep. I get that. That was my point. Glad you got it too. Everybody’s got an opinion.

True. And Reagan should be rated worse than he is which is my opinion.

Either way perhaps we will stop seeing these things here.

[gounion]

Funny how Joe never complains when Glenn posts rankings that Glenn likes.

[gounion]

Not really. A survey of 154 “scholars”. I dunno who those scholars were but I would certainly bet there is a certain amount of bias in that population.

I don’t disagree with their ranking of Trump. I do disagree with their ranking of the current POTUS. I guess it just depends on who you ask and who you consider a “scholar”. Currently 2/3 rdsmm no of the electorate don’t think highly of either of the front runners for the Nov election so maybe those “scholars” are somewhat out of the mainstream.

Funny how both candidates won their primaries pretty handily. I mean, your side had quite a few candidates running. They had plenty of choices.

[JoeMemphis]

True. And Reagan should be rated worse than he is which is my opinion.

Either way perhaps we will stop seeing these things here.

I doubt it. We are always comparing and ranking things. Human nature I guess. I just think the validity of such a comparison depends on how these ranking are determined and by whom. After all, as you point out, it’s pretty much a subjective judgement.

Its like the academy awards of politics.

[Glennfs]

Yep. I get that. That was my point. Glad you got it too. Everybody’s got an opinion.

No I am just being objective something you might want to try sometime

[Glennfs]

Funny how Joe never complains when Glenn posts rankings that Glenn likes.

You also should try being objective

[Glennfs]

True. And Reagan should be rated worse than he is which is my opinion.

Either way perhaps we will stop seeing these things here.

And that is why we look to historians and presidential scholars.

[bird]

And that is why we look to historians and presidential scholars.

Did you read the article?

[Glennfs]

Did you read the article?

Yes but let's consider that Reagan won 44 states vs Carter and 49 vs Mondale.
While we all agree that Trump is at or near the bottom of presidents all time. Yet inspite of that he barely defeated Trump the first time and is currently behind Trump according to polling.

If Biden were actually better than Reagan or even doing an average job he would be way ahead in the polls. Biden's reelection would be in the bag. As it stands today it is coming down to 6 states.

So because of those facts the survey is flawed and has little to no credibility. Claiming that Biden's accomplishment is saving us from Trump is not something a credible survey would ever consider.

[bird]

Yes but let's consider that Reagan won 44 states vs Carter and 49 vs Mondale.
While we all agree that Trump is at or near the bottom of presidents all time. Yet inspite of that he barely defeated Trump the first time and is currently behind Trump according to polling.

If Biden were actually better than Reagan or even doing an average job he would be way ahead in the polls. Biden's reelection would be in the bag. As it stands today it is coming down to 6 states.

So because of those facts the survey is flawed and has little to no credibility. Claiming that Biden's accomplishment is saving us from Trump is not something a credible survey would ever consider.

Winning elections is no indicator of the quality of a president.

Polls have become meaningless. We do not know who is contacted, how they are contacted, what questions are asked, how are the questions framed, how many are contacted and where those contacted live.

Scholars conducted the survey. You don’t like the results. That is exactly the same as myself not liking the results of any poll ranking Reagan anywhere but near the middle of the pack. There is a difference though which is as Reagan’s flaws continue to be exposed to sunshine his position will continue to drop.

[Glennfs]

Winning elections is no indicator of the quality of a president.

Polls have become meaningless. We do not know who is contacted, how they are contacted, what questions are asked, how are the questions framed, how many are contacted and where those contacted live.

Scholars conducted the survey. You don’t like the results. That is exactly the same as myself not liking the results of any poll ranking Reagan anywhere but near the middle of the pack. There is a difference though which is as Reagan’s flaws continue to be exposed to sunshine his position will continue to drop.

Reagan is going wind up behind Obama but, in any legitimate poll he won't be less than 12th in any legitimate poll.

While we all know this is a trolling thread. The poll does demonstrate the bias of the poll and that is not even close to being objective or legitimate.

Once he leaves office Biden will be hard pressed to be in the top 20. Any objective person can plainly see he is not doing a good job as president. While admitting he was and is a better choice than Trump.

In fact Trump is the best thing to happen to the democratic party in a long time. Without Trump and his minions in the House and Senate the republican party would have a clear majority I'm both the legislative and executive.

[bird]

Reagan is going wind up behind Obama but, in any legitimate poll he won't be less than 12th in any legitimate poll.

While we all know this is a trolling thread. The poll does demonstrate the bias of the poll and that is not even close to being objective or legitimate.

Once he leaves office Biden will be hard pressed to be in the top 20. Any objective person can plainly see he is not doing a good job as president. While admitting he was and is a better choice than Trump.

In fact Trump is the best thing to happen to the democratic party in a long time. Without Trump and his minions in the House and Senate the republican party would have a clear majority I'm both the legislative and executive.

Your opinion. As time progresses Reagan will drop. He actually did nothing. He put a happy, smiley face on things while planting the seeds of further turmoil in the Middleeast. He did not destroy communism as those who were inside the USSR knew far better . They knew Reagan needed Gorbachev but Gorbachev did not need Reagan. He cur and ran when the barracks in Lebanon were destroyed. He allowed the AIDS crisis to rampage before finally doing something or even saying something. The Savings and Loan debacle was his baby and cost the taxpayers $200billion, iirc.

Presidential historians and scholars, who you like when they back you, have put a gloss on Reagan he hoes not deserve. Was he bad? Not in the scheme of many presidents. He was middling at best.

[Glennfs]

Your opinion. As time progresses Reagan will drop. He actually did nothing. He put a happy, smiley face on things while planting the seeds of further turmoil in the Middleeast. He did not destroy communism as those who were inside the USSR knew far better . They knew Reagan needed Gorbachev but Gorbachev did not need Reagan. He cur and ran when the barracks in Lebanon were destroyed. He allowed the AIDS crisis to rampage before finally doing something or even saying something. The Savings and Loan debacle was his baby and cost the taxpayers $200billion, iirc.

Presidential historians and scholars, who you like when they back you, have put a gloss on Reagan he hoes not deserve. Was he bad? Not in the scheme of many presidents. He was middling at best.

I am guessing you were either not born or maybe just a child when RR was President.
BTW the AIDS deal simply is false I hope to have more time later to show you the numbers.
As for Lebanon would you have preferred he start a war in the Mideast? On that issue no matter what he did the left would criticize.
Maybe we can get a thread going later I an a little busy now.

[Glennfs]

Your opinion. As time progresses Reagan will drop. He actually did nothing. He put a happy, smiley face on things while planting the seeds of further turmoil in the Middleeast. He did not destroy communism as those who were inside the USSR knew far better . They knew Reagan needed Gorbachev but Gorbachev did not need Reagan. He cur and ran when the barracks in Lebanon were destroyed. He allowed the AIDS crisis to rampage before finally doing something or even saying something. The Savings and Loan debacle was his baby and cost the taxpayers $200billion, iirc.

Presidential historians and scholars, who you like when they back you, have put a gloss on Reagan he hoes not deserve. Was he bad? Not in the scheme of many presidents. He was middling at best.

You need to quit relying on such partisan sources. Here are Reagan's numbers on aids funding
83 44 million
84 103 million
85. 205 million
86. 508 million
87. 922 million
88 1 billion 615 million
89 2 billion 322 million

While he left office in January 89 those budget numbers were put in place before he left.

As for not mentioning AIDS he mentioned AIDS 5times in a 1985 address to congress

[bradman]

The Moral Majority.....The "gay plague."

When aids was funny....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_AIDS_Was_Funny
1982 exchange
The controversial dismissal of the growing AIDS epidemic is heard in the film through a series of press conferences in the 1980s, such as this 1982 exchange between Speakes and Kinsolving:[6][7]

KINSOLVING: Larry, does the President have any reaction to the announcement—the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, that A-I-D-S is now an epidemic and have over 600 cases?

SPEAKES: What's A-I-D-S?

KINSOLVING: Over a third of them have died. It's known as "gay plague." (Laughter.) No, it is. I mean it's a pretty serious thing that one in every three people that get this have died. And I wondered if the President is aware of it?

SPEAKES: I don't have it. Do you? (Laughter.)

KINSOLVING: No, I don't.

SPEAKES: You didn't answer my question.

KINSOLVING: Well, I just wondered, does the President—

SPEAKES: How do you know? (Laughter.)

KINSOLVING: In other words, the White House looks on this as a great joke?

SPEAKES: No, I don't know anything about it, Lester.

KINSOLVING: Does the President, does anybody in the White House know about this epidemic, Larry?

SPEAKES: I don't think so. I don't think there's been any—

KINSOLVING: Nobody knows?

SPEAKES: There has been no personal experience here, Lester.

KINSOLVING: No, I mean, I thought you were keeping—

SPEAKES: I checked thoroughly with Dr. Ruge this morning and he's had no—(laughter)—no patients suffering from A-I-D-S or whatever it is.

KINSOLVING: The President doesn't have gay plague, is that what you're saying or what?

SPEAKES: No, I didn't say that.

KINSOLVING: Didn't say that?

SPEAKES: I thought I heard you on the State Department over there. Why didn't you stay there? (Laughter.)

KINSOLVING: Because I love you, Larry, that's why. (Laughter.)

SPEAKES: Oh, I see. Just don't put it in those terms, Lester. (Laughter.)

KINSOLVING: Oh, I retract that.

SPEAKES: I hope so.

https://www.history.com/news/aids-epide ... ald-reagan
How AIDS Remained an Unspoken—But Deadly—Epidemic for Years
Health officials first became aware of AIDS in the summer of 1981, but U.S. leaders remained largely silent for four years.

Health officials first became aware of AIDS in the summer of 1981. Young and otherwise healthy gay men in Los Angeles and New York began getting sick and dying of unusual illnesses normally associated with people with weakened immune systems.

It didn't take long for fear of the "gay plague" to spread quickly among the gay community. Beyond the mortal danger from the disease, they also dealt with potentially being "outed" as homosexual if they had AIDS or an illness resembling it.

+

To make it through Congressional opponents, the first federal funding for AIDS research had to be coupled with Toxic Shock Syndrome and Legionnaire's Disease in a Public Health Emergency Trust Fund. And following his agenda of trimming the federal government, President Reagan cut budgets to the CDC and National Institutes of Health.

This left public health experts frustrated.

"The inadequate funding to date has seriously restricted our work and has presumably deepened the invasion of this disease into the American population," a CDC staffer wrote in an April 12, 1983 memo to Dr. Walter Dowdle, Assistant Director of CDC at the time. "In addition, the time wasted pursuing money from Washington has cast an air of despair over AIDS workers throughout the country."

By the end of the year, the country had 4,700 reported cases of AIDS and more than 2,000 deaths.

[JoeMemphis]

Winning elections is no indicator of the quality of a president.

Polls have become meaningless. We do not know who is contacted, how they are contacted, what questions are asked, how are the questions framed, how many are contacted and where those contacted live.

Scholars conducted the survey. You don’t like the results. That is exactly the same as myself not liking the results of any poll ranking Reagan anywhere but near the middle of the pack. There is a difference though which is as Reagan’s flaws continue to be exposed to sunshine his position will continue to drop.

I wonder what qualifies someone to be a scholar. Folks often throw such titles around. 154 scholars. 100 top economists. Etc etc etc. highly placed sources. I find it hard to put much stock in such things as often they have been shown to be less than credible. But as you say, it’s an opinion. And opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one.

[ZoWie]

Obviously these presidential rankings are popularity contests and largely ideologically driven. They are essentially meaningless due to the lack of historical perspective on the more recent presidents. We can all agree that there are a few standouts such as Washington and Lincoln, but even they were products of their times.

[Toonces]

The ideology and party affiliation are taken into account

Examining the partisan and ideological differences among our respondents also indicates
some interesting dynamics. While partisanship and ideology don’t tend to make a major difference
overall, there are a few distinctions worth noting. For example, Republicans and Conservatives rank
George Washington as the greatest president and James Buchanan as the least great. There are also
several presidents where partisan polarization is evident – Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Obama, and
Biden – but interestingly not for Bill Clinton.

It's interesting to note that they ranked Carter as the most underrated president, followed by Grant, and GHW Bush.

Most overrated were Kennedy, Reagan, Jackson. Trump managed to get on the most overrated list which, considering he ranks last, is quite an accomplishment.

Biden vs Reagan was close, about 1 point. (62 vs 61)

Trump was about 6 (10.92) points behind Buchanan (16.71), so Trump won worst president and it wasn't even close.

GWB is much higher than he should be, but I guess killing hundreds of thousands of Middle Eastern people is only a small deduction.

[Glennfs]

The Moral Majority.....The "gay plague."

When aids was funny....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_AIDS_Was_Funny
1982 exchange
The controversial dismissal of the growing AIDS epidemic is heard in the film through a series of press conferences in the 1980s, such as this 1982 exchange between Speakes and Kinsolving:[6][7]

KINSOLVING: Larry, does the President have any reaction to the announcement—the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta, that A-I-D-S is now an epidemic and have over 600 cases?

SPEAKES: What's A-I-D-S?

KINSOLVING: Over a third of them have died. It's known as "gay plague." (Laughter.) No, it is. I mean it's a pretty serious thing that one in every three people that get this have died. And I wondered if the President is aware of it?

SPEAKES: I don't have it. Do you? (Laughter.)

KINSOLVING: No, I don't.

SPEAKES: You didn't answer my question.

KINSOLVING: Well, I just wondered, does the President—

SPEAKES: How do you know? (Laughter.)

KINSOLVING: In other words, the White House looks on this as a great joke?

SPEAKES: No, I don't know anything about it, Lester.

KINSOLVING: Does the President, does anybody in the White House know about this epidemic, Larry?

SPEAKES: I don't think so. I don't think there's been any—

KINSOLVING: Nobody knows?

SPEAKES: There has been no personal experience here, Lester.

KINSOLVING: No, I mean, I thought you were keeping—

SPEAKES: I checked thoroughly with Dr. Ruge this morning and he's had no—(laughter)—no patients suffering from A-I-D-S or whatever it is.

KINSOLVING: The President doesn't have gay plague, is that what you're saying or what?

SPEAKES: No, I didn't say that.

KINSOLVING: Didn't say that?

SPEAKES: I thought I heard you on the State Department over there. Why didn't you stay there? (Laughter.)

KINSOLVING: Because I love you, Larry, that's why. (Laughter.)

SPEAKES: Oh, I see. Just don't put it in those terms, Lester. (Laughter.)

KINSOLVING: Oh, I retract that.

SPEAKES: I hope so.

https://www.history.com/news/aids-epide ... ald-reagan
How AIDS Remained an Unspoken—But Deadly—Epidemic for Years
Health officials first became aware of AIDS in the summer of 1981, but U.S. leaders remained largely silent for four years.

+

If love means never having to say you are sorry then liberal means never having to admit you are wrong.

AIDS funding under Reagan went from 44 million to over 2 Billion if less than 5 years