That’s not quite right. In practically any poll, 65 to 64 is a tie.
While it may be a statistical dead heat, it’s still accurate to say one beat the other in terms of the polled numbers.
No it isn’t. It’s like saying that “65 plus-or-minus X” is greater than “64 plus-or-minus Y”. No one knows what X or Y is, but if X = 1.2 and Y = 2.3, then the statement is false.
Well, it is and it isn’t, since no matter what the results, the statement is inherently probabilistic. The “plus-or-minus” error margin is a crude way of describing a probability distribution, and thus most likely represents a bell curve. As long as mean_X is greater than mean_Y, P(X>Y) > 0.5. I think in your example it’s something like a 62% chance that the first variable is greater (assuming the plus-or-minus figures are the variances of two normal distributions).
Of course, I agree that this isn’t really that significant, and in real life the error margins are even greater than you describe. But I don’t think “true” and “false” really apply here…
They apply conditionally, as I said, if the X and Y are known. Perhaps of greater significance in comparing the legacies of the two presidents is the June 18-20 AP-Ipsos poll, which found that 70% of Americans believe that history will judge Reagan superior to Clinton. That’s well outside any error margin. The same poll found that 83% had a favorable view of Reagan, while only 41% regarded Clinton favorably.
Clinton consistently had higher approval ratings than Reagan throughout his entire presidency. The poll you link to does not say that Reagan deserves to be remembered more fondly only that they suspect that he will be. It is not a direct question about the responents? personal opinions about each president but about what they believe the opinions of others will be in some undefined future.
As a matter of fact, I think they’re wrong. As time goes by, Clinton is becoming more popular and his presidency is more well regarded in retrospect. You can’t argue with 8 years of peace and prosperity.
Clinton also left office with something else that Reagan did not- a little thing called a “bufget surplus.” We’ll never see that again.
Yes, but you have to factor in the quality of judgment Americans have shown in the recent years.
Do that, and you’ll appreciate History will be far fonder of C than R.
You are actually showing milwhatever cites?
That was a complete waste of time.
He does not let the facts get in the way of his asinine statements.
If “bufget” were a word, I’d have no doubt that Clinton would have a surplus of it. 
Yeah. With Reagan, we were mired in Grenada for hours, and the market value of all American assets only doubled.
To repeat, “The same poll found that 83% had a favorable view of Reagan, while only 41% regarded Clinton favorably.”
The national debt quadrupled, deficits exploded, we saw a huge separation of rich and poor while the middle class shrank,we saw double digit unemployment and stagnant wages.
And let’s not forget that Reagan supported terrorism on two different continents by propping up the Taliban, Osama bin Laden Saddam Hussein and the Contras.
We are now paying the piper for all those despotic regimes created by Reagan in the 80’s.
I have too much class to even mention Reagan’s treasonous activities in Iran-Contra.
Well Reagan just died. That poll doesn’t mean very much right now. Plus Americans are morons. History will remember Clinton as a much better POTIS simply because that is an objectively true fact.
One more thing: Grenada was a completely unnecessary exercise in wagging the dog. It was nothing but a contrived event designed solely to draw attention away from Reagan’s own culpability in the bombing of the US Embassy in Beirut.
You know how dumb the average guy is? Well, half the people are even dumber than that!
But its highest ever was under Emperor Roosevelt (120%). Truman’s national debt was also higher than Reagan’s. Even Nixon was better than Clinton. (Cite.)
Of course, Clinton had the benefit of foreign investment: “In the 1990s overseas investors had a voracious appetite for U.S. stocks and bonds that fueled demand for the dollar and made it easy to finance the deficit.” — Linda Bilmes, Washington Post. And of course, Carter’s stagflation (high unemployment and inflation) bellowed up into a full-blown recession, the effects of which were dramatic.
Actually, the middle class was shrinking upward — more middle class were moving into wealthy.
No, we didn’t. The unemployment figures were 9.5% for 1982 and 1983 (the highest years), and then they declined. Generally, it is expected that unemployment is the last figure to improve in a major recovery because the highest expenses a business has is employees and their benefits and taxes. Businesses lay off people early in a downturn, and naturally are slow to hire them back until an expansion is well under way.
Yeah, and Clinton took on another continent, supporting Museveni in Uganda, with whom he hosted a summit that drew in dictators from the Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda and Tanzania. Few presidents haven’t supported terrorism, beginning with post Revolution reprisals against the Southeastern Indians for fighting with the British against their occupiers.
The way I see it, we’re paying the piper for Bush’s hegemony.
And I to mention Clinton’s treasonous activities in China, Cuba, and North Korea.
Hey, you brought up polls.
They were sufficiently bright when you cited Clinton’s approval ratings upon leaving office, were they not?
President of the Indecent States? 
So, you would have advised allowing the Cuban supported thugs to consumate their bloody coup and establish a satellite Communist state? And you would have ignored threats to American students there?
Well, we will see what happens.
I’ve not debated with him before, I don’t think, so we’ll see what his reaction to overwhelming evidence is.
Sure. None of my business. 
Absolutely. Nobody forced them to go there.
Don’t just eat that hamburger, eat the hell out of it.
I agree with you on this one.
But not on this one. American citizens deserve to have the rights that God or nature gave them secured by their government, no matter where they go.