# Since WW2, who has been the most politcaly talented President? (Setting aside politics) **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [January 11, 2020, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271 "2020-01-11T09:32:07Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 13, 2020, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/41 "2020-01-13T22:54:15Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > As I mentioned, LBJ benefited greatly from goodwill following JFK’s assassination. Johnson was a smart enough politician to use the Kennedy legacy when he had it. But he didn’t need it. Johnson had been an effective politician in the Senate before he was Vice President and before any Kennedy legacy existed. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/42 "2020-01-14T00:31:50Z")
How should we describe — in the context of this thread — LBJ’s take on Vietnam? Is it that he figured he could sell the American people on what he had in mind, but failed because the electorate simply didn’t want what he thought they’d go for? Or is it that he figured he _couldn’t_ sell ‘em on it, but kept at it anyway? If, hypothetically, he’d been a more ‘politically talented’ president, would that mean successfully selling it ‘as is’ or changing course to market something more, uh, saleable? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 4:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/43 "2020-01-14T04:49:01Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > The problem with putting LBJ at the top is that he benefited greatly from the death of JFK and the country’s outpouring of love for JFK gave his vice president a lot of room to manoever on things like the Great Society. Immediately after Kennedy’s death, Johnson’s approval rating was almost 80%, but by 1965 it was down to 60%, and it kept declining all the way to the mid-30’s. After he announced he wouldn’t run for re-election, it jumped back up over 40%. In the meantime, his disapproval rating slowly climbed from 5% immediately after Kennedy’s death all the way to over 50% by the last year of his Presidency. > > It’s hard to see how that translates into ‘great politician’. The end result of his Presidency was to give Republicans the Presidency which they would keep, with one four-year gap, for a generation. Yes, he got major Democratic legislation passed in the aftermath of the Kennedy assassination when his and the Democrat’s popularity were at all-time highs, but that goodwill was quickly squandered. Any president who presides over a constant decline in popularity, and then chooses not to run rather than lose the next election, is not a great politician. He was also unrefined, crude, and foul-mouthed. If he had been around in the twitter era, he might have been another Trump. > > Reagan is #1 as far as I’m concerned, with Clinton a close second. Reagan’s popularity remained relatively high, even when the nation went into a deep recession to break inflation. After a tough first term that included the recession, Reagan was re-elected in one of the biggest landslides in history, taking 49 out of 50 states. And when he left office he was still popular enough to help launch his vice-President into the Presidency. > > Clinton also expanded his margin in his second term, as did Nixon and Eisenhower. Clinton is perhaps the most gifted natural politician, but his personal failings keep him out of the top spot for me. A great politician wouldn’t have gotten into an affair with an intern, and damned sure wouldn’t have done her in the oval office. Clinton showed (and shows) terrible judgement when it comes to his sex life, and it hurt him badly while in office. > > Both Bushes sucked as politicians. Bush 1 had a 91% approval rating a year from the election, and still lost. Huge gaffes like “Message: I care” (which in turn was uttered because of Bush’s reputation for being a cold fish and an aristocrat who didn’t care about the average person). Bush 1 also tried to run for President before and got stomped by Reagan. Not a great politician, but a good man. > > Bush II was very good at campaigning and coming across as a ‘normal guy’. He was likeable and seemed relatively down-to-earth. But his political instincts were awful, and he had terrible speaking skills. He’s near the bottom of the list with his dad. > > Nixon was a skilled politician but like Clinton had personal flaws that kept him from true greatness. Middle of the pack. > > Obama was a great campaigner, but as a President he proved himself incapable of working with Republicans on many issues, and very early on retreated to ‘using his pen and a phone’, which means almost everything he did was undone by Trump. Also, he horribly mismanaged the rollout of Obamacare, and made gaffes that hardened opposition to him. Despite a friendly media environment and all kinds of help from people like Harry Reid who lied about Romney’s taxes and Candy Crowley who intervened on his behalf in a debate, he almost lost his re-election bid. Middle of the pack. > > Carter actually got quite a lot done. Aside from the things already mentioned, he also appointed Paul Volcker to the fed (probably the best Fed Appointment in history) and started the de-regulation of trucking and airlines, which revolutionized both industries. On the negative side, he also was strongly anti-nuclear, and signed an executive order banning re-processing of nuclear fuel, which led to the nuclear waste problem and helped keep nuclear power from growing. As a result, Carter may be more responsible for climate change damage than any other president. Unfortunately, as a retail politician he was terrible. He gave speeches that were constant downers, and his Presidency was synonymous for ‘Malaise’ for years. He lost in a landslide to Reagan after only one term. And I don’t see how any one-term President could be considered great. > > As for Trump… He has a party trick that got him a whole lot of support from a specific group, but as a working politician he alienates everyone around him, and he can’t keep quality people in his cabinet. His unforced errors in insulting half the country have him capped at a below-50% approval rating at a time when the U.S. economy has been the strongest since the 1990’s. The only way he wins the next election is if the Democrats shoot themselves in the foot. > > A president with Trump’s economy should be sitting in the high 60’s or 70’s. Given where Trump is, he’s a really terrible politician. > > So… > > 1. Reagan > 2. Clinton > 3. Eisenhower > 4. Nixon > 5. Obama > 6. LBJ > 7. Bush II > 8. Bush 1 > 9. Carter > 10. Trump I agree with much of what you said but I think Eisenhower is too high and LBJ and Trump are too low. Eisenhower didn’t do anything great, but wasn’t bad either. He presided over the 50s which were mostly a cooling off period after WWII. The economy was great and the civil rights strife hadn’t started yet. Not much really happened in comparison with other eras. You criticism of LBJ seems to be his poll numbers. That was almost entirely due to Vietnam. Nobody really could have seen the outrage over that coming. Yeah let’s send in some advisors, now a few more advisors, a few troops, a few more troops, and pretty soon we were in a situation where we had to decide if we were going to engage in total war (bad) or withdraw (bad) and Johnson’s just got stuck there. A poor decision, I agree, but not one that speaks to his political ability. The ability, which as noted otherwise, was incredible in his passage of many of the most monumental pieces of legislation in history. Trump is unique and it also calls into question what we mean by “politically talented.” Yes his polls are in the low 40s, but those people will wade through hell to vote for him and support him. All it takes is 270, and if you have 270 is it bad politics to say to hell with everyone else and double down on what you are doing? What’s the alternative? Trump is never going to get 400EVs or have 65% approval rating no matter what he does. He could find Jesus tomorrow, apologize for being so insulting and change his way, and he still probably wouldn’t pick up very much support at all. And doing so would cause his core support to abandon him. If you are incredibly unpopular yet do the only thing that you can to win, you one once, and have a decent shot of doing it again, it’s hard for me to say that is bad political strategy. Carter has to be at the bottom of any of these lists. He inspired nobody, accomplished very little, and projected weakness at all times. Bush II is right above him. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/44 "2020-01-14T04:50:31Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > How should we describe — in the context of this thread — LBJ’s take on Vietnam? Is it that he figured he could sell the American people on what he had in mind, but failed because the electorate simply didn’t want what he thought they’d go for? Or is it that he figured he _couldn’t_ sell ‘em on it, but kept at it anyway? If, hypothetically, he’d been a more ‘politically talented’ president, would that mean successfully selling it ‘as is’ or changing course to market something more, uh, saleable? Johnson was in the same trap that every President from Truman to Ford was in. The only realistic way we could get out of Vietnam was admitting we were losing the war. And no President wanted to do that; they would have paid a serious political price for losing a war. So they just kept prolonging the war, promising we would win it eventually, and passing the war on to the next President. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/45 "2020-01-14T06:12:50Z")
> [@UltraVires](#): > > Eisenhower didn’t do anything great, but wasn’t bad either. He presided over the 50s which were mostly a cooling off period after WWII. The economy was great and the civil rights strife hadn’t started yet. Not much really happened in comparison with other eras. Eisenhower’s a tough President to judge. First off, there’s his image; Eisenhower the politician behind closed doors was a very different that his public persona. A lot of people mistakenly saw him as bumbling. But in reality, he was very aware of what was going on and in control of events. He just thought it would be useful for people to underestimate him. It may have looked like the country was just drifting along during his administration but Eisenhower was steering events. And generally, his decisions were right. But now for Eisenhower’s flaws. First, he wanted to think of himself as being above politics. This meant he often despised some of the people he worked with because he felt they were engaged in what he saw as petty political fighting. But by placing himself above politics in his mind, he often justified engaging in very dirty politics. He would just tell himself that the dirty politics he did didn’t represent his real self; it was just something he had to do because of all the dirty politicians around him. He never saw that all of those politicians he looked down on were probably thinking the same thing. The second flaw was that Eisenhower essentially build up a government that only he could run. He held enormous prestige from his wartime service and he knew how the military worked; and the military knew and respected him. He warned about the danger of a military-industrial complex as he was leaving office. But he had supported the growth of it during the eight years of his presidency. Eisenhower knew that he could safely do this; he could have the benefits of a strong military, defense industry, and intelligence community while having the personal authority to restrain them when they reached too far. But subsequent Presidents, Democrat or Republican, wouldn’t have Eisenhower’s reputation backing them up. The tail would start wagging the dog. Eisenhower should have foreseen this problem and worked on building a more controllable national security apparatus. The third flaw is one where I disagree specifically with something UltraVires wrote. Civil rights was not an issue on the horizon during Eisenhower’s term of office. His years in office were right in the heart of the civil rights movement. And to be blunt, Eisenhower bungled it. He wasn’t an outright racist. But his sympathies were on the wrong side. His attitude seemed to be that black people should stay content with second class citizenship and they shouldn’t provoke white people by asking for equal rights. Eisenhower could also get annoyed with the racists and intervene against them - but he was only angry about them going too far in their actions not because he felt they were fundamentally wrong in their beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![RioRico](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f04885/32.png) [@RioRico](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RioRico)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 8:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/46 "2020-01-14T08:37:55Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > > [@russian heel](#): > > > > Also, the first non-politician to rise to the High Office. > > How about Eisenhower? Or Grant? Or Taylor? Going that route, toss in Washington, Jackson, and WH Harrison. Those are the six whose prior government job title was General. But Tramp never held ANY government position, civilian or military - he’s the only one. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/47 "2020-01-14T15:30:32Z")
I’m standing by my ratings in #27 but, although he might not have been a “talented politician,” I want to defend Eisenhower. Truman had Korea; Kennedy had the Bay of Pigs and worse; Johnson had Vietnam; Reagan had Iran-Contra … but there were few big crises under Ike. Key to a good Presidency isn’t to be clever: It’s to _not make mistakes._ And Ike did have successes; I’ll mention just two: In 1956 he opposed U.K. and stopped a major war over the Suez Canal. In 1957 he nationalized the Arkansas National Guard and sent in troops from the 101st Airborne to enforce a desegregation order. FDR, Truman, Ike. Three very great Presidents in a row. Throw in JFK and LBJ if you will and make it _five very outstanding Presidents in a row_. Sadly, we haven’t seen their like since. ---
**Author:** ![Crane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crane/32/3495_2.png) [@Crane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crane)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2020, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/48 "2020-01-14T22:18:13Z")
Eisenhower ended the Korean War. Had Nixon done the same in Viet Nam he would be celebrated with the greats. ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/49 "2020-01-15T14:50:31Z")
The biggest issue with the way the OP is framed is that running for president and being president are two totally different things, and being skilled at one doesn’t necessarily make one skilled at the other. That being said, here are my two lists with some commentary. Skill at running for president. 1. Reagan. Won with the support of many Democrats in landslide victories. Unlike Ike, the political atmosphere was more partisan when he was running but he overcame that by wife margins. 2. Obama. In 2008 the War On Terror was still big on people’s minds. For a black man with the middle name of Hussein to win shows significant skill. 3. Clinton. Very charismatic and understood the public mood well. 4. Trump. Managed to best a large field of career politicians and win a general election where he was the underdog. 5. Kennedy. Overcame anti-Catholic bias. A less charismatic candidate would have lost to Nixon. 6. Bush Jr. Both elections were close, but I think his people skills were what made the difference in both razor thin elections. 7. Johnson. Better at the backroom deals than the direct interactions with the public. 8. Eisenhower. Times were less partisan but he won comfortably both times. 9. Nixon. Lacked charisma. 10. Bush Sr. Unable to overcome his missteps in office to win a second term due to average charisma. 11. Truman. Declined to run in 1952 due to his unpopularity. 12. Carter. Likely won only because of his image as a humble outside of Washington guy without any hint of scandal, which he made work because it was true in his case. By 1980 when Watergate was fading from memory he couldn’t hack it against a much more skilled Reagan. 13. Ford. Not much need be said. Here’s the other list. Note how different it is, especially with the #1 guy now being last place. 1. LBJ. The Great Society and Civil Rights were huge accompaniments. 2. Eisenhower. Interstate highway system. Integration of public schools. Appointing Earl Warren as Chief Justice (despite his thinking later that was a mistake). General economic prosperity. 3. Nixon. I give him credit for things like opening up China to the west (“only Nixon could go to China), ending the draft, ending Vietnam, and starting the EPA. Despite personally being a racist civil rights made some progress during his term as well. 4. Clinton. Balanced budgets towards the end of his time, but focus on healthcare in his early years led to the 1994 Republican wave that hamstrung him the rest of the way. 5. Bush Sr. End of the Cold War. Handled the first Iraq war quite well. 6. Kennedy. Kept the Cold War from turning into a hot war. 7. Obama. See Clinton as above, but substitute 2010 for 1994 and take away the balanced budgets. Pluses would be the progress in civil rights for LGBT people. 8. Ford. Pardoned Nixon. 9. Carter. In over his head with stagflation and the Iranian revolution. 10. Bush Jr. Bungled the War On Terror. 11. Truman. His handling of the Korean War and beginning of the Cold War. 12. Trump. Singlehandedly has destroyed the US position as leader of the free world. Running the presidency for his personal benefit. 13. Reagan. Due to his Alzheimer’s it’s likely that successes during his term were due to his cabinet and staff rather than him personally making policy decisions. ---
**Author:** ![FlikTheBlue](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fliktheblue/32/10972_2.png) [@FlikTheBlue](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlikTheBlue)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/50 "2020-01-15T15:06:46Z")
My mistake on one thing on the above list. I should have given credit for the end of Vietnam to Ford rather than Nixon. None the less I think Nixon did accomplish several things which those of us on the left would point to as great accomplishments had they been done by a Democrat. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/51 "2020-01-15T15:13:02Z")
> [@FlikTheBlue](#): > > My mistake on one thing on the above list. I should have given credit for the end of Vietnam to Ford rather than Nixon. None the less I think Nixon did accomplish several things which those of us on the left would point to as great accomplishments had they been done by a Democrat. I should think that no one would want credit for any part of our involvement in the Vietnam War, be it beginning, middle, or end. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/52 "2020-01-15T15:19:28Z")
Tidbit on Ronald Reagan: Just found out that while watching the movie 1983 “War Games” Reagan grew so concerned about the movies concept of a hacker breaking into the defense departments computers the next day he asked his defense secretary to look into it. He did and quickly reported back that it was indeed a problem (partially because the US had been hacking other countries computers) and Reagan soon signed legislation protecting the nations computer systems. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 3:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/53 "2020-01-15T15:35:12Z")
> [@Crane](#): > > Hmmm…most politically talented - setting aside politics > > 1. LBJ - The most politically astute in affairs of office > 2. Nixon - Similar to LBJ in office > 3. Truman - unpopular incumbent who beat Dewey > 4. Obama, Clinton, JFK - experts at the art of the political campaign > 5. HW Bush - Politically skilled - the best choice for the Reagan reconstruction > 6. Ike - an astute, moderate politician (but I voted for Stevenson) > 7. Reagan, W Bush - inept objects who fronted for the establishment > 8. Carter - an honest man and an inept politician > 9. Ford - largely apolitical > 10, In a normal distribution there will be rare cases that fall outside the 3 sigma points. They are statistical outliers that are best removed from consideration because they pollute the data. Such a one is Trump. I’m just going to copy this and sign my name to it, since I agree with both the rankings and the concise rationales. That said, I’d probably put Reagan just above rather than equal with W on the basis of Reagan’s greater charisma and communication skills, but I agree that both Reagan and W coasted on their folksy charm while corrupt individuals in their administrations actually ran things (and screwed them up royally). ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/54 "2020-01-15T16:43:45Z")
If you combine the two aspects of campaigning and governing, then Reagan was the most talented. He understood the office of the presidency and how to leverage its power better than any politician since FDR. The 1986 tax reform was a towering achievement in a second term that only someone as talented as Reagan could have achieved. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/55 "2020-01-15T17:28:39Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > If you combine the two aspects of campaigning and governing, then Reagan was the most talented. He understood the office of the presidency and how to leverage its power better than any politician since FDR. The 1986 tax reform was a towering achievement in a second term that only someone as talented as Reagan could have achieved. However, prior to Trump Reagan held the record for most members of his administration indicted. That’s not a sign of great governing. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2020, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/56 "2020-01-15T17:42:03Z")
> [@RioRico](#): > > Going that route, toss in Washington, Jackson, and WH Harrison. Those are the six whose prior government job title was General. But Tramp never held ANY government position, civilian or military - he’s the only one. No, all three of them had held elected offices before becoming President. Washington had been elected for several terms in the Virginia legislature. Jackson and Harrison had both been Senators. ---
**Author:** ![fedman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/278dde/32.png) [@fedman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fedman)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/57 "2020-01-22T17:55:04Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > As I mentioned, LBJ benefited greatly from goodwill following JFK’s assassination. He started his presidency with an 80% approval rating and only a 5% disapproval rating. He also presided during a 26 year stretch in which Democrats had a stranglehold on the House and Senate. > > Nonetheless, despite all that wind at his back, his approval ratings plummeted steadily and his disapproval rose, leading him to decline to run for another term rather than almost certainly lose. In his last year his approval rating was in the 30’s and his disapproval over 50%. Both recovered slightly after he announced he wouldn’t run. > > So how exactly was he so great? He was a decent wheeler-dealer in backrooms, but as a retail politician he sucked. LBJ “lost” approval ratings due to Vietnam, not the rest of his policies (I will note that his pushing Civil Rights/Voting Rights Acts probably cost him Southern support) ---
**Author:** ![fedman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/278dde/32.png) [@fedman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fedman)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/58 "2020-01-22T18:03:46Z")
why is everyone ignoring Bush 2 mishandling Hurricane Katrina? ---
**Author:** ![Sterling\_Archer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Sterling\_Archer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterling_Archer)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/59 "2020-01-22T21:32:57Z")
You think Trump is a great orator? Better than Obama? Ridiculous. Obama and Kennedy are clearly 1 & 2, in some order, probably Eisenhower third because seems like everybody likes Ike. ---
**Author:** ![Sterling\_Archer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/f1d935/32.png) [@Sterling\_Archer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterling_Archer)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2020, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271/60 "2020-01-22T21:44:39Z")
Interesting how people define politically talented in totally different ways. Some seem to define it as getting things done in spite of how much of the country feels about you. LBJ was great at that, super effective, but I wouldn’t call it politically effective. I assumed it was about winning people over to your side who are not predisposed to support you and ending up with the majority of people feeling like you accomplished good things with your time in office. Carter would rank very low on that scale. Despite being a good man who did good things while in office, the general public sentiment was that he made the economy continue to worsen, so politically I consider him low on the list. Trump is a complete fool who lies constantly and most of the country hates his guts. Bottom of the list. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/since-ww2-who-has-been-the-most-politcaly-talented-president-setting-aside-politics/846271.md?page=4)