The poll numbers are interesting, but they lack a dimension. Perhaps Carter was indeed approved by only 34% of the people (I’m proud to be among them). But of the 66% that did not approve, how many of them actually hated him? Similarly, only 53% approved of Ford but I dare say that few of the other 47% hated him. Although Clinton’s approval numbers are much better than Ford’s, I believe that the percentage of people that hated Clinton exceeds those that hated Ford. What I see in Reagan, Clinton, and Bush II is that many more people have strong feelings one way or another. You don’t feel neutral about those 3, you either love them or hate them.
I have to agree with Bob. The polling numbers would be a better measure if they split responses into more categories-- eg, “strongly disaprove”, “disaprove”, etc. Then we might look at who had the highest numbers in te extreme categories. But, even then they suffer from the problems pointed out by Xtisme.
I said it was a good metric, not the only one. And this thread is pretty full of opinions and short on metrics of any sort, so it’s a start.
Gallup data on historical disapproval ratings (of whatever intensity) - not the same as lowest approval ratings.
For the time frame specified in the OP, measured at peak, the least-approved-of rankings would be
Nixon 66%
GHWB 60
Carter 59
GWB 58 (yesterday’s Harris poll) - no sign of bottoming out yet, trend still down
Reagan 56
Clinton 54
Ford not available
So is the question who was hated by more people or hated the most intensely or some multiple of each? Or do you offset the positive feelings too? (It’s so to quantify this stuff. :))
Seriously, I think that the Presidents in closely divided electorates often had the most intense feelings generated. Clinton was loved and hated, so was Nixon and so is Dubya. By the end few still loved Nixon so all you had left were the haters, a few who just disappointed, and a very few who stood by their man. Clinton kept his lovers and haters both, and more loved him than not. Bush Jr. has always been a near split between the intense lovers and haters, but some of the lovers are falling off his wagon, and some of the mild likers are turning to mild dislikers.
So I’ll vote Nixon, even though he wasn’t really so much a bad President, as just a vile despicable amoral person throughout both his personal and professional lives. And Bush Jr. is gaining, only because he’s losing some of the positive feeling offsetters as he goes. Clinton third because his haters hated him so very much, even though his lovers offset them quite a bit. Few people hated Ford or Carter or even LBJ even if many disapproved or even disliked them.
On a related tangent: Many, including myself feel Nixon was a despicable person but an OK to Good President.
On this note; maybe comment on this: effectiveness as President vs. the Person of the President vs. Have over for a large BBQ (please have a small sense of humor on this)
Nixon__Good____Rotten to the Core____Never. He was basically Evil
Ford___Poor____Ok, nice guy____Definitely, He would probably bring the beer
Carter__Poor____Great and honest man___Ok, but probably boring Engineering Nerd type
Reagan_Good____Little Crazy then Senile__Ok, but can he leave the wife at home?
Bush Sr._Poor____Out of touch___Pass on him, Projectile Vomit.
Clinton__Very Good_Sleazebag liar__He would hit on everyone’s wife & daughter, but he plays a mean sax
Bush Jr._Very Bad_On the dumb side and belligerent__He can talk baseball forever and I bet he’s great on the Grill.
I like that scale, jrfranci. My president/person/bbq scale:
Nixon: Semi-competent / untrustworthy / I’d rather have ants
Ford: Not up to job / Decent enough / Sure
Carter: Underrated and unlucky / most moral in history / Sure
Reagan: Overrated and lucky / Affable outside, dark inside / Sure
Bush I : Forgettable / prissy and shrill / Not on your life
Clinton: Competent / fun guy / Sure
Bush II: Worst in history / Worst in history / only if he sits in dunk tank
I have what I call the “elevator test”: Which president would you prefer to be stuck in a broken elevator with for six hours?
I think that many people are actually answering this question asked how good a president someone was.
The second sentence above should read:
“I think that many people are actually answering this question when asked how good a president someone was.”
Stuck in Elevator, Clinton would be the most entertaining unless you could get Ronny talking about old Hollywood.
But I am a rabid Baseball fan and I would probably be able to talk Baseball with Bush Jr. for 6 hours. So while I think he is the worst Pres, I would have to pick Bush Jr. for the stuck in the elevator poll.
Emphasis added. I don’t get this. Why is it such a popular opinion? Do people mean: most adhering to Christian morals? I’m genuinely confused over this meme, except that he’s done lots of charity work since he was president. But even then, what does that have to do with his actual presidency?
It was talking about the man not his presidency. Read over what he was replying too.
Emphasis added.
:). But talk about someone whose favorability rating has changed since the associated presidential term!! Many of her detractors have come around to seeing her in a much more favorable light. Apparently she makes a much better ex-first lady than an incumbent first lady.
Then that’s even more confusing. The most moral man in history??? Surely not…
Most moral President. Which I would actually agree with. He was actually too nice for the job. Based on Nixon & Clinton I would say you can be Evil or a SLeaze and still be a good President.
Carter has appeared to be an honest to God nice man and honest politician. (I would say he’s the only one I know of) He was a terrible President with some wonderful ideas.
:), OK, we’ve come full circle then. But you still haven’t answered my “why” question. All you’ve done is restated the premise. Why is he considered so moral?
I’d think being ‘moral’ would be a huge strike against the man on this board. It is interesting to debate with folks who actually have fond memories of Jimmy the Peanut Man. The only thing I can think of favorable about Jimmy was the rabbit incident.
-XT
Clinton would be my pick – not only interesting to talk to, but I wouldn’t have to choose words around him. Heck, we could trade dirty jokes. (Picture doing that with Carter! :eek: )
Reagan when he was younger would have been an interesting man to talk to – a book of his letters showed him as very articulate, even poetic sometimes. (Less so as president, but who isn’t at 70+). William F. Buckley once said RR was the smartest person he’d ever met, and while I know Buckley is ideological brethren to RR, he doesn’t throw comments like that around – AFAIK, he’s never said anything similar about GWB.
I can’t imagine Bush being an informative conversationalist, whether you agree with his views or not. Information and ideas seem like means to the end of politics for him. I might be able to talk about baseball with him (I was a baseball fanatic when young, but haven’t followed it much in decades – it would depend on whether our knowledge overlapped). But the minute he brought up religion, this atheist would get really quiet. On the upside, if I had a bottle on me, I wouldn’t have to share it.
He was perceived as honest before election which helped him get elected after the Nixon “I am not a liar” years.
He never had any scandal associated with him, and minimal Cabinet scandals.
His Ex-Presidency he has cemented his Rep as the Honest and moral man.
Whether building homes, or over-seeing elections overseas or brokering peace accords.
And even though that killer rabbit was coming straight at him he bravely pushed it away with a paddle instead of giving it a wack. Of course, what about the whole Playboy thing…?
-XT