Since President polls seem to be popular nowadays.
Bill Pullman
Virginia and Ohio contend with each other in having produced the largest number of presidents. Both claim William Henry Harrison – born in Virginia, and congressman and senator from Ohio – but he is arguably the one with the least achievements, since most of his administration he was sick from a fatal illness that he got at his inaugural address.
James Knox Polk, for failing in his attempt to purchase Cuba from the Spanish, and leading the way to a potential communist threat on America’s borders.
The ones that will probably get the most votes are the ones in living memory but they are a pale comparison to the royal fuckups of the past. I voted for Andrew Jackson just because he didn’t have many good presidential traits and was a terrible person in general but he has stiff competition from others like Andrew Johnson and Grant. You have to go past #5 worst at least before you hit any modern ones. The early ones were unusually good in general but there were lots of failures spread over the middle era and only a few good successes like Lincoln. The worst of the modern presidents can’t compete with the really bad ones.
Leading to his lesser known nickname “Lenin of the Stump.”
Dubya.
Dubya and Buchanan.
John Tyler is the only President to be an outright traitor, accepting office in the Confederacy. That to me makes him markedly worse than any other President we’ve ever had. Modern observers bitch mightily about Bush as the “worst person in the history of the world” but in reality John Tyler was worse in almost every way. His views were antithetical to the existence of the United States, and that was as true during his Presidency as after. If not for his treasonous actions in late life Tyler would still be considered one of the 5-6 worst Presidents based on his record in office.
After Tyler the following four are also unambiguously bad Presidents.
[ul]
[li]James Buchanan[/li][li]Warren Harding[/li][li]Ulysses Grant[/li][li]Franklin Pierce[/li][/ul]
To me, those individual are distinguished from figures like James Garfield, Millard Fillmore, W.H. Harrison, Andrew Johnson, Zachary Taylor or Martin van Buren who were highly ineffective Presidents. The four listed above + Tyler essentially and through individual acts lead to the United States being worse. Guys like Garfield/Harrison/Taylor mostly made no impression on the United States because they died so quickly.
It’s sad that I have to list Grant among the “truly bad Presidents” because his pre-Presidential record rightly makes Grant the second greatest hero of the country after Lincoln, but his incompetence as President genuinely lead to a decades long period of corruption, public distrust, and general failure in government. Grant can be seen as ushering in the ugliness of gilded age politics in the United States, not through malice, but through simple incompetence and ineffective governance.
What’s notable is Nixon isn’t on this list despite the fact he was damn near impeached and would have been had he not resigned. The truth is, even with his gross ethics violations Nixon is still genuinely better than all the other Presidents I’ve listed as “bad.”
Ulysses Grant though did try to improve the conditions of blacks in the US and helped the 15th Amendment pass and suppress the KKK,.
Reagan sold weapons to the enemy.
I don’t really believe a meaningful discussion can follow, but I will say that is an ambiguous claim.
John Tyler became a member of the Confederacy’s government, at a time when the Confederacy and the United States were in outright war. That is as unambiguous as it gets.
It was a tossup between Jimmy and Barry, so I went with the more recent one. Why? He still has a chance to fix things, and the fact that he doesn’t means he’s all the worse for it.
Actually Grant’s Presidency almost certainly harmed his party so much as to result in Hayes essentially losing election but being given the Presidency in a compromise in which Hayes agreed to end Reconstruction. That began a terrible turn in conditions of blacks in the South. Had grant been even modestly competent most likely Tilden (a Democrat) would have never been in a position that would enable Democrats to forge such a compromise.
Nixon was the only one who had to resign in disgrace. There are other candidates, of course, including W.H. Harrison, Buchanan, Harding, and GW Bush.
Nixon was not without some skill and talent, though. He was corrupt and paranoid, but not incompetent. Harding was worthless in basically every way.
On the other hand he freed antiwar people such as Eugene V Debs who had imprisoned by Wilson.
jeez thats a tough call, can I have the multiple choice version of the test please? carter still makes me shudder when he opens his mouth, but not him since his election campaign was when I first became “politically aware” at age six, bush sr? jr? For right now I think the clintons are going to fade into obscurity and not be remembered much, can I pick two? would be tween bush sr and obama
Unsurprisingly George W Bush is beating people like James Buchanan who let America fall into civil war. :rolleyes:
People remember Bush. Still, rating Bush at the bottom is nowhere near as silly as rating Obama there.