Poll: Obama worst president since WWII

[apdst]

*correction for thread name*

Obama BELIEVED to be worst president since WWII

Which I find laughable anyway but that's beside the point.

Perception is reality, especially in Obama's case. :shrug:

 

[Gringo allstar]

Even today the majority of Americans if anyone knows little about Obama's past. Still no college transcripts, draft registration records, passport/visa records, student loan records from Occidental, why he attended a racist church for ten years, why would he associate with a known terrorist, where was he on the night of 9-11-11 ?

Well we do know one thing for sure, he never made the Deans List at any college he attended. Those list arI'lllways published.

This^^^ Funny that somehow nimby knows all this about his past yet we the people know very little, seeing how his transcripts are sealed?? Where are all these great papers the genius wrote in school? How does someone get into ivy leauge schools when by his OWN admission he was constantly high on pot and blew off H.S. ?? What were his grades?? Did he even register for the draft, im willing to bet he didn't, so if you can maybe link me to a reputable website nimby, with actual proof of his intellectual prowess ill be more prone to take you serious.

 

[Perotista]

Perception is reality, especially in Obama's case. :shrug:

Voter perception is reality in the world of politics. Timing also plays such an important element when it comes to elections. Bush the first would have possibly carried all 50 states if his re-election was held shortly after the gulf war, desert storm. Reagan probably would have lost if his re-election was scheduled for 1982 or 83 before the economy rebounded. If Obama's re-election was held this year instead of 2012, I am sure he would lose.

 

[apdst]

Voter perception is reality in the world of politics. Timing also plays such an important element when it comes to elections. Bush the first would have possibly carried all 50 states if his re-election was held shortly after the gulf war, desert storm. Reagan probably would have lost if his re-election was scheduled for 1982 or 83 before the economy rebounded. If Obama's re-election was held this year instead of 2012, I am sure he would lose.

Conditions were ripe for an Obama defeat, except a lot of important information was covered up by the White House and the press.

 

[Gringo allstar]

As far as the racist church part, did you know that Rev. Wright served as a medic and went into enemy fire to drag out wounded brothers of yours?

Now compare that to your chickenhawk heroes like Cheney and Nugent and LIEmbaugh .

So its ok to run a racist hate spewing church as long as you served in the military??? Is this the best you got??? Man you are reaching.

 

[Perotista]

Conditions were ripe for an Obama defeat, except a lot of important information was covered up by the White House and the press.

I agree Obama was a very vulnerable sitting president. But Romney wasn't the right candidate to beat him. I am not sure there was a right candidate in the field put forth for the Republican nomination. That happens, Bill Clinton and George Bush both could have been beaten by the right candidate, but Dole and Kerry weren't those candidates. I don't think George Washington or Abraham Lincoln could have beaten Reagan in 1984 and no candidate could have beaten LBJ in 1964 or Eisenhower in 1956. Some elections are like this too.

 

[apdst]

This^^^ Funny that somehow nimby knows all this about his past yet we the people know very little, seeing how his transcripts are sealed?? Where are all these great papers the genius wrote in school? How does someone get into ivy leauge schools when by his OWN admission he was constantly high on pot and blew off H.S. ?? What were his grades?? Did he even register for the draft, im willing to bet he didn't, so if you can maybe link me to a reputable website nimby, with actual proof of his intellectual prowess ill be more prone to take you serious.

What's funnier, is that when polls suggested Bush 43 was the worst and Obama was awesome, the Libbos were ready to take poll results to the bank. Now, polls mean nothing, all of a sudden.

 

[Gringo allstar]

Conditions were ripe for an Obama defeat, except a lot of important information was covered up by the White House and the press.

Let's not forget Candy Crowley, because we all know the moderator of a debate always helps out their candidate. " can you say that louder Candy"

 

[apdst]

I agree Obama was a very vulnerable sitting president. But Romney wasn't the right candidate to beat him. I am not sure there was a right candidate in the field put forth for the Republican nomination. That happens, Bill Clinton and George Bush both could have been beaten by the right candidate, but Dole and Kerry weren't those candidates. I don't think George Washington or Abraham Lincoln could have beaten Reagan in 1984 and no candidate could have beaten LBJ in 1964 or Eisenhower in 1956. Some elections are like this too.

If the people would have known then what they know now, anyone coukd have won against Obama. Part of the problem was the press covering for Obama. An example is the truckload of press coverage about the-dog-on-da-roofgate, and so little about the IRS violating the civil rights of American citizens for political reasons.

 

[code1211]

Poll: Obama worst president since WWII - Jonathan Topaz - POLITICO.com

What is truly amazing is the popularity of Reagan after the constant drum beat that he was a somewhat senile idiot who really didn't understand what was going on.

Given that Obama is hailed as the smartest President to ever steal from us, maybe we need a somewhat senile idiot who can start a 25 year economic boom, rebuild our international prestige and strike a little terror into the hearts of our enemies.

The current genius is a loser on all levels and a failure in every arena.

Looks like despite the adoring, fawning press idolizing him and blowing him kisses in every press conference as he answers their fan club questions, the reality is leaking out.

 

[code1211]

I'm guessing you didn't click on the link? Look at the article title.

From the link:

According to a Quinnipiac University poll released Wednesday, 33 percent of voters think the current president is the worst since 1945.

Obama’s predecessor, former President George W. Bush, came in at second-worst with 28 percent, and Richard Nixon was in third place with 13 percent of the vote. After Jimmy Carter, who 8 percent of voters said was the worst president in the time period, no other president received more than 3 percent.

Poll: Obama worst president since WWII - Jonathan Topaz - POLITICO.com

In all fairness to Jimmy carter, He would have gotten more votes as the worst, but he is only a shadow of the incompetent boob currently in the office and the current guy is also corrupt and working to actively undermine the Republic and the Constitution.

Carter was a well intentioned incompetent. Obama is a subversive partisan hack who also happens to be incompetent.

 

[code1211]

I'm guessing you didn't even half digest what I said?

People's opinions at this point doesn't mean ****.

What is that called again? Argumentum ad populum? I think that was the correct term. believing something is automatically positively true because people think it's true (classic!).

Reversing the logical connection, it could be that because it is true, people are starting to believe it.

 

[code1211]

Both Carter and Bush 2 were worse and that is not even considering Tricky Dick Nixon who was in a class by himself and you can go all the way back to POTUS one for that comparison.

The stats don't back you up.

Obama is the worst on paper and in the real world.

He's an outstanding carnival barker, though.

 

[bubbabgone]

What is truly amazing is the popularity of Reagan after the constant drum beat that he was a somewhat senile idiot who really didn't understand what was going on.

Given that Obama is hailed as the smartest President to ever steal from us, maybe we need a somewhat senile idiot who can start a 25 year economic boom, rebuild our international prestige and strike a little terror into the hearts of our enemies.

The current genius is a loser on all levels and a failure in every arena.

Looks like despite the adoring, fawning press idolizing him and blowing him kisses in every press conference as he answers their fan club questions, the reality is leaking out.

I'd like to believe that because it's true.

And if it was anyone else it might influence their behavior, but a guy with Obama's massive self-admiration only cares insofar as how it might affect the amount of Leftist damage he can do in his remaining 2 years.

 

[APACHERAT]

Conditions were ripe for an Obama defeat, except a lot of important information was covered up by the White House and the press.

Like Obama telling the American people that "Al Qaeda is being decimated and is on the run."

Today Al Qaeda has a real army in Iraq.

 

[code1211]

Carter was better mannered, more humble, and more likely to work with both sides politically to get things done than Obama. Carter was worse in other areas and really became as nit-wit in his later years but I attribute that to advancing age.

Carter was not that old when in office. 56 when he ascended to office.

 

[code1211]

In the warped mind of the right, maybe.

Care to list the litany of successes by the current President?

 

[code1211]

And then we have FOX-morons sarcastically quipping that the Prez should have been in Brazil to cheer the team on.
Just imagine the phony poutrage from righties on dp of how much money that might cost, plus the huge traffic jams and security nightmares.
Obama should have sent A. Coulter as his soccer ambassador .

Who said he should be there?

 

[code1211]

In what way was Bush 2 better?

Better is too strong a word.

Less damaging is a better way to put it.

 

[imagep]

If the people would have known then what they know now, anyone coukd have won against Obama. Part of the problem was the press covering for Obama. An example is the truckload of press coverage about the-dog-on-da-roofgate, and so little about the IRS violating the civil rights of American citizens for political reasons.

None of that stuff would have made any difference to the people who voted for Obama.

Anyhow, we vote for presidents based upon the economy (which is why Obama was elected the first time). None of that had any effect on the economy. Bush set a a low bar on economic performance, Obama exceeded that bar and was reelected. Thats all he had to do - just have an economy that was better than it was when Bush left office.

 

[code1211]

I agree Obama was a very vulnerable sitting president. But Romney wasn't the right candidate to beat him. I am not sure there was a right candidate in the field put forth for the Republican nomination. That happens, Bill Clinton and George Bush both could have been beaten by the right candidate, but Dole and Kerry weren't those candidates. I don't think George Washington or Abraham Lincoln could have beaten Reagan in 1984 and no candidate could have beaten LBJ in 1964 or Eisenhower in 1956. Some elections are like this too.

I'm not sure Washington would have had the stomach to run a political campaign in this climate of lies, hate and division.

 

[apdst]

None of that stuff would have made any difference to the people who voted for Obama.

Anyhow, we vote for presidents based upon the economy (which is why Obama was elected the first time). None of that had any effect on the economy. Bush set a a low bar on economic performance, Obama exceeded that bar and was reelected. Thats all he had to do - just have an economy that was better than it was when Bush left office.

I bet you're wrong, too.

 

[code1211]

None of that stuff would have made any difference to the people who voted for Obama.

Anyhow, we vote for presidents based upon the economy (which is why Obama was elected the first time). None of that had any effect on the economy. Bush set a a low bar on economic performance, Obama exceeded that bar and was reelected. Thats all he had to do - just have an economy that was better than it was when Bush left office.

A lot of the "bettereness" was the impression set forth by the lip stick the press was smearing on the pig.

 

[Perotista]

If the people would have known then what they know now, anyone coukd have won against Obama. Part of the problem was the press covering for Obama. An example is the truckload of press coverage about the-dog-on-da-roofgate, and so little about the IRS violating the civil rights of American citizens for political reasons.

The IRS scandal didn't become known until May of last year if i remember right. Besides both Romney and Obama spent a billion dollars each. I am not sure if any further advertising would have done any good. There comes a point in time when people just get tired of political ads regardless of who is airing them. Like it or not, Romney had a trust factor even among Republicans that wasn't there for Obama. The timing of the election was perfect for Obama, he was at his high of a 52% approval rating where Romney was never higher than 44%. In fact Romney's disapproval rating were higher than his approval ones except right after the first debate when they were tied at 44% each.

But that is history, I could go into more detail but let's just say Romney's campaign was minor league compared to Obama's.

 

[Jack Hays]

None of that stuff would have made any difference to the people who voted for Obama.

Anyhow, we vote for presidents based upon the economy (which is why Obama was elected the first time). None of that had any effect on the economy. Bush set a a low bar on economic performance, Obama exceeded that bar and was reelected. Thats all he had to do - just have an economy that was better than it was when Bush left office.

Since average unemployment under GWB was a little under 5.3% and under BHO it's at least two points higher, I'm not sure many would agree that BHO has done better on the economy.eace