• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Presidential Scholar Survey ranks The Presidents

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
112,907
Reaction score
60,363
Location
Sarasota Fla
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Survey finds FDR best president - Washington Times

For the fifth time in five surveys, Franklin D. Roosevelt tops a Siena College survey of the best U.S. presidents, the school said Thursday.

Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, Theodore Roosevelt and Thomas Jefferson — the four faces of Mount Rushmore — are all runner-ups, according to 238 historians, presidential scholars and political scientists who participated in the Siena College Research Institute Survey of U.S. Presidents.

Of the other recent presidents, Bill Clinton ranked 13th, Ronald Reagan ranked 18th, George H.W. Bush ranked 22nd, and Jimmy Carter ranked 32nd.

Obama ranked 15th, George HW Bush was 39th.

Ah, found it, the home source: News Detail

Found it interesting that the Roosevelts where 1 and 2.
 
I was always under the impression a person is graded for their term of office after they have either completed it or been impeached.
 
Automatically, I would say including Obama and GW Bush is absurd. Not possible to rank their Presidencies without at least 10 years of historical context.
 
Automatically, I would say including Obama and GW Bush is absurd. Not possible to rank their Presidencies without at least 10 years of historical context.

Oh, I agree, and I was mostly interested in the top 10 and bottom 5. I did find that Clinton was ranked higher than Reagan entertaining though I will admit.
 
Oh, I agree, and I was mostly interested in the top 10 and bottom 5. I did find that Clinton was ranked higher than Reagan entertaining though I will admit.

You do realize that this is going to turn into an FDR bashing thread by conservatives... and especially libertarians, right?
 
You do realize that this is going to turn into an FDR bashing thread by conservatives... and especially libertarians, right?

That was what I expected when I posted it actually, but it's one of those things I found interesting. The list is meaningless in itself, and subjective, but also fun and interesting.
 
As one who reads a lot about Presidents, I didn't agree with some of the rankings. I'm not sure I would put FDR first; I'd probably rank Lincoln and TR slightly higher. To me, FDR's court packing plan cannot be ignored as being very significant. I also think Ike should get kudos for being one of the luckiest Presidents. He was in charge during an era of prosperity and did little but play golf in 8 years. Then again, he didn't really have to do much. I cannot believe that Coolidge is not ranked in the bottom 5. Worst President of the 20th Century. Here's someone who's lack of action helped cause a catastrophe... the Great Depression. Oh, and as far as luck goes, along with Ike, Washington was one of the luckiest Presidents. I've never been much of a fan. Only reason, to me, that he gets a lot of credit for things is because he did them FIRST. I'd move Adams up and both Madison and Monroe down.

Eh, but ultimately, this is all opinion based on what an individual deems as important in a President.
 
If you guys want, I'll refrain from posting bad things about FDR. :D

A while back the history channel did a similar survey and Reagan was listed as number 1.
Not that I agree with that either. :shrug:

I think a discussion about the merits of Clinton vs. Reagan would be interesting. Both had strengths and weaknesses. Though I would rank Clinton slightly higher, this would be a debate that would go SO along party lines it would be ridiculous.
 
I think a discussion about the merits of Clinton vs. Reagan would be interesting. Both had strengths and weaknesses. Though I would rank Clinton slightly higher, this would be a debate that would go SO along party lines it would be ridiculous.

Some things I'm dealing with about guns reminded me of bad Clinton.
At the moment I'm not a happy camper with him.

Reagan isn't much better though either.
 
Some things I'm dealing with about guns reminded me of bad Clinton.
At the moment I'm not a happy camper with him.

Reagan isn't much better though either.

Each had some definite weakness, but both had strengths, too. In fact, one thing they both had in common were their abilities to communicate and connect with the population.
 
Each had some definite weakness, but both had strengths, too. In fact, one thing they both had in common were their abilities to communicate and connect with the population.

Definitely, both had high charisma levels.
I think that lends to them being well regarded.
 
Definitely, both had high charisma levels.
I think that lends to them being well regarded.

Yup. Look at the top members of that list. MOST of them has high charisma levels. Now, I agree that connecting to the people is vitally important in setting a positive morale for the country... especially when things are not going well. I think this was one of FDR's gifts... and one of GWB's great weaknesses. And though this may be a superficial strength, as we know in the military, a leader's ability to instill morale in his troops can make the difference between victory and defeat. Much of success is belief in one's self... or one's leaders or one's environment.
 
As one who reads a lot about Presidents, I didn't agree with some of the rankings. I'm not sure I would put FDR first; I'd probably rank Lincoln and TR slightly higher. To me, FDR's court packing plan cannot be ignored as being very significant. I also think Ike should get kudos for being one of the luckiest Presidents. He was in charge during an era of prosperity and did little but play golf in 8 years. Then again, he didn't really have to do much. I cannot believe that Coolidge is not ranked in the bottom 5. Worst President of the 20th Century. Here's someone who's lack of action helped cause a catastrophe... the Great Depression. Oh, and as far as luck goes, along with Ike, Washington was one of the luckiest Presidents. I've never been much of a fan. Only reason, to me, that he gets a lot of credit for things is because he did them FIRST. I'd move Adams up and both Madison and Monroe down.

Eh, but ultimately, this is all opinion based on what an individual deems as important in a President.

Did you read how they did the rankings? It was not just "list the presidents in order", it was list them in order for 20 traits, and the list is a composite of that. That is why FDR is tops on the list, though I doubt many would list him just as the best president.
 
If you guys want, I'll refrain from posting bad things about FDR. :D

A while back the history channel did a similar survey and Reagan was listed as number 1.
Not that I agree with that either. :shrug:

I do not have a problem with you criticizing FDR.
 
Each had some definite weakness, but both had strengths, too. In fact, one thing they both had in common were their abilities to communicate and connect with the population.

I think another thing that they both had was an ability to get what they wanted from congress. Both of them pushed lots of things through a congress generally opposed to them.
 
I think another thing that they both had was an ability to get what they wanted from congress. Both of them pushed lots of things through a congress generally opposed to them.

FDR is the single most important cause for the bloated federal government we have to day and along with it the massive numbers of people who look to the government to take care of them
 
FDR is the single most important cause for the bloated federal government we have to day and along with it the massive numbers of people who look to the government to take care of them

Did you reply to the wrong post?
 
Did you reply to the wrong post?

yeah it should have been to the one mentioning FDR but it is responsive to the thread-those who rank FDR one clearly support parasitic statist income redistribution
 
yeah it should have been to the one mentioning FDR but it is responsive to the thread-those who rank FDR one clearly support parasitic statist income redistribution

I again point out that the survey was not "rank the presidents overall best to worst", but was instead "rank the presidents, best to worst in 20 categories". In other words, they where not calling FDR the best president necessarily, but that he scored highest overall in the categories ranked.
 
I again point out that the survey was not "rank the presidents overall best to worst", but was instead "rank the presidents, best to worst in 20 categories". In other words, they where not calling FDR the best president necessarily, but that he scored highest overall in the categories ranked.

I think you are trying to spin their obvious intent. And the bias in their findings is obvious. Ranking Bush or Obama is a complete abortion at this point. How do they rank intelligence? Yeah Obama was on the Harvard Law review but yet he didn't even make basic honors at columbia and clearly was accepted into harvard because he was black. BUsh I on the other hand was summa cum laude at Yale and Phi Beta Kappa and Nixon was in the top three of his class at Duke law and Jefferson for example was well regarded as a genius. But what about say Andrew Jackson or Grant? HTF do historians measure men like that?
 
I also note the oozing bias of the group that did that report
 
Rating presidents is so subjective that it seems a little strange for an "expert" opinion to be more meaningful than anyone else's opinion.
 
Rating presidents is so subjective that it seems a little strange for an "expert" opinion to be more meaningful than anyone else's opinion.

I don't think any one has claimed there was any particular meaning to it. It's just an interesting exercise.
 
Back
Top Bottom