Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And GWB is now fondly remembered in comparison with Trump.
The most dastardly legacy of Trump. Bush was an affable guy, but awful president. Most would still take him back if it meant we could get back to any sense of normalcy, like arguing about policy rather than whether we have a traitor in the WH.
I was too young when Ronnie was president I liked Clinton "so he got a hummer big deal" Most president got a lot more which he might of. Obama was next in like for me. Didn't like the ACA and being forced to pay for it but as a whole I can't complain otherwise.
"More than four-in-ten (44%) say Obama is the best or second best president of their lifetimes, compared with about a third who mention Bill Clinton (33%) or Ronald Reagan (32%)."
Summary - among people alive today, Obama is far ahead in their views of the best or 2nd best in their lifetimes.
JFK and Bill Clinton were my best.
Reagan, Bush JR., and Obama were my worst...... until the Russian butt-kissing/anti Democracy Fascist Trump!
I'd be curious how they manage to avoid age bias and other challenges in this poll given that for someone that is say 25 they pretty much have 2 choices as they were 0-7 during Clinton and 7-15 during Bush and probably don't have that much of a clue as to what actually occurred during their presidencies.
For example, how many 25yos know what NAFTA is? Probably a decent %. How many knows who signed it? 10% or less probably.
However, if they just poll 70 year olds (for example) then they have to fix any sort of political bias that is age associated and so forth.
Not saying they didn't do this, I just think it would be a pretty big challenge getting your polling group *right* for this oddly specific of a question.
Hey look, I like Obama and it would be cool if this poll article thing were meaningful, but it really isn't. The reason I say that, is that the article itself says that they polled 2002 Americans. And then uses data from that small a sample size, and tries to extrapolate it onto 325.7 million Americans? I don't care how "good" Pew Research's polls are perceived to be, it's absurd to make any conclusions about a whole population based on info provided by only .000615% of them.
It is a pet peeve of mine, publications often citing some "study" that they are drawing a conclusion from where a really inadequate number of people were polled, acting like it's evidence of something. Even worse when the sample size is not very random across regions and demographics. Like when somebody asks students at a college, and then treats those numbers as representative of everybody somehow.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.