DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Jena Griswold
(D) Brian Mason
60%↑
30%↑
20%↓
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%↑
30%
20%↓
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Manny Rutinel
(D) Yadira Caraveo
45%↓
40%↑
30%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
February 21, 2022 10:41 AM UTC
38 Comments
Loading ...
FDR was mostly great, but he gets dinged for the internment camps.
I was holding a candle for James Buchanan but I think DJT may have exceeded him. Oh, you were not asking about the "greatest disaster of a President?"
No question about it, Gorky!
DJT has managed to elevate James Buchanan, Franklin Pierce, Richard Nixon, Warren Harding, Andrew Johnson and George W. Bush from the bottom of the list.
Wikipedia has an interesting chart, putting a variety of "professional scholars" lists [mostly history, political science, law] from various years. the same article also has public opinion polls.
All of them had strengths [except the last] and weaknesses. All of them initiated some things that can be considered. A few had major challenges and then lasted long enough in office that their efforts and external changes made the challenge recede. A few died before the outcomes of their policies became clear, and sometimes those negatives are assigned to their successor.
Let's face it. It is not politically correct to vote for almost all of these guys. (Correct me if I'm wrong, kwtree.)
Washington was a slave owner.
Lincoln, as has been mentioned on another thread on his site, had complicated views on slavery. And even if we give him the benefit of the doubt (look at the Emancipation Proclamation), he did want to deport the newly-free slaves to Africa.
FDR had the internment camps and refused to do anything about segregation. (His wife, on the other hand, was good on the issue.) He didn't want to upset his southern Congressional supporters.
JFK was another Red Baiter (an old chestnut which was brought out by ParkHill this weekend on another thread). He nearly started World War III. He had no legislative accomplishments of which to speak, but he looked nice, he had a photogenic family, and he died tragically.
Teddy Roosevelt was an imperialist who stolen land in the Isthmus of Panama from Columbia to build the canal through which he could sail his big navy fleet.
Madison wrote the Bill of Rights which weighs in his favor. But he tolerated slavery and was okay with compromises in the constitution which have placed us where we are today (i.e., bicameral legislature with one chamber consisting of two members selected by each state regardless of population). He also had a hand in giving us the Electoral College.
Ike wasn't bad but he really didn't do enough soon enough to shut down Joe McCarthy. He was definitely my favorite Republican president since the imperialist Teddy Roosevelt.
Obama was probably the one in the batch who had the least shortcomings. He was extremely intelligent and competent. He broke down a racial barrier by managing to win with not just black and brown but a lot of white votes, too. He put together a broad coalition. He did not win narrowly – unlike his immediate successor.
If there is one disappointment with Obama it was in his role as leader of his political party. He did not organize and lead the Democrats in 2010 in a way that would mitigate what were probably going to be losses in both chambers of Congress. And that was repeated in 2012 and 2014. It's damage from which we have still not recovered.
The Antiquities Act of 1906 was signed into law by Teddy Roosevelt.
I did not vote.
Positives for some
Washington – because he only ran for 2 terms
Lincoln – because he held the Union together
FDR – because he took us into war
Kennedy – moon landings
Eisenhower – we did not go into WW3
LBJ – civil rights
Negatives for some
Not going to bother. There are no perfect men.
"Lincoln – because he held the Union together"
Are we sure that was a good thing? He could have told Jeff Davis, "Don't let the door hit you on the ass as you are leaving."
Interesting to speculate what would have evolved over the last 160 years if the South had been permitted to leave and an amicable divorce took place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Victory
FDR who ordered internment-camps against our Japanese community, and told boats full of Jews from Germany to turn around and go back to Germany — this guy is second? The economy did well in spite of his 80%+ tax rates, because of war, and also because FDR turned a blind eye to all of the dynasty trusts created by rich families that preserved wealth, while the self-made were crushed.
As Democrats today now enforce mask wearing, mandated vaccine shots, lockdowns, bank account confiscation, destruction of property for the sake of racial harmony (lol), and complete submission to authority, it doesn’t surprise me at all that FDR ranks second on this list. The party that will always prioritize the institutionalized-rich, crush the working man, and eviscerate basic liberty,
Never change, democrats. Never change.
And comparing this to internment camps shows what an idiotic statement you made.
But to quote your friend on this blog:
So, you didn’t say who you voted for? (Why not give others here the same opportunity to point up three of four reasons why your choice is unwarranted?) . . .
Pissed you didn’t get to cast your vote for R. Raygun? . . .
I was just thinking, before I signed on and read your post, “I wonder what this poll would look like on a righty/FOXnews site, today”?
FDR helped guide and hold America together, and give the vast majority a reason not to abadon the American project through a couple of the largest potentially existential crises we ever faced as a country. Did not do everything right, clearly. But, he did first and foremost what a President should do — act as an overall unifier, and push for plans for the greater good to the most possible, all with a sense of decency and good will.
PS. Sorry to point out, but you’re yammering plenty unhinged bitchy right now for someone who claims he isn’t surprised . . .
^^^^ And, this is just complete goddamn nonsense, but especially when compared to today’s other national brand option.
"The party that will always prioritize the institutionalized-rich, crush the working man, and eviscerate basic liberty,"
It's almost like he's never heard of the Republican party…
Projection is the name of the game with these clowns.
“I wonder what this poll would look like on a righty/FOXnews site, today”
That would be a hoot! The candidates for best presidents:
___ Jefferson Davis
___ Andrew Jackson (because of his policies towards Native-Americans)
___ Andrew Johnson (because of his reconstruction policies)
___ Herbert Hoover (since he believed in personal responsibility)
___ Barry Goldwater (since we all know that election was stolen from him)
___ Richard Nixon
___ Donald Trump
That's easy, R&R. There would be one choice:
___ Ronald Reagan
Certainly not my opinion, but judging by the number of roads named after him, I think he's still the GOP fave.
Nah. They'd have Trump in there too.
"Democrats today now enforce mask wearing,"
Do you not support American's freedom to wear masks? Or are you against public officers enforcing the law? What do you mean "enforce?" Democratic governors including our own are taking a neutral legislative stance on mask. Unless you can link me the sort of mask wearing enforcement pertaining to Democrats you mean, you speak nonsense.
"mandated vaccine shots"
Talk to more left wingers, you will find there are many who support the working class' right to autonomy in health separate from top down mandates. Similarly, there are right wingers who will fight tooth and nail for corporations to dictate working conditions/requirements without government regulation. Are such right wing oligarchic libertarians "democrats" to you? Laughable.
"lockdowns"
What lockdowns? We haven't had any to speak of since California lifted theirs last June. These weren't celebrated by anyone on the left. If you're just upset that Democrats "enforced" it, I believe you will find none of the states/cities where such precautions were taken were effected by jackbooted "Bernie Bros." Calling a curfew a "lockdown" is fear-mongering/hysterical.
"bank account confiscation"
who's enforcing this now? Pretty sure you're confusing headlines about liberals in Canada. Maybe read up on the conversation of civil forfeiture in the US and who the most vocal proponents of that form of theft are.
"Destruction of property for the sake of racial harmony (lol)"
Yeah, Democrats love it so much that they dished out sentences heavier than the insurrectionists/seditionists have gotten for BLM graffiti.
"and complete submission to authority"
Was it the Democrat party who has since 2020 stood with a platform consisting of "I'm with stupid" and an arrow at their twice impeached rapist of a convicted charlatan? No? Huh.
He's also against wearing seat belts for himself and his family. Nobody is going to tell him to buckle up the tykes because FREEDOM.
“The economy did well in spite of his 80% tax rates”
Indeed, MAH, the economy did well but no one in the 80% tax bracket with competent accountants and tax lawyers actually paid that rate. The top tax bracket was put on the books as comfort food for the left.
The economy did well because of the war more than anything.
And lest we forget, the alternative was nearly a coup by a group of Republican businessmen who wanted to support Hitler, the Nazis, and domestic Anti-semitism. Not exactly a shining counterweight to FDR's own less-than-stellar racial misgivings.
James K. Polk (The Napoleon of the Stump)!
IMO the president with the most integrity, and a model for Stoicism and sensitive to his arm's length when exercising executive power.
And as much as everyone loves to tout "term limits" as a virtue, I never hear his name brought up as an example of a man who got shit DONE in one term.
Points lost for being a slave owner (notwithstanding his will granting them freedom after his wife's death) and for paving the way for Manifest Destiny. Still, in terms of acting as commander-in-chief of the executive office, by the book he's obviously the best.
There is an excellent biography of President Polk written by Colorado author Walter Borneman.
Maybe a category for Presidents that did a very good job in times that did not require great things. James Polk & Gerald Ford. Maybe Chester A. Arthur too.
And Clinton?
Perhaps also Calvin Coolidge who created what was then Glacier Bay National Monument.
Polk was also a slaveowner who supported the annexation of Texas which advanced slavery. No thanks.
First is Washington. He is not recognized by many because his great accomplishments played out smoothly, which makes them even more incredible.
First, he got 13 independent ornery states to accept that the Federal Government now had primacy over them. Without him it likely would have all fallen apart.
Under him Hamilton created our economic system that we have to this day.
Under him the executive branch of the government was created, organized, staffed, and spun up to operate. When he started there was nothing.
Second is Lincoln. He somehow managed to keep the Union together and eventually find the generals who could win the war in the South. And then gave them what they needed. That was an incredibly tightrope to walk, and he never faltered.
Third is FDR, both for the New Deal and WWII. And in both cases he was a master at taking the country as far as it was willing to go, and then a little bit more. Also brilliant at managing to keep most people coming to him reasonably satisfied.
Kennedy (never did much, but looked good), Madison (amazing constitutionalist & legislator but so-so executive), & Obama (too soon to tell) don't belong on the list.
Wilson (who I don't think much of) should be an option as he is in the top 10 of most historian's lists. I agree with not having Reagan (too soon to tell) on the list.
The other thing to keep in mind is they were all human. They were creatures of their time. They had blind spots. They were politicians who had to make compromises to succeed.
And for those complaining about the compromises in the constitution – it barely passed. Barely. Yes those compromises left us with big problems. But they also gave us a country.
"Kennedy (never did much, but looked good)….."
Nobody has mentioned that Kennedy got us into Vietnam big time, while Ike had limited his involvement to a few hundred advisors.
I'm not voting either. David mentioned Reagan, and I agree that it's too soon to tell. Reagan gave us James Watt as Interior Secretary. But that was balanced off by Reagan signing more wilderness bills into law than any other president since passage of the Act in 1964.
Yep….and were it not for Kennedy getting us into Vietnam, LBJ would be much higher on the list.
I agree with those top three; the order, eh, why quibble?
We’d be a much different country, or countries, or even possibly not-a-country, without the important and significant contributions of each.
I have to give it to Washington. He had to figure it out on his own, there was no precedence for him to go by, not even another country for him to emulate. For having to make it up as he went, he did a pretty damn good job.
How about some love for the underappreciated John Quincy Adams?
Resolutely anti-slavery and willing to put effort behind it by pushing back against the annexation of Texas and the Mexican-American War, expanded diplomacy, pushed for infrastructure and higher education, and fought for America’s better angels against the racism of Andrew Jackson (a political battle he sadly lost). He stayed in public service after his presidency and made an important speech many of us only wish we had heeded, saying that if and when the country became consumed with political hate, we should simply peacefully go our separate ways rather than become prisoners in a dysfunctional unmanageable national marriage.
Honorable mention for William Henry Harrison, who at least had the goddamn common decency to drop dead a month into his term before he could screw anything up.
If that government is best which governs least, it doesn't get much better than WHH.
I would never expect him to win, but the fact that Colorado Pols didn't even list Ronald Reagan, putting a one term loser like LBJ on the list instead, shows how ridiculously skewed this blog is politically.
Hey. At least LBJ had some good domestic policy accomplishments, and had the good sense to bow out instead of losing reelection. As opposed to that former guy who you swore fealty to time and again. You know, the one who became a one-term loser who lost his reelection, and then showed himself to be a sore loser by, among other things, fomenting an insurrection. That former guy also had no good policy accomplishments of any kind.
Actually, you’re wrong, unnamed. Have to give credit where credit is due. Trump signed off on the Great America Outdoors Act, for our public lands and outdoor recreation.
He also gets some credit for the peace deal between Israel and the UAE; note that I said “some” as geopolitical events have proven to be a greater influence than Trump over there.
Trump’s failures as president far outweigh his accomplishments.
Moderatus: you're not paying attention. Both David and I made reference to Ronald Reagan.