Presidential Rating

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 06:05 AM
link   
How would everyone rate Bush on a scalle from 1-10.
One being the worst of course, and ten being the best.




posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 06:07 AM
link   
I personally would have to give him a 7.
It would have been a 5 but for getting Saddam i went up two points (for me anyhow).



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 06:08 AM
link   
-87,000,000,000

:shk:



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 06:10 AM
link   
WOW!!!
. You must hate the guy!



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 07:33 AM
link   
I'd put him at a solid 3...

Hey, it's one higher than I'd have given Kennedy...

(yeah, I can hear the boos already....but he nearly got us into WWIII (at the last minute, he actually listened to his advisors), he was trying to put us back on the gold standard (but too quickly with his proposal), had he listened to his advisors, the Bay of Pigs disaster wouldn't have happened, and of course, PE in schools (yeah, lets get everyone all sweaty and nasty at various periods throughout the day). And of course, he wanted to dissolve the CIA. You think Bush and Clinton had shady dealings? At least they weren't almost blatant about it, whereas JFK had frickin' MOB connections!



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 11:21 AM
link   
i would probably give him a 6 or a 7...

with the war maybe a 7.5...



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 12:20 PM
link   
with economy getting better and war on terror is going well i give him an 8


People need to remember that no matter what person was in office on sept. 11, 2001 they would have needed to act same way. with al quada, iraq , and afganistan....

If the US did nothin it would have made us a bunch of pussies and would have invited more attacks.

People need to look at all as a big picture!

osama said it himself "the americans are not willing to fight for there freedom....they will be scared" (something to that effect)


If gore was in office same crap would have to happeni(maybe not right away in iraq but sooner or later). your ignorant if you would think otherwise.

ideas appreciated


[Edited on 17-12-2003 by REASON]



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 01:50 PM
link   
And personally, I don't think Gore would have had the guts to invade Iraq and attack Osama. I have supported Bush and I will continue to do so!



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 01:54 PM
link   
It's a C-Span database of both viewers and HISTORIANS rating every President up to Clinton.

The interactive part is how you can filter the repsondents, or the attributes you want to see rated.

This link just happens to start with Historians/Economy but from there you can go anywhere.

It's relatively fair over all (as in Clinton is worst on moral leadership, but among the best on Economy) but decide for yourself. I avoid the C-Span viewer part, but like the historian's view.

As for my scoring of Bush = SOLID 5. That's what MOST Presidents deserve.

www.americanpresidents.org...



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Thanks I will do that. I'll try posting it here if I find anything really good. Better, yet I'll just link to the story.



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 03:37 PM
link   
I'd give him a 7.5 domestically, and a 9 on the War On Terrorism. I guess I'd give him an 8 as an average.



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 03:40 PM
link   
I agree. Bush is doing an alright job. And for the economy, it would be as bad in any case.



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 03:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by JeanLucPicard
I agree. Bush is doing an alright job. And for the economy, it would be as bad in any case.


Yeah, because to be fair, the economy started turning sour even during the Clinton administration.



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 03:50 PM
link   
You guys are pretty 'liberal' with the ratings aren't you?


I mean isn't there such a thing as an 'average' President? And if so, you place Bush at an 8 as 30% better than the median of all Presidents ever?

Or are you just saying all presidents deserve at least a 7 or 8?

If Bush is an 8, WTF is Lincoln or Washinton a 50???

I thought I was being generous with the "5" ... but that's the average. That site I posted is really insightful from historians...it kind of erodes the recency bias we all tend to have.

Didn't you ever wonder where Garfield stood against Ford? (Actually I didn't but the site makes you think).

[Edited on 17-12-2003 by RANT]



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by RANT
Or are you just saying all presidents deserve at least a 7 or 8?


hmmm.....but in a grading scale, like at school, an 8 out of 10 would be a B-. That's what I rated him as.



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 04:00 PM
link   
Gotcha... thats why scales need anchors, as in 1 being worst and 10 being best AND 5 BEING AVERAGE.

If you impose a school grade system, then 1-6 all fail. It's really just a 5 point scale then.

A, B, C, D, F, Low F, Lower F, etc.

Sorry to be nagsome, but I used to be a partner in a marketing research company that did politcal polling. Scales are a pet peeve. So are most amatuer polls.

[Edited on 17-12-2003 by RANT]



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
-87,000,000,000

:shk:


Yeah, I think that's about right.



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Well, I don't think Bush has done to bad of a job. Sure, he has his speech issues but he really isn't a very stupid person.

[Edited on 17-12-2003 by JeanLucPicard]



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 04:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
-87,000,000,000

:shk:



to even out the score i will give Bush a +87,000,000,001




J/K



posted on Dec, 17 2003 @ 04:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian


Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
-87,000,000,000

:shk:



to even out the score i will give Bush a +87,000,000,001




J/K


That would make Bush an average 0.000000001





new topics
top topics
 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join