Worst Presidents of all Time:

[Pogo]

There is always a third, fourth, fifth, party. What I said was a significant third party. Most significantly Perot in both 1992 and 1996. You can't treat an election with an extraDuopoly candy pulling 19% of the vote off the table, with the same comparison standard as one with no significant third party siphoning their votes, and claim that 50.1% means the same thing. It doesn't. Simple statistical math. You're employing a false comparison.

You can when the third party is pulling the vast majority of its votes from just one of the other two parties. You want to claim that is not the case, but have no proof. You say I have no proof. Well then its a wash. Given that, your back to the basic fact that Bush won a majority for the first time since 1988. Nothing is going to change that. Theorize all you want to. The success of a third party candidate simply shows the weakness of one of the two other candidates or both of them. So Bush's candidacy after 4 years as President was so strong that there was no significant third party challenge to him. More credit to Bush and his first four years in office. Its a fact. You can scream and cry about it all you want to, but nothing you say is going to change the fact that Bush got the first majority in the popular vote since 1988. A 16 year gap. A significant accomplishment for Bush. No amount of haranguing about what some third party attempt meant, or did, is going to change that.

I don't KNOW that's the case and YOU DON'T EITHER. Not that complex dood.

You can't just plug in your own fake facts to make your theory work.

MOREOVER, having a significant third party challenge has nothing to do with how "strong" the incumbent (if there is one) is. That's another leap.

The point you're desperately aiming for here simply does not work. You can't compare a two-way race to a three-way race and claim 50.1% means the same in each. It doesn't.

Again, this is all just simple speculation by YOU!

FACT: Bush got 50.73% of the vote in 2004, the first majority in the popular vote since 1988. NOTHING YOU HAVE STATED HAS, OR WILL EVER, CHANGE THAT!

If you can't follow simple statistics there's no point in going on.

Your point is fake. And I've already explained why. You can't sit here and change how numbers work just because you'l like them to work a certain way. Can't be done.

Look in the mirror. That's what you do.

The fact that Bush won by the first majority in the popular vote, since 1988, is indisputable. You can spend endless amounts of time trying to qualify this or that, theorize that this means that or doesn't mean that. Go ahead. It won't change anything.

BUSH WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO GET ABOVE 50% in the POPULAR VOTE SINCE 1988. That is an indisputable fact.

Next thing we know you'll be disputing the law of gravity or that George Bush was ever President of the United States.

I'll try this one more time, simplifying it down to the most basic possible level.

Imagine we conduct a poll, with multiple choice responses. Doesn't matter what the poll is about, we're only concerned here with statistics.

In this poll the possible answer choices are either "A" or "B". That's it.

Out of 931 respondents 402 choose A while 529 choose B. Clearly B "wins" with just under 57%.

Now take a similar poll but this time offer three choices, "A", "B" and "C".

This time the same group returns 302 for "A", 429 for "B" and 200 for "C". B still wins with 46%.

Is the first more significant than the second? Is it valid to compare a two-way poll with a three-way?

Proportions.

 

[U2Edge]

You can when the third party is pulling the vast majority of its votes from just one of the other two parties. You want to claim that is not the case, but have no proof. You say I have no proof. Well then its a wash. Given that, your back to the basic fact that Bush won a majority for the first time since 1988. Nothing is going to change that. Theorize all you want to. The success of a third party candidate simply shows the weakness of one of the two other candidates or both of them. So Bush's candidacy after 4 years as President was so strong that there was no significant third party challenge to him. More credit to Bush and his first four years in office. Its a fact. You can scream and cry about it all you want to, but nothing you say is going to change the fact that Bush got the first majority in the popular vote since 1988. A 16 year gap. A significant accomplishment for Bush. No amount of haranguing about what some third party attempt meant, or did, is going to change that.

I don't KNOW that's the case and YOU DON'T EITHER. Not that complex dood.

You can't just plug in your own fake facts to make your theory work.

MOREOVER, having a significant third party challenge has nothing to do with how "strong" the incumbent (if there is one) is. That's another leap.

The point you're desperately aiming for here simply does not work. You can't compare a two-way race to a three-way race and claim 50.1% means the same in each. It doesn't.

Again, this is all just simple speculation by YOU!

FACT: Bush got 50.73% of the vote in 2004, the first majority in the popular vote since 1988. NOTHING YOU HAVE STATED HAS, OR WILL EVER, CHANGE THAT!

If you can't follow simple statistics there's no point in going on.

Your point is fake. And I've already explained why. You can't sit here and change how numbers work just because you'l like them to work a certain way. Can't be done.

Look in the mirror. That's what you do.

The fact that Bush won by the first majority in the popular vote, since 1988, is indisputable. You can spend endless amounts of time trying to qualify this or that, theorize that this means that or doesn't mean that. Go ahead. It won't change anything.

BUSH WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO GET ABOVE 50% in the POPULAR VOTE SINCE 1988. That is an indisputable fact.

Next thing we know you'll be disputing the law of gravity or that George Bush was ever President of the United States.

I'll try this one more time, simplifying it down to the most basic possible level.

Imagine we conduct a poll, with multiple choice responses. Doesn't matter what the poll is about, we're only concerned here with statistics.

In this poll the possible answer choices are either "A" or "B". That's it.

Out of 931 respondents 402 choose A while 529 choose B. Clearly B "wins" with just under 57%.

Now take a similar poll but this time offer three choices, "A", "B" and "C".

This time the same group returns 302 for "A", 429 for "B" and 200 for "C". B still wins with 46%.

Is the first more significant than the second? Is it valid to compare a two-way poll with a three-way?

Proportions.

Your example is not applicable to any of these elections because there has never been an A, B, or C choice. There are lot more choices than that. Your simply going backwards from the RESULTS and presenting the RESULTS as the actual choices, and that's not the case.

 

[Pogo]

I don't KNOW that's the case and YOU DON'T EITHER. Not that complex dood.

You can't just plug in your own fake facts to make your theory work.

MOREOVER, having a significant third party challenge has nothing to do with how "strong" the incumbent (if there is one) is. That's another leap.

The point you're desperately aiming for here simply does not work. You can't compare a two-way race to a three-way race and claim 50.1% means the same in each. It doesn't.

Again, this is all just simple speculation by YOU!

FACT: Bush got 50.73% of the vote in 2004, the first majority in the popular vote since 1988. NOTHING YOU HAVE STATED HAS, OR WILL EVER, CHANGE THAT!

If you can't follow simple statistics there's no point in going on.

Your point is fake. And I've already explained why. You can't sit here and change how numbers work just because you'l like them to work a certain way. Can't be done.

Look in the mirror. That's what you do.

The fact that Bush won by the first majority in the popular vote, since 1988, is indisputable. You can spend endless amounts of time trying to qualify this or that, theorize that this means that or doesn't mean that. Go ahead. It won't change anything.

BUSH WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO GET ABOVE 50% in the POPULAR VOTE SINCE 1988. That is an indisputable fact.

Next thing we know you'll be disputing the law of gravity or that George Bush was ever President of the United States.

I'll try this one more time, simplifying it down to the most basic possible level.

Imagine we conduct a poll, with multiple choice responses. Doesn't matter what the poll is about, we're only concerned here with statistics.

In this poll the possible answer choices are either "A" or "B". That's it.

Out of 931 respondents 402 choose A while 529 choose B. Clearly B "wins" with just under 57%.

Now take a similar poll but this time offer three choices, "A", "B" and "C".

This time the same group returns 302 for "A", 429 for "B" and 200 for "C". B still wins with 46%.

Is the first more significant than the second? Is it valid to compare a two-way poll with a three-way?

Proportions.

Your example is not applicable to any of these elections because there has never been an A, B, or C choice. There are lot more choices than that. Your simply going backwards from the RESULTS and presenting the RESULTS as the actual choices, and that's not the case.

Hate to break this to ya but when you're losing a point you don't resurrect it by making your font bolder and bolder.

 

[U2Edge]

Again, this is all just simple speculation by YOU!

FACT: Bush got 50.73% of the vote in 2004, the first majority in the popular vote since 1988. NOTHING YOU HAVE STATED HAS, OR WILL EVER, CHANGE THAT!

If you can't follow simple statistics there's no point in going on.

Your point is fake. And I've already explained why. You can't sit here and change how numbers work just because you'l like them to work a certain way. Can't be done.

Look in the mirror. That's what you do.

The fact that Bush won by the first majority in the popular vote, since 1988, is indisputable. You can spend endless amounts of time trying to qualify this or that, theorize that this means that or doesn't mean that. Go ahead. It won't change anything.

BUSH WAS THE FIRST PRESIDENT TO GET ABOVE 50% in the POPULAR VOTE SINCE 1988. That is an indisputable fact.

Next thing we know you'll be disputing the law of gravity or that George Bush was ever President of the United States.

I'll try this one more time, simplifying it down to the most basic possible level.

Imagine we conduct a poll, with multiple choice responses. Doesn't matter what the poll is about, we're only concerned here with statistics.

In this poll the possible answer choices are either "A" or "B". That's it.

Out of 931 respondents 402 choose A while 529 choose B. Clearly B "wins" with just under 57%.

Now take a similar poll but this time offer three choices, "A", "B" and "C".

This time the same group returns 302 for "A", 429 for "B" and 200 for "C". B still wins with 46%.

Is the first more significant than the second? Is it valid to compare a two-way poll with a three-way?

Proportions.

Your example is not applicable to any of these elections because there has never been an A, B, or C choice. There are lot more choices than that. Your simply going backwards from the RESULTS and presenting the RESULTS as the actual choices, and that's not the case.

Hate to break this to ya but when you're losing a point you don't resurrect it by making your font bolder and bolder.

I never lost anything because you never had a relevant point.

 

[Marion Morrison]

If Franklin Delano Roosevelt was offered as a choice, that's who I would have indicated.

He did more than any other President to undermine this nation's Constitution, and to set the stage for further violations. Clinton or Obama may have done more direct damage, but it was FDR that established the precedents that made it possible.

If you do not mind me asking, what damage did Bill Clinton do?

Somalia
Gave our missile tech to China
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
Sarajevo

 

[eagle1462010]

Truman was despised because he fired MacArthur
History showed it was a wise move

Truman was an idiot. He tied the hands of the Generals and our military to not fight the War as a War. Playing by rules instead of cutting the supply lines of the enemy. Giving ignorant orders to allow blowing up half a bridge. Truman.........like all idiot politicians ............gave the advantage to the enemy and cost us countless lives and wounded.

Mac was after GLORY........his LAST DASH FOR THE HISTORY BOOKS..........His reckless abandon ignoring the threat of China entering the War was IDIOTIC. Generals advised him to USE CAUTION while entering the North and not outrun his supply lines. He ordered a second amphibious invasion that was completely USELESS...........Other ground troops had already taken the territory for the GRAND AMPHIBIOUS LANDING............all for SHOW.............there were better Generals at the time that were for winning the War and NOT GLORY.............Mac was overrated..............same as WWII........where he invaded the Phillipines instead of bypassing it to take islands closer to Japan to speed up the end of the War.........

History proves Truman correct..............LOL..........North Korea is his end result that has been in a pain in the world's ass since.......Topped off by empty promises of NO NUKE CLINTON.........Another miserable failure on the world stage.

 

[eagle1462010]

If Franklin Delano Roosevelt was offered as a choice, that's who I would have indicated.

He did more than any other President to undermine this nation's Constitution, and to set the stage for further violations. Clinton or Obama may have done more direct damage, but it was FDR that established the precedents that made it possible.

If you do not mind me asking, what damage did Bill Clinton do?

Somalia
Gave our missile tech to China
Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac
Sarajevo

I'd add signed the Graham Leahy Act which allowed the Too Big to Fail to Self Regulate.............Which killed off the last of the Glass Steagal Act provisions to not allow gambling with Fractional Banking. That ended real well.............Along with Banks giving loans to people that shouldn't have been allowed to finance a bike.