Quinnipiac: Obama Worst President Since World War II, Reagan the Best...

President Barack Obama is the worst president since World War II, and the United States would have been better off if his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, had won the election in 2012, a new Quinnipiac University national poll released today reveals.

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/obama-worst-president-Quinnipiac/2014/0...

No votes yet

This university obviously agrees with the American Nazi Party. In addition, statistics is the king of manipulation.

Statistics "ARE", not statistics "IS".

When statistics is referred to as a field of study the word, "is", is used you moron.

Statistics can be singular or plural. In Zey's usage, singular is correct.

Patience is a great virtue.

Statistics can be singular or plural. In Zey's usage, singular is correct.

Patience is a great virtue.

The poll didn't go back far enough. It should go back to day one of the Republic.

you would say that. Quinnipiac consistently ranks among the top regional universities in the Northern Region of the U.S. But of course they are racists, its a poll on your Obama. All their polls on Euro's don't count though. Right?

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

Polls of this type are meaningless because most Americans are stupid and/or ignorant of history. I'd like to see the people who were polled identify the years when WWII occurred and the person who was the American president at the time.

Patience is a great virtue.

Who was the president during WW2(the big one)was FDR. You know, the one who built concentration camps to put 110,000 Japanese Americans in, starting in 1942. And tried to become president for life. Now, who's stupid?

The Dow Jones Industrial Average and the Standard and Poors Index closed at new record highs today, and the NASDAQ closed at the highest level in 14 years, following the June, 2014, jobs report. This is especially annoying to those, many of whom post here regularly, who stated that the economy would collapse if Obama would be re-elected in 2012. Many conservatives stated that we'd be lucky to keep the unemployment rate under 10%, and that jobs would disappear as the burden of Obamacare costs killed job growth.

WRONG!!

Sorry for using this far left-wing source.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/samanthasharf/2014/07/03/jobs-report-u-s-eco...

Pretty good economic report overall. But it would have nice to see more of the newly reported jobs in manufacturing rather than services/retail. And, no, I'm not blaming that on Obama. Companies that make things will go wherever the profit margin is highest, regardless of a president's party affiliation.

Patience is a great virtue.

It is THEY who claimed that Obama's second term would lead to economic disaster!

Races, cultures, and genders have been labeled with stereotypes (Polish are dumb, blondes are stupid, Irish are drunks, Italians are mobsters, etc.) Obama has not done black male stereotypes any favors.

Billionaire investors would say otherwise!

I thought that Obama wanted "income equality." I thought that liberals hate rich guys--they berate them all of the time.

Now you're trying to tell me that billionaire investors getting richer is a positive thing that Obama has done? I'm so confused.

The act of waking up in the morning confuses you, Galt.

At least--from your lack of providing a factual retort--you do agree that Obama has a "I tout 'income equality,' but the rich have gotten richer under me" dilemma.

First of all, show me the source where Obama stated, according to you, "I tout 'income equality.'" I have never heard him say those words, and I have never seen that statement quoted from any legitimate news source.
Secondly, few Americans want pure Socialism, pure income equality. It is impractical, unfair, and unworkable.
The problem is, the reality of the extreme nature of our income inequality in this country is far removed from what Americans, across the political spectrum, believe to be either their concept of ideal distribution of wealth, or the worse distribution that is their perception of what the income distribution really is. This is on u-tube, and it is accurate statistically. Perhaps if you watch and listen all the way through, you'll have a little less concern for those "unfortunate" enough to be in the top 1% of income and their treatment under our current economic and taxation systems.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vttbhl_kDoo
BTW -- If you watched all the way through, you'll notice that the inequality has become markedly worse in recent years.

For another way of looking at the same issue, here's an article from Businessweek: http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-20/the-u-dot-s-dot-has-high...

I know how much ideologues hate facts. Never, never, never allow facts to get in the way of your opinions, please!

realm of equity investments under Clinton in the 1990s, and now under Obama, and doing so poorly under W, why would any billionaire want to support a Republican for POTUS when the policies of Democrats have produced such excellent returns on equity investments?
As far as I know, the statistics reflecting the greater concentration of wealth in an ever shrinking percentage of the American populace, have been continuous under both Republican and Democratic Presidents. So...might as well make some money!

Retirement System, stating that the fund had a total return of 16.7% from the end of fiscal 2013 through the end of fiscal 2014. Now, when we're talking the tens of billions of dollars that STRS has for all current retirees and future retirees, and like the Walton siblings have just for themselves and their families, that's A LOT of new money.

Impressive earnings. Where's the STRS parking the money? And can unaffiliated investors join up?

Patience is a great virtue.

I bet it hasn't hurt that STRS is taking more money out of currently-working members' paychecks. That really isn't "new money"--it's just "more money" with which to invest.

contributions. Investments have brought more money into STRS than have contributions for almost 30 years, except in the "crash" years. Many investment funds have done extraordinarily well in the last 2-3 years, because equities have performed so well. STRS has an entire department with financial experts fine-tuning their investments on a daily basis.
DW -- I assume that what is contained in the STRS investment portfolio is accessible to the public. I would suggest that if you do not want to invest in individual stocks, there are many good mutual funds and EFTs (which mimic various index averages) in which you could invest. Most ETFs and many mutual funds are extremely well diversified and are producing wonderful returns to investors. BUT, equity investing can always go sour. There is always a risk. STRS got crushed, as did nearly everyone else, in the crash of 2008.

I don't follow these polls.

They are essentially meaningless while a current President is still in office and building a body of work.

The final two years of the Presidency are not written. Who knows. Perhaps the President will have a change of heart and begin it leading through bipartisanship. I would hope he does that.

MikeyA

Or, by leading from the front, not leading from behind. Don't worry. Mr. "I won", isn't going to comprise and lose his "my way, or the highway"attitude, for something as low on his priority list as the good of the country. Also, he didn't do anything during the two years both Houses were hijacked by the democrats' party. Where was the Comprehensive Immigration Bill, then? Bills can also be submitted by the Senate, which now leads from the rear, as well.

voters by displaying your ignorance consistently here. The Senate did not merely "submit a bill." The Senate followed through on its constitutional responsibility to act upon legislation and THE SENATE PASSED A COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION BILL WITH THE FULL INPUT OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, AND WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. It then went to the House OVER A YEAR AGO!!
It is the House and Speaker Boehner who are letting down the American people, over and over again, by refusing to act on legislation already passed by the Senate!! That. along with many filibusters in the Senate by minority Republicans, has created the type of gridlock that leads to things like an immigration crisis. Now, when Obama takes an executive action on this, is he being a dictatorial too strong leader, or is he being too weak and lacking leadership? It seems that you right-wingers label him as both depending upon the issue.

So, the Senate sends a bill to the House, which is repugnant on its' face, and refuses to compromise on any part of it, and the House is supposed to ok it? And also Mr. "I won" doesn't submit a proposal at all. That is weak leadership on a good day, or maybe "no leadership" is the more appropriate term. So his "solution" is to skip Congress altogether? Actually, I DO hope he bypasses Congress, At least until he finds someone who knows how submit a piece of legislation on his behalf.

I know that I'm repeating myself here, but along with delivering all 54 Democratic votes in the Senate last year, Obama, Reid and the other Democratic leaders received votes from 14 Republican Senators for the Senate version which you purposely label fallaciously as not a compromise and "repugnant on its'(sic) face." The fact that you label this compromise, bipartisan bill as "repugnant" is evidence that, far from desiring compromise, you, G-MAN, are in the camp of right-wing extremists who equate compromise with surrender.

It is the House Republicans (who think like you) who refuse to compromise. Did I mention that this bill passed in this bipartisan vote OVER 1 YEAR AGO?? And did I also mention that Boehner and just a part of the Republican majority in the House cannot even agree with 14 of their Republican cohorts in the Senate and join Democrats to pass this needed bill into law? Then they have the unmitigated gall to claim that the current immigration crisis all lays at the lap of the POTUS! That's the type of propaganda that would make Putin proud!

Do you know what a right-wing extremists is? No, you don't, or you wouldn't keep spewing it when it don't apply. Rules for Radicals, we know it, you use it. It don't work on those who know better.

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

DTOM -- If the shoe fits...

Extreme lift-wing Progressive Saul Alinsky, Cloward and Piven Democrat. The Right-wing extremist shoe doesn't fit me. Bill Ayers and company fit that profile, except for the Right-wing part, oops, and 3 out of 4 of them teach in United States Colleges

"DTOM" {1776} " We The People" {1791}

I really don't understand why we are having this conversation, anyway. The Messiah should, I repeat, just dissolve Congress. After all, Congress has NO RIGHT trying to keep him from restructuring the entire Country. But, then he might have to lead from the front, instead of from the rear. He leads by standing along the back wall in Congress, and saying:"don't worry folks, I' ll be right behind you". Like Moe did, while standing behind Shemp and Larry.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.