Which US politician is the worst in recent times?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by 63dot, Sep 18, 2008.


Who is the worst politician in recent decades?

Poll closed Dec 27, 2008.
  1. George W. Bush (R)

    64 vote(s)
  2. Richard Nixon (R)

    5 vote(s)
  3. Jimmy Carter (D)

    10 vote(s)
  4. Governor Arnold (R)

    1 vote(s)
  5. Lyndon LaRouche (D)

    2 vote(s)
  6. Lyndon Johnson (D)

    4 vote(s)
  1. 63dot macrumors 603


    Jun 12, 2006
    In the last several decades, we have had some unpopular candidates and politicians. Who are your dogs? :)
  2. Ugg macrumors 68000


    Apr 7, 2003
    Tricky Dick is second on my list, but a distant second to W.
  3. SMM macrumors 65816


    Sep 22, 2006
    Tiger Mountain - WA State
    GW by a landslide. No one else even comes close. And if you asked, who's the worse, including the people in their administration, you have to leave the US; hitler, Mussolini, Idi Amin, Pappa Doc, Stalin and that ilk.
  4. Queso macrumors G4

    Mar 4, 2006
    Tony Bliar, even though he's not on your poll.
  5. és: macrumors 6502a


    As much as I dislike Blair he, and his party, have done a lot for the country one way or another. Bush has done virtually nothing other than reign death and destruction upon two far away countries.
  6. BoyBach macrumors 68040


    Feb 24, 2006
    In the absence of certain non-US politicians - such as Mugabe, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mao, Karadic or the odious c*nt Anthony Blair - it has to be Bush the war criminal.
  7. freeny macrumors 68020


    Sep 27, 2005
    Location: Location:
  8. atszyman macrumors 68020


    Sep 16, 2003
    The Dallas 'burbs
    Bah, you asked for worst politician, not worst elected official.

    For worst politicians I think you need to include Gore, Kerry, Dole, Dukakis, Mondale, and a few others who couldn't seem to manage to do well in elections where they should have done much better.

    Gore was the incumbent in a good economy but managed to lose to W. because he couldn't manage to even win his home state. (Say what you will about FL, had he won TN, he would have had the WH).

    Kerry even had more advantages and couldn't pull of the win. If Obama loses, I'd put him on the list for managing to lose with every advantage in his corner. Mondale should have carried more than a single state in '84, I doubt any Republican had a chance in '96 but I don't remember much inspiring about Dole. Dukakis ran a pretty bad campaign as well.

    Worst elected official? In recent history W is leading in my books, but I may revise that in the future as we learn more about what really went on after he leaves office depending W's actual involvement, Cheney will probably surpass W. as the absolute worst.
  9. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603


    Jun 12, 2006
    I am a hard core democrat and I thought of putting him there, but in my book I wanted to put three R's and three D's in all fairness. At least four or five of Reagan's economic years were good. Bush struck out on all eight years.

    I have an affiliation with the State, through my business, and I deal with the "slowness" of Sacramento, and while known to drag their feet, Arnold is California's answer to Nixon or to the Madness of King George III. :)

    Arnold, IMHO, is the worst US politician, who is a household name for most of us, that I can think of. Look at the mess of the California budget crisis. It is totally unbelievable stuff.

    If Arnold does not "get his way", he will veto all bills Democrat or Republican, and he even makes George W. Bush look like a rational deal maker.

    I may like Arnold's movies, but as a politician, he's the worst in my lifetime on the state level of California, but maybe the worst politician ever in US history. Within his own party, he has only one supporter. Now that's bad.
  10. MacNut macrumors Core


    Jan 4, 2002
    I would say more than Presidents have been elected in recent years. If you want a true list add some Congressmen and Senators.
  11. it5five macrumors 65816


    May 31, 2006
    New York
    Agreed. I probably would have voted for Reagan if he was an option.
  12. nick9191 macrumors 68040

    Feb 17, 2008
    Err Brown?

    Everything was going nicely until he came along. Within a day some sods bombing us.

    People get bored with politicians, they hope it might get better with the next leader in line, Brown was the countries "saviour", so was Blair, so was Major, so was Thatcher, and so will Cameron.

    And yet looking back at Blairs government, it seems like a golden age, same with Blair>Major.

    Don't hope for it to get better, don't pray for it to get better, because it wont get better, since in reality it never got worse, its our perceptions and the medias influence over us that gives us these perceptions.
  13. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Feb 14, 2004
    OBJECTIVE reality
    Gotta agree...if Carter and Johnson are up there, Ronnie certainly should be!
  14. Scepticalscribe Contributor


    Jul 29, 2008
    The Far Horizon
    I remember the 80s and I remember Reagan; at the time, I thought him the worst ever, far worse than Tricky Dicky. Now, of course, it has changed completely; GW surpasses everyone who preceded him by an incalculable margin. Atszyman has a point about Gore failing to carry his home state, (notwithstanding that, what happened in Florida was officially sanctioned and quite a scandalous fraud), and sundry other Democrat failures, many self-inflicted, but none of that excuses GW's many appalling contributions to the world during his term in office.
  15. Beric macrumors 68020


    Jan 22, 2008
    Bay Area
    I can't believe the results of this poll, except that we have a bunch of people here who have bought into the media's agenda that Bush has "failed".

    Bush has utterly succeeded. Totally and completely. We have had no terrorist attacks in 7 years. Something that wasn't considered even close to possible by analysts right after Sep. 11th, (which happened, BTW, due to the neglect of national security during the Clinton years). The surge has been a complete success despite the media's and the Democrats' fierce opposition to it from the start. Violence is WAY down. Sadaam is unseated, and Iraq is on its way to a democracy, if it's possible to have one without Christian influence.

    If Bush has succeeded in both Iraq and national security, can he really be the worst president in recent times? Absolutely and definitely no.

    I voted Jimmy Carter. An obvious choice I won't bother defending.
  16. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Feb 14, 2004
    OBJECTIVE reality
    Funniest. Post. Ever.
  17. iSaint macrumors 603


    May 26, 2004
    South Mississippi y'all, near the water!
    You wouldn't have heard of her if she weren't on the GOP ticket. How can you judge?

    Where's Mr. and Mrs. Clinton?
  18. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603


    Jun 12, 2006
    I tried to be fair in looking at politicians in the USA that have been considered bad by both sides of the aisle.

    Reagan, Bush Sr., Ford, Kennedy (JFK, Robert, and Edward), Ike, Clinton, Dole, and Gore, like them or not, have not received the same negative press that the polled politicians show.

    In a CNN poll I saw last year, Washington, Lincoln, Reagan, and Clinton were the four most popular presidents, in that order. But with no surprise to me, W was ranked dead last in popularity and considered the worst president ever.

    There are others I should have mentioned, that have been considered almost universally bad by the press, and those would be Spiro Agnew, Newt Gingrich, and possibly David Duke.
  19. CalBoy macrumors 604


    May 21, 2007
    That's what I was thinking as well.

    Although to be fair he was elected by large margins and generally enjoyed high approval ratings (except for most of his last two lame duck years), so I suppose it would be more difficult to label him a bad politician, since he did succeed in that regard.

    As a president, he was indeed horrible. He took accountability and took it nearly as far back as Bush has.
    Of course you know that Nixon was from California. ;)
    I didn't vote for Arnold, and I haven't been completely thrilled with his administration all of the time, but I think the budget is not really all on his shoulders.

    The 2/3rds requirement combined with Gerrymandered districts is what led up to our long budget forestall. I honestly don't blame Arnold's veto threat, since he was looking for was a better protection for the Rainy Day fund.
    To be fair though, the legislature does have a tendency to legislate excessively. California's legal code is by far the most complex and the legislature has no hesitancy to spend money it does not have.

    I'd much rather have a strong veto point in the system rather than a governor who signs any bill willy nilly.

    Perhaps that's why I can tolerate him (probably the only Republican I can :p).
  20. 63dot thread starter macrumors 603


    Jun 12, 2006
    Reagan's large election margins and generally good rating is why I left him off the list. But there is no way I can his put his shameful Iran-Contra and out of control defense spending in his years against W's attack of Iraq and long occupation, weak response to Katrina, and complete ignorance of the recession we have been in under his watch. Reagan said a lot of things I didn't agree with, but Bush actually does those terrible, extremist things. Congress always brought Reagan back to the middle, if you remember Tip O'Neil, but W seems to want to ignore Congress. Reagan used the military as a show of force to avoid conflict, but Bush seems to use it as his private working agenda. Reagan saw the importance of allies even though he may not have agreed with their usually more liberal agenda, but Bush thinks he can operate without friends. Bush is far, far worse than Reagan when it comes to accountability.

    And if you look at Nixon, he was also worse than Reagan.

    But I was happy to see Reagan leave.
  21. scotthayes macrumors 68000


    Jun 6, 2007
    Birmingham, England
    I'm one of the few who didn't vote bush, I voted for Nixon.

    The reason? bush is just dumb and surrounded himself with very self centered people and let them run your country. Nixon on the other hand was the one who totally abused the power of office.
  22. nanofrog macrumors G4

    May 6, 2008
    I'd definitely have to agree that George W. Bush is worse than Reagan.

    That said, Reagan was no saint. Besides the Iran-Contra mess, and defense budget issues, the current recession has its roots in his administration as well. Remember deregulation? ;)
  23. nanofrog macrumors G4

    May 6, 2008
    What Nixon did was unconcionable, no doubt. But he kept inside the US at least. G. W. Bush on the other hand, started a war based upon falsified information, which has further damaged the economy, as well as international relations. Even with our allies. :rolleyes: It just seems that the number and extent of his personal abuses of power far outweigh those of Nixon. :(
  24. Peterkro macrumors 68020


    Aug 17, 2004
    Communard de Londres
    Although admittedly he has some very strong competition in my opinion it's got to be Nixon a complete bastard from day one. His involvement in Chavez Ravine,HUAC,then attacking McCarthy for his own personal advancement,bombing Cambodia and Laos and on and on. Those things seen as his achievements would have occurred with or without him,end of the Vietnam war,relations with China etc. Although Reagan and Bush jnr have some claim they are essentially figureheads without the wherewithal to actually make their own decisions,Kennedy also is a potential winner but I'm afraid for all round lack of humanity it's got to be Nixon.

Share This Page