Search the Lounge


« University of Illinois Chicago Merges With John Marshall Law School | Main | Gary Gildin Stepping Down as Dean of Dickinson Law; Search Announced »

July 22, 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


As recently noted by 538, "Americans," by a wide margin (56 percent to 37 percent), "think" Barack Obama was a better president than Donald Trump has been, according to a CNN poll of adults (a poll of "adults" is probably inherently unreliable, but, whatever). "Americans" were also found to "think" (again, a word that doesn't really fit here) Hillary Clinton would have been a better president than Trump has been, but only by a margin of 47 percent to 44 percent. That's within a reasonable margin of error.

Yet, Clinton's and Obama's positions are nearly identical. What accounts, therefore, for the "fact" (according to a poll conducted by CNN) that "Americans" would expect Clinton to about as good as Trump as president? Isn't this sort of shocking to all you haters?

Here's the answer: Democrats, in particular, are known to wish to fall in "love" with their candidates, and seem to, in particular, judge them on the most superficial of grounds (in addition to knee jerk, unquestioning acceptance of any person with a "D" -- demonstrably unlike the "R"s as the piece quoted above proves, and even a cursory review of the news demonstrates every single day).

Thus, Obama is perceived as so much better than Clinton, even though their policies (and level of competence) likely would have been in sum identical (if anything, Clinton would likely have been better able to "govern.")

As flawed as the CNN poll may have been, the act of sifting out a random opinion piece by a "conservative" is just as unreliable and, in the large scheme of things, irrelevant, immaterial and unhelpful.

How seriously would you consider a citation to an opinion piece by a "liberal" excoriating Obama? There were some, if you know. Are you even aware that such pieces exist? I suspect you wouldn't even read such a piece.

You would dismiss it as "Fox News" and avert your attention.


Max Boot is a curious figure. Essentially a military analyst and a Russian emigre, he has done a complete about face and now stands in opposition to his former party. His conservative credentials are impeccable but he is smart and sensible and has not fallen for the current regime.

Scott Pruitt Edndowed Chair in Enviconmental Justice

I would take back Bush 1 and 2 in a nanosecond

Enrique Guerra Pujol (

Trump is so terrible that I would take back Jimmy Carter at this point.

Scott Pruitt Edndowed Chair in Enviconmental Justice

President Carter was outstanding. Trump and Carter in the same breath or sentence do not belong. Carter's promotion of Human Rights solidly pays benefits to this day. What if his energy and education policies that he started were not wiped away by Ronald Deficit Reagan? Speaking of Reagan, (not), the Hostages were returned without any violence. Can't blame Carter for clogged air and oil filters on those crappy helicopters. He did accept responsibility, however, unlike the Mission Accomplished Decider. He was one of our greatest Presidents.


But I thought Bush was Hitler? But I thought Mitt Romney was Hitler?


Sadly, anymouse, it's "Hitlers" all the way down...

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad