Rank all the Democratic presidents

[LAKISYLVANIA]

1. Franklin D. Roosevelt
2. Harry S. Truman
3. Barack Obama
4. John F. Kennedy
5. Lyndon B. Johnson
6. Grover Cleveland
7. Jimmy Carter
8. Bill Clinton
9. Andrew Jackson
10. Woodrow Wilson
11. James K. Polk
12. Martin Van Buren
13. Franklin Pierce
14. James Buchanan
15. Andrew Johnson

I personally think all of them have at least one major flaw, especially for the top 5 without that flaw they would be number one, but for FDR, HST, Obama, Kennedy and LBJ there is at least one thing I actively dislike about them, preventing me in doing such, so FDR takes the lead, but he isn't my favourite president. I like Lincoln and Theodore simply more.

I won't rank Biden yet, but he would be at least top 5, despite not being seen as a great or particular charismatic or influential president, but he has little to be attacked on, despite the circumstances not being great.

12 to 15 probably would be my four worst presidents of all-time here too.

[OSR stands with Israel]

Objectively Great:
1. Franklin Roosevelt
2. Harry Truman

Pretty Good:
3. James Polk
4. Bill Clinton

Mixed of Great and Terrible:
5. Grover Cleveland(His first term would be higher his 2nd term lower)
6. Lyndon Johnson
7. Andrew Jackson
8. Woodrow Wilson

Overrated:
9. Barack Obama
10. John Kennedy


Terrible:
11. Martin Van Buren
12. Jimmy Carter

Worst Ever:
13. Andrew Johnson
14. Franklin Pierce
15. James Buchanan

[SWE]

FDR
Biden
Carter
JFK
Cleveland
LBJ
Obama
Clinton
MVB
Pierce
Wilson
Jackson
Truman
Polk
Johnson
Buchanan

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

SECULARIST

S-NY FDR
WC-TX LBJ
S-MA Kennedy
WC-MO Truman
S-IL B.Obama
WC-DEL J.BIDEN
WC-AR CLINTON
WC-GA J.CARTER

DIXIECRATS
WC-NJ W.WILSON
WC-NJ G CLEVELAND
WC-PA J.BUCHANAN.
WC-TN J.K.POLK
WC-TN  A JACKSON
WC-VA J.MADISON
WC-VA J.MONROE
WC-VA JEFFERSON
WC-NH VAN BUREN
WC-NH F.PIERCE
WC-TX J.TYLER
WC-TN.A.JOHNSON

[Pacific Republican]

JFK
Polk
Cleveland
Jackson
van Buren
Pierce
Buchanan
Johnson
Truman
FDR
LBJ
Clinton
Carter
Obama
Wilson

[Sir Mohamed]

1. F. D. Roosevelt
2. Truman
3. L. Johnson
4. Obama
5. Biden
6. Kennedy
7. Clinton
8. Carter
9. Polk
10. Van Buren
11. Wilson
12. Cleveland
13. Jackson
14. Pierce
15. A. Johnson
16. Buchanan

[John Dule]

1. Truman
2. Polk
3. Obama
4. Biden
5. Cleveland
6. Clinton
7. Kennedy
8. Carter
9. FDR
10. Lyndon Johnson
11. Van Buren
12. Pierce
13. Jackson
14. Andrew Johnson
15. Buchanan
16. Wilson

What a rogues gallery of politicians. Excluding recent years, this is an unbelievably dismal list of people.

[Alben Barkley]

1. FDR
2. Truman
3. LBJ
4. Clinton
5. Wilson
6. Obama
7. JFK
8. Biden*
9. Carter
10. Jackson
11. Polk
12. Van Buren
13. Cleveland
14. Pierce
15. Buchanan
16. A. Johnson

*Position subject to change up or down depending on how the rest of his presidency goes. Right in the middle seems about right for now.

1-13 are at least decent presidents. 14-16 are abysmal.

I maintain there is no reason to think Polk is a good president and Jackson a bad president; the former was the latter's protégé and his policy shows it. And I definitely maintain that the Wilson hate has gotten absolutely hysterical and beyond out of hand.

3 and 4 are a crapshoot; LBJ was better in domestic policy but Clinton better in foreign policy. Could almost flip a coin.

[President Johnson]

I try to be objective here.

A-tier
1. Franklin D. Roosevelt
2. Lyndon B. Johnson
3. Harry S. Truman
4./5. Barack Obama
4./5. Joe Biden

Above average tier
6. Bill Clinton
7. John F. Kennedy

Average tier
8. Jimmy Carter
9. Woodrow Wilson

Below average tier
10. Martin van Buren
11. Grover Cleveland
12. James K. Polk

Trash tier
13. Andrew Jackson
14. Franklin Pierce
15. James Buchanan
16. Andrew Johnson

[OSR stands with Israel]

I maintain there is no reason to think Polk is a good president and Jackson a bad president; the former was the latter's protégé and his policy shows it. And I definitely maintain that the Wilson hate has gotten absolutely hysterical and beyond out of hand.

3 and 4 are a crapshoot; LBJ was better in domestic policy but Clinton better in foreign policy. Could almost flip a coin.

It’s thanks to Polk we have California ,Texas and a large part of our country though and not Jackson . In terms of what matters  , results matter more than ideology and Polk had far better results than Jackson .

[Alben Barkley]

I maintain there is no reason to think Polk is a good president and Jackson a bad president; the former was the latter's protégé and his policy shows it. And I definitely maintain that the Wilson hate has gotten absolutely hysterical and beyond out of hand.

3 and 4 are a crapshoot; LBJ was better in domestic policy but Clinton better in foreign policy. Could almost flip a coin.

It’s thanks to Polk we have California ,Texas and a large part of our country though and not Jackson . In terms of what matters  , results matter more than ideology and Polk had far better results than Jackson .

There would have been no Polk without Jackson though. Jackson did more to make the nation “democratic” than arguably any other president. Yes just for white men at first, but it was a huge step forward that just isn’t appreciated enough nowadays IMO.

Also how Polk acquired all that territory was at least as morally dubious as Jackson’s infamous actions with the Native Americans (which Polk wasn’t really any better on).

Jackson playing a pivotal role in preserving the Union during the Nullification Crisis also shouldn’t be undersold. Anyone who hates John C. Calhoun that much can’t be all that bad!

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I rated Polk exactly quite low because of how he acquired the territory, not because he acquired it. If that would be the way to rate leaders, Hitler would be number 1 leader of the 20th century (for a brief period). And if you disagree, than Stalin would be, because he benefitted from collapse of nazi-Germany by including all of eastern europe in its influence sphere and making USSR a global superpower.

It matters how it is done, not solely that it is done, and it is one of the reasons why i have trouble rating all those older presidents quite high, and also one of the reasons why Cleveland is relatively high ranked for me.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I maintain there is no reason to think Polk is a good president and Jackson a bad president; the former was the latter's protégé and his policy shows it. And I definitely maintain that the Wilson hate has gotten absolutely hysterical and beyond out of hand.

3 and 4 are a crapshoot; LBJ was better in domestic policy but Clinton better in foreign policy. Could almost flip a coin.

It’s thanks to Polk we have California ,Texas and a large part of our country though and not Jackson . In terms of what matters  , results matter more than ideology and Polk had far better results than Jackson .

There would have been no Polk without Jackson though. Jackson did more to make the nation “democratic” than arguably any other president. Yes just for white men at first, but it was a huge step forward that just isn’t appreciated enough nowadays IMO.

Also how Polk acquired all that territory was at least as morally dubious as Jackson’s infamous actions with the Native Americans (which Polk wasn’t really any better on).

Jackson playing a pivotal role in preserving the Union during the Nullification Crisis also shouldn’t be undersold. Anyone who hates John C. Calhoun that much can’t be all that bad!

I agree but sometimes the apprentice can surpass the master and I think in Polk’s case this is definitely true . Also you are forgetting Jackson’s economic policies helped contribute to the panic of 1837 so he definitely loses marks for that as well .

Ehh and I disagree as wars to acquire territory in those days was a common occurrence in the world and not viewed as morally bad while Jackson’s actions to native Americans was always controversial. Remember the Supreme Court ruled his actions were unconstitutional and he ended up doing it anyway so I don’t think the you can’t judge prior figures on modern standards works for him as he should have just followed what the Supreme Court said .

I think Jackson definitely deserves the tier of a mix of great and terrible things as his handling of the Nullification Crises and expanding franchise was great while the trail of tears and his handling of the economy was terrible .

[LAKISYLVANIA]

Also many of 19th century USA presidents treated native Americans awfully, like as lesser human beings. Secondly, not enough was done to ensure Afro-American rights were preserved & expanded after the civil war, partially due to incompetence which really makes me downrate a lot of these presidents.

[OSR stands with Israel]

I rated Polk exactly quite low because of how he acquired the territory, not because he acquired it. If that would be the way to rate leaders, Hitler would be number 1 leader of the 20th century (for a brief period). And if you disagree, than Stalin would be, because he benefitted from collapse of nazi-Germany by including all of eastern europe in its influence sphere and making USSR a global superpower.

It matters how it is done, not solely that it is done, and it is one of the reasons why i have trouble rating all those older presidents quite high, and also one of the reasons why Cleveland is relatively high ranked for me.

You can’t compare the moral standards of the 1940s to 1840s though and doing so is ridiculous given a 100 years is a very long time . Also nothing Polk did was anywhere as evil as what Hitler and Stalin did so it’s ridiculous in another way .


Polk is more comparable to the European leaders of the 19th century who were all better than Hitler and Stalin

[LAKISYLVANIA]

I rated Polk exactly quite low because of how he acquired the territory, not because he acquired it. If that would be the way to rate leaders, Hitler would be number 1 leader of the 20th century (for a brief period). And if you disagree, than Stalin would be, because he benefitted from collapse of nazi-Germany by including all of eastern europe in its influence sphere and making USSR a global superpower.

It matters how it is done, not solely that it is done, and it is one of the reasons why i have trouble rating all those older presidents quite high, and also one of the reasons why Cleveland is relatively high ranked for me.

Polk is more comparable to the European leaders of the 19th century who were all better than Hitler and Stalin

I'm not sure of that. Would you argue Leopold II was better than Hitler and Stalin? I have a hard time with evaluating the practices of the 19th century, because a lot of what did happen is awful and little is being done to take responsability. Imo, it disgusts me for example we still have a monarchy despite what happened (even if Belgium without a monarchy would likely have ceased to exist).

[Aurelius]

Polk
Truman
Jackson
Clinton
JFK
LBJ
Cleveland
Obama
FDR
Carter
Wilson
Van Buren
Johnson
Pierce
Buchanan

[Orser67]

S: FDR
A: LBJ, Truman
B+: Obama, Polk, Biden (so far)
B-: Clinton, JFK
C: Wilson, Van Buren, Jackson
D: Carter, Cleveland
F: Pierce, Buchanan, A. Johnson (though I don't count him as a Democratic president)

I tried to take an average of how good they were at achieving their goals and how much I approve of their impact on the country

[West_Midlander]

A Truman, LBJ
A- FDR
B- Carter, Clinton, MVB, Obama
C+ Polk, Wilson, Cleveland, JFK
C Pierce
D Andrew Johnson, Jackson
F Buchanan