Obviously Bill Clinton's at the top, and we all know who's at the bottom.



In IQ order:
182 ,  William J. Clinton (D)
175 ,  James E. Carter (D)
174 ,  John F. Kennedy (D)
155 ,  Richard M. Nixon (R)
147 ,  Franklin D. Roosevelt (D)
132 ,  Harry Truman (D)
126 ,  Lyndon B. Johnson (D)
122 ,  Dwight D. Eisenhower (R)
121 ,  Gerald Ford (R)
105 ,  Ronald Reagan (R)
098 , George Bush (R)
091 ,  George W. Bush (R)


The six Republican presidents of the past 50 years had an average IQ of 115.5, with President Nixon having the highest at 155. President G.W. Bush rated the lowest of all the Republicans with an IQ of 91.

The six Democrat presidents had IQs with an average of 156, with President Clinton having the highest IQ, at 182. President Lyndon B. Johnson was rated the lowest of all the Democrats with an IQ of 126.



Among comments made concerning the specific testing of President GW Bush, his low ratings are due to his apparently difficult command of the English language in public statements, his limited use of vocabulary (6,500 words for Bush versus an average of 11,000 words for other presidents), his lack of scholarly achievements other than a basic MBA, and an absence of any body of work which could be studied on an intellectual basis.

The complete report documents the methods and procedures used to arrive at these ratings, including depth of sentence structure and voice stress confidence analysis. "All the Presidents prior to George W. Bush had a least one book under their belt, and most had written several white papers during their education or early careers. Not so with President Bush," Dr. Lovenstein said. "He has no published works or writings, which made it more difficult to arrive at an assessment. We relied more heavily on transcripts of his unscripted public speaking."


Source: http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/11/274472.shtml

I'll love see to Obama's IQ as opposed to McCains

Sorry mate, cant help u

You dont need no rocket science to know that the Democrats are better hopefully Obama would go straight to the top when he becomes President

wow, so that means I am smarter than Truman, Johnson, Eisenhower, Ford, Reagan and of course the two Bushes.

Only a dunce will believe this hoax.

this infatuation with Clinton too much sef.

Clinton this Clinton that.

doyin13:

this infatuation with Clinton too much sef.

Clinton this Clinton that.

This was when(2003) Clinton was in the left's good books,hence,the "award" of an IQ of 182 points. I'm sure now, his IQ has 'fallen' to just below Johnson's.

doyin13:

this infatuation with Clinton too much sef.

Clinton this Clinton that.

very well deserved, right? What has bush left all Americans . . .

CH3COO:

very well deserved, right? What has bush left all Americans . . .

Well, Bush is still president till November, He has not left Americans yet. The question was about the infatuation with Clinton. Why turn the target on Bush?? I am just curious!

Kobojunkie:

Well, Bush is still president till November, He has not left Americans yet. The question was about the infatuation with Clinton. Why turn the target on Bush?? I am just curious!

And the question was replied with a question.  Aside from that, isn't the topic about smartest US. presidents _{correct me if I'm wrong}. About Bush leaving America . . . figure of speech . . . understand much? Even if you don't, how is 6 more months of disaster going to wipe out over 7 years of atrocity?

Sure the thread itself is about a supposed list on IQ of presidents but your response was posted to a question on Clinton and your come back was Bush, so I believe I am in line here,  how come?? I do not care much for your opinion of the current one, as it is quite clear that you have one. I just want to understand how a question on Clinton has the answer: Bush. lol

Yes, comparatively.  And if you thoroughly understood the response you wouldn't have lashed out at the Bushism.  If you're still having difficulties understanding all that has been said, it's basically this: let's look at Clinton's IQ relative to Bush's.  Besides, the response wasn't "Bush" - silly exaggerations

I'm still awaiting an explanation as to why likeness to Bush is an invalid answer . . .

CH3COO:

Yes, comparatively. And if you thoroughly understood the response you wouldn't have lashed out at the Bushism. If you're still having difficulties understanding all that has been said, it's basically this: let's look at Clinton's IQ relative to Bush's. Besides, the response wasn't "Bush" - silly exaggerations

Your post was in response to this

Insert Quote
this infatuation with Clinton too much sef.

Clinton this Clinton that.

Now could you please answer my question in a way that actually makes sense. I am not asking you for opinion, neither am I asking you to explain his IQ level. I simply asked how you arrived at such an answer as the one you posted above, is this too much for you??

And I did.  Why are you asking me to hold your hand and walk you through primary school all over again.  Is it my fault that you're hard of comprehension?


I took the time to break it down into even further lay man's terms for you and you still don't get it.  After I answered the question, which wasn't even a statement of fact, I decided to go further by implying that Americans have every reason to applaud Clinton's IQ . . . especially at this time -- considering what Bush is doing to dislocate the economy.  Makes Clinton seem like a god. Gee , I'm not a babysitter 


And don't forget to answer my question as well.  Why would you believe that an open ended statement like that cannot be replied with a statement related to Bush?

CH3COO:

And I did. Why are you asking me to hold your hand and walk you through primary school all over again. Is it my fault that you're hard of comprehension?


I took the time to break it down into even further lay man's terms for you and you still don't get it. After I answered the question, which wasn't even a statement of fact, I decided to go further by implying that Americans have every reason to applaud Clinton's IQ . . . especially at this time -- considering what Bush is doing to dislocate the economy. Gee , I'm not a babysitter


And don't forget to answer my question as well. Why would you believe that an open ended statement like that cannot be replied with a statement related to Bush?

**Sigh!!! I will accept this is all you can offer.

In answer to your question, I NEVER once stated that you could not reply with anything about Bush. Just was curious. Wanted to know how you think by asking you how you decided a comment about your opinion of Bush would be best answer for you to post on a statement on Clinton.  Just wanted to understand the kind of person you are is all and now I have my answer. thanks

This was your question

your response was posted to a question on Clinton and your come back was Bush, so I believe I am in line here,  how come??

Anyone with eyes can see that I have answered this question multiple times now.

Kobojunkie:

**Sigh!!! I will accept this is all you can offer.

In answer to your question, I NEVER once stated that you could not reply with anything about Bush. Just was curious. Wanted to know how you think by asking you how you decided a comment about your opinion of Bush would be best answer for you to post on a statement on Clinton.  Just wanted to understand the kind of person you are is all and now I have my answer. thanks

OMG! In short you want to play a game of psyche . . . interrogate my mind -- - - - - I'm not interested.  It was probably the first thing thought that popped out at me, okay?  I'm not here to judge it as the best possible response I could have provided. And don't be so silly now. conclusion about a person based on one over-analyzed post? Sure says a lot about you instead.

CH3COO:

OMG! In short you want to play a game of psyche . . . interrogate my mind -- - - - - I'm not interested.  It was probably the first thing thought that popped out at me, okay?  I'm not here to judge it as the best possible response I could have provided. And don't be so silly now. conclusion about a person based on one over-analyzed post? Sure says a lot about you instead.

Ofcourse it does,  I prefer to waste my time well and I make sure to guage responses from folks before I decide they are worth engaging. I am sure you might follow by claiming you do not do same and my response to such would be " Good for you !".

The words "Waste your time well", in the form you've constructed them, are oxymorons to each other; keyword here is wasted. It's like you wanted to play a game of whys. . . it will become annoying.

Example
why did you say yes
-Because i said yes
why not no
-because i said yes
you could have said no
-but i said yes
tell me why you said yes
=what's wrong with yes
i just want to know why
- i don't have a reason for it
why don't you have a reason for it
- umm, because I don't,

hope you get it.

If you are trying reading hard to play Mind Reader here , can I urge you not quit your day job. Maybe your mind works as you described above but do note that we all do not think alike. Try to allow people to tell you what they mean and stop desperately trying to inject your chips in between. It does come off as you being rude, if you do not know it.

Rudeness is what I call your poking into the reason for my answer.  Even after I repeated it to you twice before.

If you wanted to counter my response with something intuitive, you should have done it. Those "why" games are unintelligent and quite feminine in nature. _{apology tot he female folks}

Well,  like I stated, I was curious, and so I tried to get a reasonable answer from you but had to accept what I got in the end  and so have a better understanding of who you are.

I have a very good understanding, now, of who you are as well. I don't see you having to explain why you ROFLMAO all over the place. Even when asked, sometiems you say it's because you can. Well to answer your question too, I responded that way because I can. Settled?

That answer is more reasonable than that which you gave me earlier. I am not sure you realize that though. Hey , I already accepted your first answer and so was done with the question.

More reasonable . That one just about got me ROFLMAO too. I have to be stupid to realize that, "that answer is more reasonable", pardon me.

CH3COO:

More reasonable . That one just about got me ROFLMAO too. I have to be stupid to realize that, "that answer is more reasonable", pardon me.

Well, you took me round and round the garden with your other answers but simply telling me you did it cause you could, actually is more straightforward and reasonable.

Not really because that's not the only reason I offered as to why I did it. Which is pointless anyways. My reason for introducing Bush into the response was explained, but you need a walking stick --err, I mean a new set of goggles, to see that reason.

CH3COO:

Not really because that's not the only reason I offered as to why I did it. Which is pointless anyways. My reason for introducing Bush into the response was explained, but you need a walking stick --err, I mean a new set of goggles, to see that reason.

I never said it did not make sense to YOU. I simply stated that from where I sit, it felt more like you trying to lead me around the garden and so the final response came off as being more straightforward and actually would have made more sense than all the zig-zagging I got from you earlier.

It wasn't zig-zagging. You as a person just prefer elaborate posts. As such, you were offended that my post, ad initium, did not give you the full details that you sought.

CH3COO:

It wasn't zig-zagging. You as a person just prefer elaborate posts. As such, you were offended that my post, ad initium, did not give you the full details that you sought.

Interesting, so telling you you did it just cause you could gives me "FULL DETAILS"?? Seriously, DO NOT QUIT YOUR DAY JOB, ROFLMAO!!!

Telling you I compared Bush and Clinton because . . . "thrice" was giving you more than the full picture.  Please never lose sight of your goggles again.  You might find it very difficult to find another good samaritan that will explain themselves beyond the extent that I have.


The part about "because I can" did not even come until like 4 posts after.  And that part was definitely annoying regardless of your opinion.  If you really want to find out why, kindly cut my heart open and attach wires to my nerves in hopes of some scientific discovery.

I already explained how the answers which made sense to you was just nothing but zig-zagging to me and I eventually had to accept that was the best you had to offer in line of reason to me. Why continue now when you already decided on the final answer for me in this case and I explained it was actually the most reasonable of all the answers??