Are you saying there are is no objective way to evaluate a president's performance?

Evaluating performance necessarily involves specifying goals and metrics.

If you provide hard definitions of the goals that you're interested in, as well as precise specifications of the metrics, plus a particular weighting scheme for combining performance numbers for multiple goals, well, then you can claim that you are objectively evaluating the performance. The problem is that you're evaluating a very narrow idea of performance, one that involves the goals and the metrics and the weights that you have picked. Other people can (and probably will) say that your goals are irrelevant, your metrics are misleading, and your weights are biased X-)

Which measures did you use to conclude the following?

I listened to my feelings :-P