Reread. I clearly identified the problem and it wasn't Lincoln.
As you're now aware, Obama had years of political experience, both in and out of government, including in the Senate. By comparison, we've had four presidents who had no political experience at the time they took office. As for the idea Obama was a dunce, keep in mind that he's someone who worked his way from obscurity to the highest ranks of academic accomplishment without any connections other than those he forged for himself, and without the advantages coming from wealth can afford. That doesn't sound like a dunce, does it?
Do you imagine he's admitting to what you said about him?
Incorrect. The poverty rate was nowhere near an historical high. Even at its post-Great Recession worst, in 2010, the poverty rate peaked at just 15.1%. The historical high is 22.4%, in the Eisenhower years. 15.1% just brought it back to where it was at one point during the Bush years, and didn't even equal the Reagan-era peak (15.2%). I'm happy to continue to act as your tutor on American history, but I'm going to have to ask you to also do some outside reading, because you have a whole lot of work to do to get to the point of basic competence in the subject.
Incorrect. From 2010 to 2013, it fell from 15.1% to 14.8%.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/200463/us-poverty-rate-since-1990/
Incorrect. Your link dates to March 2015, at which time the most recent income data was for 2013 (click on the Excel link to confirm). Thus, it leaves out Obama's three best years. Include those and you'll spot your error.
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-income-households/h05.xls
https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-income-families/f06ar.xls
As you can now see, real median household income rose 5.05% on Obama's watch. while median real family incomes rose 5.78%. That makes his number better than Bush, Bush, Carter, and Ford.
I'm curious, do you ever get tired of humiliating yourself this way? I mean, when you read and see I've spotted yet another glaring error you made ("oh, Christ, I used dated data from 2013"), do you just cringe? I've never been so incompetent as you at something like this, so I'm wondering what it feels like.
Hehe. You're using a dated link again -- once again the data stops at 2013. Yet, even then, you can see the improvement from Bush's last budget year, with a deficit of $1,415,724,000,000, according to your link (though actually it was just $1.2 trillion when Obama took office, as my earlier link showed), to Obama's last listed budget year, with a deficit of $680,276,000,000, according to your link. As you can see, that's an improvement by over half, according to your own source's data.