Biden's Approval Rating Plummets Below Most Recent Presidents on Day 240, Polling Shows
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
President Joe Biden's approval rating has dropped to 46 percent, plummeting below the figure for previous presidents at this point in their term, according to new polling.
FiveThirtyEight reported the president's approval rating as of Thursday, his 240th day in office. Though Biden's rating dropped from 50.3 percent in August, it is higher than Donald Trump's 38.8 percent at the same point during his presidency.
However, the poll shows that Biden currently has less approval than Barack Obama did, with 53.4 percent on his 240th day in office, while George W. Bush had 83.2 percent and Bill Clinton 48.3 percent.
On Tuesday, a national poll of adults from Quinnipiac University showed that only 42 percent of people approve of Biden as president compared to 46 percent in early August. The survey, which was conducted between September 10 and 13, found that the president's approval rating declined into a negative area for the first time since he took office.
The university's survey had a margin of error of 2.8 percentage points and polled 1,210 people nationwide, who were asked if they approved of the way Biden is handling certain issues, including foreign policy, environment and COVID.
"If there ever was a honeymoon for President Biden, it is clearly over," said Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy. "This is, with few exceptions, a poll full of troubling negatives...from overall job approval, to foreign policy, to the economy."
According to the same poll, half of the respondents disapproved of the way the president is doing his job. This marks an increase of 7 percentage points from the last survey, carried out between July 27 and August 2, which reported a 43 percent figure.
The president's popularity has been dropping since last month, according to a poll conducted by Morning Consult. It gave Biden a B rating, according to FiveThirtyEight, which is lower than Quinnipiac's A minus rating.
Morning Consult's poll, which was conducted between September 10 and 13, showed that 47 percent of participants approved of Biden's performance, compared with a 50 percent disapproval rating.
In August, a Harvard CAPS/Harris poll showed that Biden's approval rating had dropped, with 52 percent of respondents saying they approved of the way he was doing his job and 43 percent disapproved.
The president was also scrutinized for his decision on foreign policy, especially over the way he handled the U.S. troops' withdrawal from Afghanistan, which concluded on August 31 and ended the 20-year war.
According to Quinnipiac's national poll of adults, only 31 percent of Americans approved of the way Biden handled the Afghanistan pullout.
Newsweek contacted the White House for comment but did not hear back before publication.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
58 visitors
For those of you interested in polls.....
Trump and Trump supporters are not the topic.
Title of your seeded article is "Biden's Approval Rating Plummets Below Most Recent Presidents On Day 240, Polling Shows".
But you are saying that "Recent Presidents" are off-topic? Doesn't that put your entire article off-topic since it references Trump as a "Recent President"?
Is THAT what you read??????????
Please give me the entire quote where you read that in MY fucking post.
And since we both know you can't, please stop.
I don't see polls like this helping Democrats next year in the midterms.
That is rather sad.
Good thing polls don't mean dick.
Funny!
I can imagine Hillary screeching something similar to her staff the day after she lost:
"The damn polls didn't mean a damn thing!!"
In presidential elections, they don't, since they reflect the popular vote, (which she won, like the polls said she would), not the electorate.
Actually, some polls (even Presidential) do account for the popular vote and the electoral vote by releasing polling by state.
I don't know of one pollster who had Trump winning, but I do know of a bunch that had Hillary winning.
Popular votes mean nothing in presidential elections. In almost all OTHER elections they do count.
yes, I know how Presidents are elected, which is why I don;t care about the popular vote for that office because it is irrelevant.
If I was talking about OTHER elections, then I would consider the popular vote relevant.
That is kind of funny when for the past 8 months there's been a lot of talk about how Biden won by 7000 votes over Trump... guess the popular vote is meaningful when someone wants it to be meaningful and not so much when they can't make hay with it. LOL
7,000 votes? Where??????????????????????
Sorry, that was a typo. It's supposed to read 7 million (7,000,000) votes. But really I think it's funny that for months the left continued to crow about how badly Biden beat Trump and how the popular vote is the thing.... until now when someone points out that popular votes are meaningless in a presidential election. I just think it's rather funny the way people will twist themselves to remain within their partisan framework.
He did beat trumpturd BIGLY.
"I just think it's rather funny the way people will twist themselves to remain within their partisan framework."
Like you?
So do you think the popular vote is important in a presidential election or not? Basically do you agree with Frost or not? Because it was MrFrost up in 3.1.3 who said that the popular votes mean nothing in presidential elections. So which is it?
national poll of adults from Quinnipiac University showed that only 42 percent of people approve of Biden as president
I was surprised this wasn't immediately seeded. Seems like their was a time a few months ago when every poll about Joe Biden received it's own post, complete with teen beat style photos of him.
I wonder what changed.....
Some Americans woke up?
Either behind enemy lines; or with friends and family behind enemy lines.
Thread 4.2 cleaned up for being off topic as per the seeder.
Why isn't it a 'lie' when Joe Biden says something false or dishonest? (msn.com)
Well, it’s not surprising for two big reasons that I can think of. First, this pandemic, which should have been largely defeated by July just drags on and on. Is that all Biden’s fault? Of course not, but he undoubtedly could have done more - and sooner - to get people vaccinated. Second, of course, is the absolute clusterfuck in Afghanistan. He is ultimately responsible for how badly that went.
Have you ever heard "you can lead a horse to water but you cant make him drink" ?
Biden has not prevented a single person from getting the vaccine in a timely fashion.
Oh that is a sad comment. That is the lowest possible standard, and not what I expect from a leader. I expect the president to inspire, encourage, and persuade people to get vaccines - finally, compel if necessary. The president should increase the number of people getting vaccines. Simply not standing in their way is literally doing nothing.
Seems to me that Biden is doing that. He of course could do more, but he is certainly not sitting on the sidelines.
Just saying “get the shot” once in a while and having it air on CNN is the bare minimum and it’s clearly not getting the job done.
People of a certain age can name one Surgeon General - C. Everett Koop. He made better use of mass media than any of his successors and he didn’t have the benefit of the internet. For example, he put himself on TV:
He did ads and interviews for other public health issues, too.
He also sent informational mailers on AIDS to every house in America. Why can’t we get that with Covid?
I’ll bet you 99.999% of Americans could not name the current Surgeon General (Vivek Murthy) without looking it up.
Every time I look at a YouTube video, I should see a 6 second ad with that guy encouraging me to get vaccinated. Every time. And if not him, some celebrity.
Every time I’m streaming a TV show and there is a commercial break, I should get a similar message. There should also be messages debunking all the bullshit that’s out there.
There should be pop up ads on Twitter. The Surgeon General should be on TikTok. There should be vaccine challenges. The vaccine should go “viral.”
All of that could be coming out of Washington, but it’s not.
I stated that he could do more. My point was that he has been and is taking action; he is not sitting on the sidelines.
Yeah, no one said you didn’t. I expanded on the general idea that he could be doing more, but with details. It’s called a discussion.
Also, I never said he was “sitting on the sidelines” yet for some reason you felt it necessary to defend him against that - twice. Let’s not look for a fight where there isn’t one.
No, but you wrote the equivalent:
Let's not get into a petty argument. Biden could do more but he is doing more than nothing. Agreed?
You're talking about a guy who was elected on the qualification "being a kindly boring old grandfather figure", because after 4 years of Trump we all needed a rest.
I'm not sure he has a talent for inspiration.
Where did you come up with this hallucination? Many of the people who are refusing to get vaccinated are doing so to spite Biden and the Democrats and liberals. There is no message from Biden that would "coax" them to vaccinate.
Thus the lean in to mandates.
And I'll bet you that there have been more media messages (tv shows, celebrities, politicians, social media, ) encouraging vaccinations than for any other health crisis in memory.
NO ONE in America has lacked encouragement to get the vaccine.
Perfect example of confirmation bias. You speak as though breakthrough infections are replete (' many ' when reality is ' very few '). Per the CDC as of Aug 2:
A different but individual expert perspective :
Here, I started the research ⇡ that you should have done on your own. Read the above quotes. Do some more digging if you do not believe the stated facts.
Bottom line, breakthrough infections are rare. The vaccines are largely effective (albeit imperfect) against the variants. It is simply stupid beyond words for someone who does not have natural antibodies (from a prior COVID infection) and is not medically incompatible with the vaccine to not get vaccinated. And for those who have natural antibodies, it is advised and sensible to get vaccinated because that improves their ability to resist infection.
I quoted you numbers from the CDC. Do you not understand the concept of 'spin'? Spin is a process of reinterpreting facts to portray an intended belief. I presented the facts via a quote and a link. That, dennis, is not spin. That is referencing facts and identifying the source of same.
You, clearly, are the one engaging in spin by suggesting that breakthrough infections are 'many' when in reality they are a tiny percentage. And when presented facts to the contrary you simply cry 'spin' as if that is a rebuttal.
You do not engage in research and offer facts which show me wrong. Rather, you want to believe that vaccines are ineffective and will refuse any facts to the contrary. I detected that right off the bat and noted your post was based on confirmation bias.
I would advise you to do some research but clearly you will ignore anything that counters your desired belief.
When speaking of the efficacy of a drug one works in terms of percentages. It matters, greatly, how many people are involved in the sample.
If the sample size is 100,000 and 36,000 have breakthrough infections then it is accurate to describe that as 'many'. It is 36%; 'many' is accurate.
When the sample size is 164 million and 36,000 have breakthough infections then it is SPIN to describe that as 'many'. That would calculate to 0.022%. The accurate descriptive term is 'few'; even 'very few' applies.
By using the descriptor 'many' you are trying to argue that the vaccines are not effective. But they are. The problem is your deliberate spin (misrepresentation of the facts), not the vaccines. The approach you are using is an excellent way to 'know' that which is not true.
I'd say because many are (unfortunately) scientifically illiterate and/or willfully ignorant.
You do understand that no vaccine (or any medication) is 100% effective, right? Also to be considered is an individual's nutritional status, overall health, comorbidities, viral load, ect., all of which can affect one's ability to mount an effective immune response.
36k out of how many vaccinations? Fortunately, TiG pointed that out to you. So it seems the only one spinning things around here is you!
Good grief man can you not comprehend that we are talking about relative numbers?
Yes, 36,000 relative to 1 would be 'many'. But that is not what we are doing when gauging efficacy of a vaccine. See? Efficacy is based upon the population in question. Thus we do NOT interpret 36,000 relative to 1 but rather to the size of the population.
As I explained to you in clear language:
In super simple language, that means that 36,000 is 'many' out of at total population of 100,000.
In super simple language, that means 36,000 is not 'many' (but rather 'few') out of a total population of 164 million. 0.022% of the population is not 'many'.
I doubt anyone reading this believes you do not get this basic concept of percentage within a population. So who are you trying to kid? And, the more important question, is: why?:
Why are you trying to spin a notion that the vaccines are not effective?
36k out of 166.5 MILLION is not many, relatively speaking. Mathematically, it's quite low. So yes, I do agree with TiG.
BTW, 14K people who have been vaccinated experienced a breakthrough Covid infection, especially from the Covid variants. That is 0.0084% of 166 Million. Also not many. I'd say that qualifies as "very few." Also, the vaccines are 94% effective against the original covid virus.
I'm not so sure. I think people who are on the fence are going to come around in their own time, and people who won't get vaccinated no matter what are not going to get less crazy because of something Biden does.
Well that's true. He's lucky Americans have such a ridiculously short attention span.