Biden on verge of becoming the most unpopular President ever

He’s now heading into the 20s, according to Civiqs – run by Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas:

Now imagine where he’d be if the press accurately reported his corruption and criminality. 2%?
This entry was posted in US politics. Bookmark the permalink.

104 Responses to Biden on verge of becoming the most unpopular President ever

  1. Entropy says:

    There will always be the tribal democrats that would still support Biden.

  2. Boambee John says:

    Entropy

    And their foreign acolytes, like Non Mentis and m0nty-fa.

  3. Not Trampis says:

    What a shame deplorables cannot prove any alleged corruption or criminality.
    Typical of conspiracy theorists. Devoid of brains.

  4. Bruce of Newcastle says:

    I suspect he already is, but the polling companies are frantically pumping his tyres even as they deflate. Polls these days aren’t about measuring what voters think, they’re now about influencing voters in the direction the Left wants them to go.

  5. Buccaneer says:

    Biden has the lowest approval in history. Where are the headlines? I might have expected this devastating news to be reported in the MSM with wailing about how much better he is than Trump and what a travesty it is that stoopid americans don’t know what is good for them.

    But they can’t even be bothered to do that. It must be a such a burden to constantly cover for this guy and his rancid admin. How horrible it must be that just burying these stories doesn’t work because some people have the temerity to think for themselves..

  6. Prospero says:

    Biden has the lowest approval in history. Where are the headlines?

    There are none because it is not true:

    Former Presidents Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Jimmy Carter, George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush all had approval ratings below 30%.

    To be more nuanced (ha, as if it is worth it here, where hyperboll is all that matters): there are a million ways to cut and slice popularity polls (popularity at this point of the presidency/average popularity – and over various periods). But on the simple metric of “has any president ever had a lower single approval rating” the answer is a clear “yes – several”.

    Even Reagan had an approval ranking of 35% at one point.

    It does nothing to detract from the obvious: Trump is already regarded as a historically bad President and it would appear very likely he will be facing criminal action for his role in seeking to overthrow it.

  7. Buccaneer says:

    Hyperbole, (or hyperbowl in a Gillardian drawl if you’re a dumb committed lefty) is thinking that Trump is actually going to face charges for the multiple farce investigations going on.

    It’s also saying that Trump will be regarded as a historically bad president in the light of the current admin’s performance.

    Predicting what history will say in the future is notoriously difficult and Ricky Gervais nailed it when he said

    Like, the worst thing you can say today, get you cancelled on Twitter, death threats, the worst thing you can say today is, ‘Women don’t have penises,’ right? Now, no one saw that coming. You won’t find a 10-year-old tweet saying ‘Women don’t have penises.’ You know why? We didn’t think we f—— had to!”

  8. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    What a shame deplorables cannot prove any alleged corruption or criminality.
    Typical of conspiracy theorists. Devoid of brains.

    Have you been looking in the mirror again?

  9. Boambee John says:

    Prospero

    Trump is already regarded as a historically bad President and it would appear very likely he will be facing criminal action for his role in seeking to overthrow it.

    Only if the House Un-American Activities Committee can bodgie up enough false statements from hearsay “witnesses”?

  10. Prospero says:

    Surveys of presidential historians already show him amongst the handful of worst presidents. Nothing’s going to change that, as:

    a. the Jan 6 hearings are cementing his reputation as a wannabe dictator prepared to overthrow an election based on any nut conspiracy theory he would read on the internet;
    b. the long term changes to the Supreme Court that are currently giving conservatives boners are in fact unpopular and causing a crisis in confidence in the court as an institution.

    Bad President, bad consequences.

  11. Not Trampis says:

    funny how no deplorable wants to talk about the Trump’s criminal activities.
    Actually no

  12. Boambee John says:

    Prospero

    reputation as a wannabe dictator prepared to overthrow an election based on any nut conspiracy theory

    Enough about Shrillary and the whole Wussia, Wussia, Wussia fraud.

  13. Boambee John says:

    Non Mentis

    funny how no deplorable wants to talk about the Trump’s criminal activities.
    Actually no

    Nothing to talk about?

  14. Buccaneer says:

    Funny that, Trump campaigned on the supreme court and won, then delivered on his promises.

    Polling of current historians of course will set the tone in perpetuity for interpretation of events surrounding Trump, just like it did for Lincoln and pretty much every other character in history, or according to your blinkered view of the world anyway.

    Unsurprisingly, historians like those commissioned to write the official histories of characters like Stalin and Nero don’t have much credibility over the fullness of time. But then you probably count Bruce Pascoe as a historian.

    And yet, even CNN recognises that the Jan 6 charade is going nowhere and that was before the debacle around Miss ‘he said words to the effect of’.

  15. Prospero says:

    Obviously, popularity polling is affected by circumstances at the time of the poll, many of which are not under the control of a President. Hence Trump’s figures (which were never great) were still higher than deserved, given he inherited a recovering economy, and a relatively peaceful world period. Biden is being punished for inflation caused by matters largely out of his control, and not being able to convince a couple of Democrats in name only to implement Democrat policy.

    Historical perceptions of Trump are never going to revised upward, given how many of his former advisers have already gone on the record about his appalling character and personal behaviour, and whose lasting legacy (Supreme Court) was achieved through dishonesty of Republicans and is now resulting in decisions that are unpopular and long term damaging to the country.

  16. Buccaneer says:

    And yet, Trump leads again now. How that must rankle you. Biden has made every misstep possible and has made Trump look like a genius, whether that is deserved or not. Pretending that Biden hasn’t greatly exacerbated inflation is quaint but grossly inaccurate.

  17. Boambee John says:

    Prospero

    Hence Trump’s figures (which were never great) were still higher than deserved, given he inherited a recovering economy, and a relatively peaceful world period. Biden is being punished for inflation caused by matters largely out of his control, and not being able to convince a couple of Democrats in name only to implement Democrat policy.

    Suuuuuure Prossy, whatever you say.

  18. Lee says:

    Love how lefty heads are still exploding at the mere thought of Trump.

  19. Prospero says:

    Love how lefty heads are still exploding at the mere thought of Trump.

    Um, because we don’t like dumb wannabe fascists who ignore democracy. How radical of me.

  20. Lee says:

    How radical of me.

    You said it, not me!

  21. Boambee John says:

    Prospero

    Um, because we don’t like dumb wannabe fascists who ignore democracy. How radical of me.

    Strange, I must have missed your criticism of the whole Shrillary campaign, as well as those not-so-petty fascists, Brennan, Comey, et al who used the national security apparatus to spy on US citizens, very few of whom had any links to Trump. Then there was the use of the IRS against anyone who criticised Obama while he was president.

  22. Lee says:

    John, yesterday Prospero used the exact words “false equivalence.”
    Just a coincidence that that happens to be the pseudonym of (supposedly) another lefty commenter here?
    Somehow, I doubt it.

  23. Prospero says:

    It’s been pointed out to you before:

    A long-awaited review of how the FBI came to investigate the Trump campaign’s possible links to Russia has validated the agency’s decision to open its probe.

    The report, compiled by the Justice Department’s inspector general, stresses that political bias did not influence the bureau’s actions, as President Donald Trump and his allies have frequently alleged.

    The Durham investigation has resulted in one, minor conviction.

    The owner of this blog, and you, regurgitate Right wing conspiracy nonsense as to how this was the biggest political criminal scandal in the history of the US – a position that can only be held by blithely ignoring all of the investigations into the origin of the investigation and the knowledge the US has of actual Russian interference.

    Go on, give me some “Deep State looks after its own” conspiracy nonsense in response.

    The truth is there was good reason to start the investigation, which despite flawed elements, resulted in this:

    Special counsel Robert Mueller’s team indicted or got guilty pleas from 34 people and three companies during their lengthy investigation.

    That group is composed of six former Trump advisers, 26 Russian nationals, three Russian companies, one California man, and one London-based lawyer. Seven of these people (including five of the six former Trump advisers) have pleaded guilty.

    What’s more, bipartisan Senate intelligence committee found that Russia and Wikileaks did combine to actively hack Democrat material and help the Trump campaign.

    You’ve lost the historical argument about this, just that you don’t know because you believe hyper partisan twits. Brainwashed and won’t believe evidence in front of your nose.

    You can’t handle the truth, and prefer to live in

  24. Prospero says:

    self serving fantasy land.

  25. Jannie says:

    I am seriously deplorable, and I would love to see some evidence against Trump.

    After using the entire resources of the American State including the FBI and other every Alphabet Intelligence Agency, the establishment could not come up with any evidence against Trump. It was so bad for them that they had to make it up. Even then their concocted “evidence” is so implausible that only a moron (or the rusted on 30 odd percent) would believe it.

    If Trump had so much as an unpaid parking fine they would have impeached him. Trump is therefore probably the cleanest president since Eisenhower. (Actually the current/previous howling mob in the Congress lower house would probably have impeached Eisenhower for having a cute looking girl driver in the middle of a war.)

  26. Boambee John says:

    Prospero

    A long-awaited review of how the FBI came to investigate the Trump campaign’s possible links to Russia has validated the agency’s decision to open its probe.

    The report, compiled by the Justice Department’s inspector general, stresses that political bias did not influence the bureau’s actions,

    I think that Mandy Rice-Davies had the appropriate response to that investigation.

    The left used to complain about police investigating themselves, now they praise it.

  27. Lee says:

    The left used to complain about police investigating themselves, now they praise it.

    They also used to be vehemently opposed to police heavy-handedness towards, or bashing of (peaceful) protesters.
    A certain lefty blogger here was unashamedly praising them for doing it against anti-vax protesters in Melbourne last year.

  28. Prospero says:

    The left used to complain about police investigating themselves, now they praise it.

    Who do you want investigating it? Steve Bannon? Rand Paul? Alex Jones?

    What evidence do you have that the Office of the Inspector General for the Justice Department is corrupt or self serving? That he didn’t find it was the “biggest political crime ever“?

  29. Boambee John says:

    Prospero

    A simple question for you.

    Put aside whatever you and we have read about the Russia imbroglio (and we have probably read more than you, because your “narrative” dominates the MSM, whereas we have to search for the counter narrative).

    Do you seriously think that, given the fear and loathing that Trump inspired in the Washington establishment (which includes both Democrats and Establishment Republicans, as well as the bureaucracy), if hard evidence had been found of collusion, then he would not have been charged, either while in office (such evidence was not presented to his impeachment), or after leaving office?

    When considering your answer, recall a comment made around the time of the Iraq WMD search, pointing out that most of those making decisions did not understand the difference between intelligence assessments (that are very much on the balance of probabilities, with a tendency to cautious alarmism) and hard evidence of criminal actions (supposedly “beyond reasonable doubt”). There might have been intelligence assessments, but where is the hard evidence?

    Why has Trump never been charged in a proper court of law?

  30. Prospero says:

    I am seriously deplorable, and I would love to see some evidence against Trump.

    try this: Stop picturing what happened in Trump’s image and voice.

    Imagine instead that everything that went on was done by Obama and his family and advisers.

    So, let’s say it came out that during (say) his campaign against Romney that someone emailed his wife claiming:

    “a “crown prosecutor of Russia” will provide official documents and information that would incriminate Romney and his connections with Russia as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Obama.” Wanna meet?

    And Michelle replied “Seems we have some time and if it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.” And then she got Obama’s campaign manager and others to come with her to the meeting, only to find there wasn’t actually anything on offer. Yet later, when asked, Obama claims “I didn’t know anything about Michelle’s and my campaign manager’s meeting. News to me.” Would you believe him?

    It also turned out that the Obama campaign manager had been hiding huge payments from pro-Russian Ukrainians and Russian oligarchs, and was giving “sensitive campaign polling data and the Campaign’s strategy for beating Romney” to a Russian intelligence agent. Would you just shrug and say “well, there’s nothing unusual or scandalous about a campaign manager giving such information to a foreign intelligence agent”?

    Would you still say that even though it was widely reported US intelligence believed it was Russian hackers who were providing WikiLeaks with stolen emails from the RNC, as well as stolen emails from Romney’s campaign chairman? And that even though knowing this, the Obama campaign team starting planning how to use this stolen “dirt” to their best advantage, including contact with Wikileaks about release timing.

    And that Obama when later questioned said “no, I don’t recall talking to close confidant X about that” when others say they heard the conversations? Would you say “that’s plausible. It’s not like a close confidant would be telling him about the dirt coming down the line.”?

    And that at a press conference, Obama said “”Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.” And later claimed it was a joke told before a rally and everyone laughed. (It wasn’t. It was a news conference, no one laughed.) Not only that, on the same day, Russian cyberattacks on RNC servers were made. Would you shrug and say “no, nothing to see there?”

    And that it turned out Obama was plotting business with Russia while campaigning, saying after announcing he was running: “I have nothing to do with Russia.” And then nine days before becoming president writing on Twitter, “Russia has never tried to use leverage over me. I HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RUSSIA – NO DEALS, NO LOANS, NO NOTHING!” Only to say 2 years later that during the campaign, when it has come out that he had his representatives trying to get a building deal in Moscow, he says he was in a position “to possibly do a deal to build a building of some kind in Moscow. There would be nothing wrong if I did do it. I was running my business while I was campaigning. There was a good chance that I wouldn’t have won, in which case I would have gotten back into the business. And why should I lose lots of opportunities?”

    Would you say Obama was not being deceptive in claiming “who me? I got nothing to do with Russia”?

    In this whole smelly matter, regardless of whether or not an investigation thought active collusion by Obama could be proved, you would say “no, no, honestly, I don’t see the problem. Obama and his whole team knew that the emails were stolen, by Russia, tried to get advance info on them, went to a meeting with Russians hoping to get more dirt, had staff for a time with close Russian connections who fed info to Russian intelligence officer, and also was trying to get a lucrative deal going while campaigning while denying he had any Russian interests at all. NO THIS IS ALL PERFECTLY FINE AND I SEE NO POLITICAL SCANDAL AT ALL THAT OBAMA AND HIS TEAM WERE OPERATING LIKE THIS. WHAT IS THE PROBLEM?”

  31. Jannie says:

    Prospero, I tried, but it didn’t work.

    If they had any plausible evidence at all against Trump they would have charged him with it, and a Democrat judge would have given him the maximum penalty.

  32. Boambee John says:

    Prospero

    I assumed at first that your comment at 1945 was a response to mine at 1826, but since you did not address any of my points, I must assume that it is a general rant. I will therefore not go through it in detail, life is too short, but simply pick up a couple of key points.

    widely reported US intelligence believed it was Russian hackers who were providing WikiLeaks with stolen emails from the RNC, as well as stolen emails from Romney’s campaign chairman?

    See my comment about the difference between intelligence assessments and hard evidence.

    Note also that in 2016, the DNC refused to provide the server to the FBI for forensic examination. Suspicious minds might wonder why.

    Obama was plotting business with Russia while campaigning, saying after announcing he was running: “I have nothing to do with Russia.”

    And that at a press conference, Obama said “”Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing.”

    As for direct communication with Russia, have you forgotten Obama’s “hot mike” moment?

    “Tell Vladimir that I will have greater flexibility after the election.”

    And stop screaming, it suggests that you are so committed to your position that nothing would change your mind. It also reminds me of the story many years ago, about a speaker who left his script on the lectern. At a critical point, he had noted in the margin: “Louder, argument weak”.

    Now imagine the same for the Shillary campaign in 2016.

  33. Lee says:

    If they had any plausible evidence at all against Trump they would have charged him with it, and a Democrat judge would have given him the maximum penalty.

    +1000.
    They have got nothing.

  34. Jannie says:

    Boambee your patience is impressive. Even more impressive is that you seem to be able to figure out what he is saying.

  35. Prospero says:

    The point, assorted dimwits, was not to convince you of criminal proof of Trump’s collusion; it was to point out that it would be a moral scandal for any Presidential campaign to actively seek Russian help with hacked emails, lie about attempted business deals in the country, and disbelieve the evidence of your national intelligence services but prefer that of Putin.

    All of which, and more, happened.

  36. Boambee John says:

    Prospero

    At 1035 yesterday, you wrote:

    Trump is already regarded as a historically bad President and it would appear very likely he will be facing criminal action for his role in seeking to overthrow it.

    At 2312, you wrote:

    The point, assorted dimwits, was not to convince you of criminal proof of Trump’s collusion

    Did you change tack when it became clear to one even as dimwitted as you that your initial argument wasn’t a goer? When you were reminded that what constitutes “collusion” is not morally clear? Now, you are on about political “morality”, as a fallback? But only the morality of those whose politics you dislike?

    You are not morally scandalised by clear evidence of a president (Obama) openly saying that he will be “more flexible” about making concessions after his final election than he could be before it? Not morally scandalised about him openly lying to the voters? But you are about opaque allegations with unclear evidence of supposed Trump “collusion”?

    Like most people interested in politics, you clearly have your preferences. Unlike those with some moral sense, you regard your biases as impartiality, and regard others’ biases as immoral. This is the path to the gulags, should you and your ilk gain unrestricted power. You are not worthy of further response.

  37. Boambee John says:

    Prospero

    Correction, you are not worthy of further serious response. You are however, not exempt from merciless future exposure of your inconsistencies and hypocrisies.

  38. Prospero says:

    BJ, your dimwittedness is worse than I suspected.

    Trump is at serious risk of criminal charges for his role in the Jan 6 insurrectionist riot.

    That is a completely different issue from criminal action for Russian collusion.

    Do try to keep up.

  39. Buccaneer says:

    Dimwits, how original, and witty. The most entertaining part of you is watching how Trump lives in your head. I suspect we will be in for the treat of more unhinged rants like the one above in the not too distant future.

  40. Prospero says:

    Jannie does not seem capable of understanding that what I wrote in hypothetical Obama mode was exactly what the evidence shows Trump and his campaign was doing.

  41. Boambee John says:

    Prospero says:
    6 July, 2022 at 8:29 am
    BJ, your dimwittedness is worse than I suspected.

    Trump is at serious risk of criminal charges for his role in the Jan 6 insurrectionist riot.

    That is a completely different issue from criminal action for Russian collusion.

    Dimwitted fool mixes up two stories, when one fails, decides to change focus. No real evidence is offered for either.

  42. Boambee John says:

    Prospero says:
    6 July, 2022 at 9:01 am
    Jannie does not seem capable of understanding that what I wrote in hypothetical Obama mode was exactly what the evidence shows Trump and his campaign was doing.

    Dimwitted fool does not seem capable of understanding that what he wrote in hypothetical Obama mode was exactly what the evidence shows Shrillary and her campaign were doing.

  43. Prospero says:

    Dimwitted fool does not seem capable of understanding that what he wrote in hypothetical Obama mode was exactly what the evidence shows Shrillary and her campaign were doing.

    No. I wrote of specific incidents of the Trump campaign trying to get Russian help (via Russian hacked emails), and Trump’s wildly implausible denials that he knew what was going on.

    The Clinton campaign got oppo research, which has been political practice for years. It was provided to the FBI as being of interest to them for an already started investigation caused by a Trump figure bragging in private that they knew Russian had stolen emails and would be using them to try to embarrass Clinton.

    Russia did interfere in the election, via illegal and immoral means. Trump campaign welcomed it – that is indisputable. Even if a crime of collusion was not charged, it was a major political scandal only excused by Trumpists because it’s a case of “whatever it takes” to get the power. Up to and including trying to fascistically overturn an election on the basis of nutjob claims of fraud that election officials denied.

  44. Not Trampis says:

    Yes a unanimous Senate committee found Russian interference, all intelligence agencies found that as did Mueller.

  45. Buccaneer says:

    Apparently, paying for fictional accounts of your opponents and passing them off to the FBI as legitimate intelligence is now opposition research. As is using the dodgy accounts to get the apparatus of the state to spy on your political opponents.

    No one was actually charged with any of the things you allege here, they had to blackmail people into accepting charges related to other sins they committed.

    The entertaining and disturbing aspect of US politics is that it seems to be a race to the bottom in terms of whatever it takes. One the Dems seem to be winning, at least in the hearts and minds of americans, but probably also in reality too.

    I have personally had many reservations about Trump as a political figure right from the start. But politics is by and large a two horse race when it gets to the pointy end. People have to choose between two imperfect options. That people like you can’t accept that Trump won that contest is actually pretty entertaining given it was 6 years ago and they ran an investigation for most of the term run by dem operatives that found pretty much nothing to write home about.

    Oh no, the russians targeted some people on social media. It’s not like they paid people to vote or coerced people in poor neighborhoods to give up their ballot. Or buried the story about the fake pee dossier or the p*ssy grabbing comment. No they just highlighted what a crap candidate Clinton actually was.

  46. Boambee John says:

    Prospero with the usual evasions, Nothing to see here.

  47. Boambee John says:

    And Non Mentis is completely unaware of the substantial difference between intelligence assessments and hard evidence. Also unaware of the existence of a Washington establishment that includes establishment Republicans. e should have tried harder to succeed in pre-school.

  48. Prospero says:

    intelligence assessments and hard evidence

    I’ve got bipartisan US Senate report, George P bragging about it, and this:

    The Justice Department charged 12 Russian intelligence officers on Friday with a litany of alleged offenses related to Russia’s hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s emails, state election systems and other targets in 2016.

    Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who announced the indictments, said the Russians involved belonged to the military intelligence service GRU. They are accused of a sustained cyberattack against Democratic Party targets, including its campaign committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

    on my side.

    What have you got: “Putin said he didn’t know about it, and I believe him”?

    That why Putin wanted Trump to win: he’s a fool with foolish followers.

  49. RacerX says:

    “It does nothing to detract from the obvious: Trump is already regarded as a historically bad President”

    Prospero, can you put your comment in the context of Trump receiving more votes than any sitting President in history at the 2020 election please? It seems there’s a big chunk of the US population who disagree with your setiment.

  50. Boambee John says:

    Prospero

    The Justice Department charged 12 Russian intelligence officers on Friday with a litany of alleged offenses related to Russia’s hacking of the Democratic National Committee’s emails, state election systems and other targets in 2016.

    Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, who announced the indictments, said the Russians involved belonged to the military intelligence service GRU. They are accused of a sustained cyberattack against Democratic Party targets, including its campaign committee and Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

    When was the trial? What were the verdicts? Or was that just a piece of performance theatre? I recall that some charges were laid against some other Russians, who demanded their day in court. Nothing happened.

    PS: Why did the DNC refuse to provide its “hacked” servers for forensic analysis? Worried about the possible result?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.