Scholarship table
Clinton had a 36 percent approval rating early in his first term.Reagan in his first term was down to 35 percent.Obama at one point in his first term was at 37 percent.They all cruised to second terms.But, yes, by all means continue to tell us how enormously significant this is.https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/presidential-approval/highslows
President Biden’s prospect for a second term are (imo) remote for reasons having nothing to do with his current popularity or lack thereof. They had nothing to do with why I posted his numbers. I think his numbers will have a major impact on the midterms, which I think are significant. Using your examples:Clinton’s party lost 54 House seats and 8 Senate seats in his first midterms.Obama lost 63 House seats and 8 Senate seats.Reagan lost 26 House seats and gained 1 Senate seats.Biden doesn’t have the majorities going in that Clinton or Obama did so the losses will likely be considerably smaller in raw numbers. In addition, the Senate map favors him in this cycle. But if the history you cite repeats itself (low early popularity preceding large midterm losses) the impact on Biden’s administration will be significant.
The difference is that no one running as a member of the opposition party had supported a coup attempt.
This reeks of goalpost shifting, Lenny. Yes, it's true that the Dems almost certainly will lose House seats in the midterms. Which is what has happened in 11 of the last 12 presidential first terms. It's hardly evidence of the narrative you were spinning earlier about Biden's first-term poll numbers being uniquely disastrous. They are, in fact, entirely common, as would be the loss of House seats.
xsomething I don’t see predicted by 538 or anyone else at this point.
Not trying to goalpost shift at all. You pointed out that 2 Democratic presidents were extremely unpopular early in their first terms but said it proved meaningless (because they won re-election 4 years later). IMO your point is meaningless because there is no chance Joe Biden will be running in 2024. I say it was meaningful, as Obama and Clinton rank #1 and #2 for the most seats lost in the midterms by a newly elected President in at least 80 years. Trump (also very unpopular at this point) ranks #4, an unelected President (Gerald Ford) ranks #3. So the correlation between early unpopularity and a major routing in the midterms seems pretty clear. Recent gerrymandering (more “safe seats” on both sides)and the narrow edge the Dems enjoy right now will likely temper the rout, but if the past is prologue there will be one - something I don’t see predicted by 538 or anyone else at this point.
I'm not predicting anything one way or the other, as it is way to early. But simply looking at numbers like that, and not the larger picture is kind of pointless. A good chunk of Biden's low approval is actually progressives thinking he is too moderate. They aren't going to support a conservative. What it could lead to though is actually a lot of liberal members of congress being voted out for ones that are more aggressively progressive.
Or those progressives may not show up to the polls at all after feeling like their votes/voices were betrayed
Colin Powell, dead from COVID-19.https://apnews.com/article/colin-powell-dead-covid-9c918dc1c137ebf368f2cbb461e4fad4
After being fully vaccinated
He also had multiple myeloma
https://twitter.com/kayaoakes/status/1449773745774612480?t=GUd_B0xinkpZVY7CfiejhA&s=19Interesting commentary from the Pope
There is a TON of irony in his financial related comments.
Ahhhh
Oh, do tell ...
Shocking you didn’t have all the facts.
Hey numb nuts….I knew that. I just find it interesting that for 20 months when it was pointed out that 80%+ of the deaths attributed to Covid where in folks that were old or with multiple comorbidities it was poo poo’d cause that wasn’t justification for someone having to die even a day earlier as a result of Covid then they would have otherwise with their already serious health complications.
The richest organization on the planet with overflowing coffers that has never paid tax, whose head is draped in gold and riches walking around ornate halls and palaces in the Vatican, is telling banks to wipe out debt and financial obligations and for UBI to be widespread? Its hardly coming from a humble, hard scrabble monkIf Bill Gates was saying it, people would come for his neck.
You think the Catholic church is the richest organization in the world?Anyhow, it's a tired and weak argument (not to mention a deflection from the actual point) to suggest that because the Catholic church has wealth - the vast majority of which is real estate and art - it has no moral authority when it comes issues of poverty.