By John Q. Hosedrinker 
New polls indicate that Americans believe Joe Biden has performed better in the White House than Donald Trump has to date, with several surveys suggesting a decline in Trump’s popularity. These findings suggest that a majority of registered voters, across various polls, view Trump’s performance as worse than Biden’s, with specific concerns raised about economic policies and immigration. The shifting sentiment, particularly among younger voters and non-college-educated demographics, points towards a potential Republican struggle in upcoming midterm elections, as a significant percentage anticipate a Democratic victory.
Read the original article here
It seems a rather significant shift in public perception is occurring, with many now viewing Donald Trump as a less desirable choice than President Joe Biden. The narrative that painted Biden as “Sleepy Joe” appears to be losing its grip, as a growing sentiment suggests that his relative calm and legislative achievements are now being seen as a form of competence, especially when contrasted with the perceived chaos associated with Trump. This realization seems to be dawning on voters, who are now looking back and finding that a less flashy, more conventional approach to the presidency, even if labeled as sleepy, was actually quite effective.
The legislative successes of the Biden administration, even amidst a narrowly divided Congress and the economic headwinds of post-pandemic inflation, are being highlighted as evidence of his effectiveness. The argument is made that while facing significant challenges, Biden managed to pass important legislation, a feat some voters are now comparing favorably to the political landscape under Trump. Furthermore, the absence of the constant barrage of overnight tweets, a hallmark of the Trump presidency, is being cited as a welcome return to a sense of stability and peace of mind for many. This lack of incessant drama, it appears, is being reevaluated as a positive attribute.
The stark contrast between Biden’s approach and Trump’s is frequently drawn, with some commentators going as far as to suggest that a “sleeping Joe” would be more competent than the alternative. This sentiment stems from the observation that Biden, like many presidents before him, surrounded himself with capable individuals to execute his agenda. Trump, on the other hand, is often criticized for his reliance on loyalists rather than experts, leading to a perception of less effective governance. The idea that people are now “suddenly discovering” how much they miss peace and quiet when they voted it out of existence is a powerful indicator of this changing sentiment.
Moreover, the very notion of Trump looking competent is being questioned by some who believe that this realization is long overdue and that perhaps those who are only now seeing it might have been too easily swayed. The assertion is that the “Sleepy Joe” label was largely manufactured, and that the idea of Trump being “worse” than Biden is not a new revelation but rather a shift in perspective driven by experience. It is being argued that Biden was a “good president,” who governed for the benefit of all Americans, in contrast to Trump, whose primary motivations are seen by critics as personal enrichment and avoiding legal repercussions.
The narrative of Biden digging the nation out of a “COVID hole” that Trump allegedly exacerbated is a recurring theme. This perspective suggests that Biden set the country on a path toward genuine progress, while Trump’s return is seen as an attempt to revert to a state of self-enrichment at the expense of national well-being. The idea that Biden was more competent in his sleep than Trump was in his entire life is a hyperbolic, yet telling, expression of this sentiment. The observation that Trump himself is now appearing to doze off in public, while the “Sleepy Joe” moniker persists, is also pointed out as a curious irony.
The fact that Gallup will no longer be providing Presidential approval ratings after over 80 years is being viewed by some as a significant development, potentially masking a less favorable public opinion than might otherwise be apparent. There’s a warning against falling for the narrative of an “incompetent administration,” suggesting that what might appear as incompetence could actually be a decade-long strategy to cling to power, fueled by malfeasance rather than sheer inability. This perspective implies a more cynical and calculated approach behind the scenes.
The comparison between the effectiveness of a well-assembled team and an individual who surrounds himself with “idiot-sychopants” is a recurring point. The observation that a “normal person having a solid team beats an idiot” is presented as a self-evident truth that some have been slow to recognize. The preference for a “boring” administration over one characterized by “destructive” tendencies is also a strong indicator of this shift. Those who supported Kamala Harris, it’s noted, were aware of these perceived flaws in Trump from the outset.
The suggestion that even a “potato” or “Biden’s corpse” would be a better president than Trump highlights the depth of negative sentiment. However, there’s also a call for a different path, advocating for younger, more energetic politicians with innovative ideas who are genuinely committed to serving the public. The question is raised whether, in a nation of over 300 million people, these are truly the best candidates available. The projection that history will be kind to Biden, while Trump will become a mere meme, reflects a long-term view of their legacies.
The “Sleepy Joe” myth is directly attributed to a “complicit media,” suggesting it was a manufactured narrative. The preference for a “boring and functional” government over “egotistical madness” is a strong statement of this new appreciation for stability. Some have always believed in Biden’s competence, attributing their differing views to not consuming partisan media. The idea that the narrative of Biden losing his faculties is a Republican ploy, and that those who fall for it are likely to vote for Trump, is a harsh critique of a segment of the electorate.
The notion that Biden would have been a “fantastic president” if Trump had been dealt with more decisively earlier on, perhaps through legal means, is a significant point of contention. The failure to arrest and charge Trump, it is argued, was a “cataclysmic error.” While acknowledging that Biden’s speaking style might be tiring and that he wasn’t overtly flashy, the argument is that he inherited a dire economic situation and guided the country toward recovery. The success of businesses, stock markets, and job growth are presented as evidence of this turnaround, even if not perfect.
The ease with which Biden can be memed is acknowledged, but the substantive achievements, including deals and investments, are emphasized. It’s suggested that many of Trump’s touted successes were actually initiated during Biden’s tenure. The prediction that history will view Biden favorably, while Trump and the Republican party will be seen less kindly, is a strong concluding point. The anticipation of future revelations and lawsuits regarding the Trump administration further reinforces this negative historical outlook. The comparison between “Sleepy Joe” and “Dementia Don” and the support for “Biden2028” and voting for a “biracial lady” (presumably Kamala Harris) indicate a clear preference for the current administration’s direction.
The observation that Trump “very obviously has dementia” with daily slips and apparent disorientation, and that both he and Biden are perhaps too old, is a recurring concern. However, the key difference highlighted is that Biden started from a position of competence and aimed for stability, whereas Trump is perceived as consistently “setting things on fire.” The comparison to a “plane in autopilot” versus one with a pilot “thinking he’s in the skies of Vietnam” powerfully illustrates the perceived difference in their leadership styles and competence levels. Trump’s perceived instability is further underscored by comparisons that suggest he is worse than a severe medical affliction.
The acknowledgment that “the sky is fucking blue” is used to express the obviousness of the current realization: “Glad folks are finally realizing that Joe was actually a pretty damn good president post Covid and post Trump bs.” This sentiment is echoed by the belief that Biden was always competent, and importantly, that he hired competent people. The contrast is drawn with the current administration, which is described as the “worst possible version of the swamp; a bunch of corrupt pedophiles and fascist white nationalists.” The wish for Obama to run again if Trump attempts a return further emphasizes the desire for a stable and respected leadership. The fear of Trump lashing out and the preference for a “sleepy” grandfatherly figure over a “dementia-riddled mental ill patient” encapsulates the core sentiment of this shift in public opinion.