Joe biden greatest president to ever hold office
Executive summary
The available reporting does not support calling Joe Biden the "greatest president to ever hold office"; public opinion during and at the end of his term was predominantly negative, and polls show persistent disapproval that would be atypical for a consensus "greatest" ranking [1] [2]. That said, some polls and analyses show nuances—termwide averages and issue-by-issue strengths leave room for defenders to argue for a more favorable historical judgment, but the dataset provided here is almost entirely approval polling rather than a comprehensive policy-by-policy legacy review Ballotpedia's_Polling_Index:Comparisonof_opinion_polling_during_the_Trump_and_Biden_administrations" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[3] [4].
1. Popular verdict: approval mostly underwater, especially late in term
Multiple national trackers and major polls reported Joe Biden's approval as well below majority support at various points and especially near the end of his presidency: Pew reported 35% approval and 62% disapproval in its data snapshot [1], FiveThirtyEight’s aggregator cited approval around 35.6% with 57.1% disapproval for a net negative rating [5], and CNN noted Biden left office with approval at the lowest point of his term in its SSRS survey [2]. These numbers, which cluster in the mid-to-high 30s for approval across reputable outlets, make a popular consensus of "greatest ever" unlikely on public-opinion grounds alone [1] [5] [2].
2. The scatter of polls: method, timing and interpretation matter
Not all polling indexes are identical: Ballotpedia’s polling index produced a higher termwide average for Biden (48.9%) than many single-point national polls, reflecting methodological choices about poll selection and weighting [3]. RealClearPolitics, Gallup, YouGov, Ipsos and other trackers measure overlapping but different samples and questions, so headline numbers can diverge depending on which aggregation or moment is cited [6] [7] [8] [9]. Any claim that Biden is the greatest would need to move beyond such snapshots and address substantive achievements and durable historical metrics rather than transient approval ratings [3].
3. Where approval reflected partisan and issue splits, not uniform condemnation
Coverage shows specific partisan and geographic variation: Morning Consult found Biden finishing with net negative approval in most states but still carrying favorable majorities in a handful of Democratic-leaning states like Vermont and California [10], and Reuters/Ipsos polling noted voters trusted Biden more than his opponent on preserving democratic norms even while preferring the opponent on the economy—a mixed assessment rather than total rejection [4]. These splits underline that public judgment was not monolithic; different constituencies weighed different priorities when evaluating his performance [10] [4].
4. Polls explain perception but do not settle historical greatness
The supplied sources are overwhelmingly about approval and perception, not the long-term policy outcomes, global positioning or constitutional impact that historians use to rank presidencies; therefore, they can show Biden's public standing but cannot definitively prove or disprove "greatest" status in the absence of comprehensive policy evaluation [7] [11] [1]. Historical greatness typically relies on durable institutional changes, crisis management judged over decades, and archival evidence—areas not covered in the provided polling-focused reporting [3].
5. Competing narratives and hidden stakes in interpretation
Media coverage and polling are arenas of political contest: opponents use low approval numbers to delegitimize a presidency, while allies highlight relative strengths—termwide averages or issue-specific wins—to counterbalance headlines [3] [4]. Polls also reflect current events and partisan lenses (e.g., economic anxiety, age questions) that can depress ratings irrespective of long-term significance, so claims of "greatest ever" advanced from either political camp should be treated as partisan interpretations unless grounded in the broader historical record not present in these sources [4] [7].