politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Historically incumbents have a huge advantage. It would be foolish to throw that away.
Since 1980, 3 of the 7 incumbents have lost.
Yeah, one of them had a hostage crisis plague his presidency, the next got spoiled into total oblivion by a billionaire with some charts, and the last killed over a million Americans by sowing plague misinformation because it made him look bad.
A preponderance of extraordinary circumstances does not establish a trend worth placing bets on.
It's a good thing Biden hasn't had any major crises during his presidency or spoiler campaigns launched, so we can just pretend he's not like the others.
Biden's been resolving crises handed to him by the last guy
Cornell West and RFK ain't Ross Perot
it's a good thing you're smart enough to vote for Biden anyways instead of being a pissant who lets fascism win because he doesn't like one old guy with an ice cream tooth right?
Keep telling yourself everything's going great man. Biden's term has not been a time of slow and steady improvement for many people and not a lot of people are going to think it's all just Trump's fault.
Like I said that’s the only part I can understand, but just because something has been a trend doesn’t mean it will stay one or even that there won’t be exceptions. I see that side of it, but I’m still suspicious he can do it again
It's been more than 100 years since an incumbent didn't run for a second term and their party maintained the presidency (excluding Calvin Coolidge who technically didn't run two terms, but basically did). No one knows what would happen if he were not to run, but history has shown that it'll probably lead to a Republican win. It's easier to predict the outcome having the incumbent run, and probably against the same person last time. Not saying it's the best decision, but it is the most logical one.
That’s pretty much what I’m getting at, I get all the logical reasons but like you said the logical call ain’t always the right one. It’s too late now to second guess but him saying this is a bad idea, it makes it seem like there was a different outcome but it was decided without the will of the people being considered. If he was super popular it would be a different story, but he ain’t
Except it is. They said it's not always the best, which is true, but you can't know in advance what the best choice is. Making illogical choices leads to worse outcomes on average. I really shouldn't have to explain this.
In my entire lifetime no president has ever been super popular. That’s just not a thing any longer.
Which kinda further supports what I’m saying?
Except if your waiting for the guy that’s super popular you’re bus is never coming.
What? No ones waiting for a super popular one, I’m saying if he were in some hypothetical world actually super popular just blindly deciding to run him again would be unquestionable. That there haven’t been any popular presidents recently doesn’t take away from the concept of a president being popular. If anything that means that incumbents should start being reevaluated more