this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
227 points (93.2% liked)

politics

19104 readers
3661 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Given the current state of partisan polarization, it’s unlikely Biden can get majority job approval next year even with the most fortunate set of circumstances. But the good news for him is that he probably doesn’t have to. Job-approval ratings are crucial indicators in a normal presidential reelection cycle that is basically a referendum on the incumbent’s record. Assuming Trump is the Republican nominee, 2024 will not be a normal reelection cycle for three reasons.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Zippy@lemmy.world 131 points 11 months ago (33 children)

Don't take it for granted. Hilary lost because of this. Get out and vote.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 58 points 11 months ago (11 children)

Hillary lost because she couldn't read the writing on the wall and told everyone she deserved to win because it was her time. She was the worst person on the planet to go against Trump. The GOP spent 30 years demonizing her and she played right into their hands. Biden should have been the candidate then but that is hindsight.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 56 points 11 months ago (5 children)

And even with all of her mistakes and her total lack of charisma, she still only lost because of an archaic system that lets the winner of the popular vote lose.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 38 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

And even with all of her mistakes and her total lack of charisma, she still only lost because of an archaic system that lets the winner of the popular vote lose.

It's not like this system was sprung on her at the last second. She didn't take it into account. She pretty much ignored key swing states that wound up going to Trump.

She was carried in a palanquin across the finish line in the primaries and didn't understand that she had to run the rest of the way.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Bruh. She ignored a lot of close call battleground states and instead spent the end of the campaign doing "victory laps" in solid blue states like Cali because she was obsessed with beating Obama's popular vote total...

You could argue her and her campaign should have known better, I just don't know where you'd find someone who disagreed to have that argument with.

And that's not even getting into how with population growth, popular vote totals will be record breaking damn near every election.

She was supposed to have the best campaign team in modern history, and either they were too stupid to know what the electoral college is, or they were unable to talk sense into Hillary and get her to actually win the election instead of her fucking self esteem tour to make her feel good about herself after losing to Obama.

I'm just tired of people making excuses for her one second like it's her first day in politics, then trying to claim she's the greatest political mind of her generation the next.

It can't be both.

[–] mo_ztt@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago

"Shattered" is a book which goes into a bit more detail about what went wrong with the Clinton campaign. Also, this particular review represents a rare moment of lucidity from Matt Taibbi, back when he hadn't quite completed his devolution from whip-smart political correspondent into a Trump apologist for some fucking reason.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago (4 children)

I'm not defending Clinton in the least, man.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 25 points 11 months ago (2 children)

Biden had just lost his son and didn't want the job. He later said he regretted that decision.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 24 points 11 months ago (2 children)

It's not just that, also remember that Biden had made a minor career out of losing the Democratic Presidential Nomination before Obama asked him to be VP. Much of the reason for that is that he had the tendency to say dumb shit. Remember all those "Gaffes"?

I don't think Biden could have ever become President before Trump, because we used to have higher standards for what was "Presidential". But once Trump became President, now all the dumb gaffes Biden makes are no longer a liability.

I admit I have been more impressed with Biden then I thought I would. I think a big issue is he is a much better President than he is a candidate for President.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

The entire nation regrets that decision.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 22 points 11 months ago (1 children)

She was the worst person on the planet to go against Trump.

She absolutely was. And with the pied piper strategy, she basically said who she thought the worst candidate was in the opposition's field, then lost to him.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Moderates are really really motivated to only be just slightly better than Republicans.

They want to be as corporation/billionaire friendly as possible, so they get as many donations as possible.

It's why Hillary spent money, time, and effort boosting trump and Ben Carson in 2016. There wasn't much difference between her and Jeb Bush, so she didn't think she had a chance at beating him.

The obvious risk was Hillary was/is a horrible candidate and might not have even been able to win against them, which she wasn't.

It's like if the pitcher in a MLB game bet for his team to win, but by less than the spread. He still wants to win, but he keeps throwing softballs over the plate if he starts to win too much.

But that's just a game, this is literally playing with people's lives.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 8 points 11 months ago (3 children)

If your state has mail-in voting, just use that. I like to vote while not wearing pants.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (30 replies)
[–] 7355608@lemmy.world 43 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

I don't have to like Joe or his policies to know that voting for him is the better choice. It sucks to have vote for the lesser evil, but right now the gap between the lesser and greater evils is so large that it makes the decision simple.

Joe will be ~~a lame duck in 28'~~ ineligible to run in 28'which will hopefully give us a chance to force the issue on not wantting to vote for the lesser evil then. However right now the greater evil is the issue, if we want to have a system to reform in 28' the choice on who to vote for now isn't a choice at all.

[–] SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when my best choice is to vote for someone who I know will not adequately address the multitude of extremely time sensitive issues facing our planet and country.

Like yeah, Trump will be worse, and the system is such that you literally have to vote blue if you want to mitigate the damage. But climate change isn't waiting for us to "fix the system", Americans dying of inadequate health care don't have time to wait, the rich aren't going to stop widening the wealth gap just because. And for all of this, my vote goes to an administration that will only employ soft tactics to stop genocide...

But hey, at least it could be worse right...

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] TwoGems@lemmy.world 18 points 11 months ago (25 children)

Are people this dumb? Would they really consider Trump for another presidency, let alone another insane Republican candidate?

load more comments (25 replies)
[–] dhork@lemmy.world 17 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

If Trump is still the nominee, he will likely have been convicted in at least one of those 4 criminal cases, but still holds sway in the party to win anyway and will double-dog-dare Georgia to throw him in jail. In that case, I don't think enough people would willingly vote for a felon (even a Republican one) to give him a chance.

This leaves Biden a single thing he absolutely needs to win the election: a pulse. I think the only person keeping America from becoming a fascist dictatorship is not Biden, it's his cardiologist. That doctor needs to keep Biden's heart ticking until Jan 21 2025.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] ininewcrow@lemmy.ca 11 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think the most important metric for Biden and the Democrats in the upcoming us election is a blood pulse.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] n0m4n@lemmy.world 10 points 11 months ago (13 children)

Why does anyone presume that his opponent will be the orange guy? If he hasn't keeled over with hamberders and buckets of KFC, he still has 91 felonies hanging over his head. He likely will be imprisoned, or disqualified by then.

[–] reverendsteveii@lemm.ee 16 points 11 months ago (5 children)

Why does anyone presume that his opponent will be the orange guy?

Because he's winning the primaries now by some distance, it's not illegal for him to run from prison and at least one state court has already decided that he did engage in an insurrection but that that doesn't disqualify him either.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 8 points 11 months ago (4 children)

Well for starters a lot of his full trial dates are being set for after the primaries

They're basically trying to take what comy did to Clinton and dial it to 11

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Scientician@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago

I wish I had your optimism.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] conditional_soup@lemm.ee 7 points 11 months ago (2 children)

I keep seeing messaging that essentially amounts to "Biden doesn't have to try, everything is great actually, and, besides, Trump is unelectable". Clearly the democrats learned nothing from 2016. This is too big to fuck up, don't phone it in.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›