this post was submitted on 17 Jul 2024
376 points (96.1% liked)

politics

19103 readers
4759 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I think the fact that he's the incumbent is a bigger advantage than anyone aside from him can muster, but if he steps down as soon as the election is over that'd be good.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 14 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A bait and switch like that would clobber any trust the Democratic party has built up and cost them for at least a decade

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I think that's a fair expectation, but I don't think they had much trust to begin with.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I agree. They had enough to get elected though. They pull this, I dunno, I think we're handing the federal government to the Republicans for a decade at least

[–] EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

At this point if we hand it to them for a single election it’s going to be 25 years before we resemble a democracy again.

[–] the_crotch@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

That's a pretty compelling reason for Biden to not intentionally ruin their chances in 2028

[–] kromem@lemmy.world 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

A lot less of an advantage when polling this badly in approval.

There's never been a president with this approval that won reelection.

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I haven't been paying attention to the approval rating because I don't think it's relevant. People didn't like Biden last time either, and I've spoken to registered Republicans who said they'd vote for Biden even if he was a corpse. Lots of people really don't like Trump. Iirc, a president has only been re-elected after losing a single time in history as well, but I don't recall the circumstances.

[–] Addv4@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Yeah, but last time Biden didn't have as many verbal gaffs and was generally viewed in a positive manner due to his connection with Obama. His presidency has been relatively stable (given how much interference from the Republicans during it), but in the last year his popularity has gone down due to his actions over Gaza (he could have loudly and publicly stated he did not agree with the Republicans in congress and boosted his approval ratings easily) and his increasingly worrying speech patterns. I don't actually think he has dementia (more that he's in his 80s), but calling one of our allies the name of their enemy could definitely cause a political issue. I do suspect that a lot of the previous voters will probably still vote Biden, but they would probably vote for any halfway decent politician that opposed Trump. The problem is that some less convinced voters have been berated when asking questions about his fitness for the next 4 years, which does raise the bs alarm. And yes, I know Republicans have definitely been stoking that fire, but if the default response is to deflect then you are going to make those potential voters anxious.

[–] Leate_Wonceslace@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

didn't have as many verbal gaffs

🤨

https://youtu.be/UzxpjIGOp_w

Do you mean over the course of his life or per unit time? Because the first isn't an issue, and the second probably isn't true.

[–] Addv4@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Per unit time. He's been having some mistakes and they have become more frequent. For example, when he basically planned a press conference to dispute/explain the verbal mistakes he made at the debate with Trump, and proceeded to have the massive one of calling Zylinski "Mr. Putin" about an hour before, causing them to cancel it. Again, he's in his 80s, but it is still pretty depressing to those that aren't supporting him completely due to his opposition to Trump.

[–] Krono@lemmy.today 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

causing them to cancel it.

They didn't cancel his NATO press conference. This is the press conference where Biden referred to his Vice President as "Vice President Trump".

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Grover Cleveland. Only non consecutive presidency, so far. That happened in the late 1800s, so neither radio nor TV had been invented yet, and TV definitely changes the campaign.