• Tedesche@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    122
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    9 months ago

    These polls are just his approval ratings, right (sorry, can’t access the article), not a measure who is willing to vote for him in 2024? Yeah, people don’t approve of you backing Israel when it’s indiscriminately killing civilians and committing war crimes. Surprise, surprise. Doesn’t mean they’re going to vote for Trump over you, Joe, don’t worry.

    • NoiseColor@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      Im sure Joe has a mountain of people to interpret the numbers.

      Truth is, numbers are bad. Just the other day there was an abysmal poll that showed people trust trump more on everything but behaving well and abortion. Not by a thin margin. I don’t know much about it, but It was reported on a reputable left wing network. It’s really not looking good for him and for the Democrats that have no backup plan. The right have succeeded to portray him as a frail senile incompetent man with corruption issues. It’s a failure of the democrat establishment.

    • JoBo@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 months ago

      Polls vary but this sort of poll typically asks “If there was an election tomorrow…” So no, not an approval rating.

      They’re not a prediction of who will win in 2024, they’re a snapshot guesstimate of who would win tomorrow (if the pollster got their methods right, which they don’t, always).

      But regardless, you absolutely should not be telling people not to worry. Trump voters will turn out (and predicted turnout is a huge part of pollsters’ methods). If Biden’s voters don’t turn out, he might lose. And it would be for exactly the same reason Clinton lost in 2016: complacency.

    • rishado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      People on Lemmy are so confident in this sentiment, you guys are kidding yourselves so fucking hard. Many many people are not going to vote at all because of the Israel support. Things are clear for you, sure. But the blind assumption that this will have no effect is straight up delusional

      Like, how is this the top comment in this thread? Just dismissing the possibility of this actuly having an effect, almost exactly mirrors the sentiment when the DNC snuffed Bernie

      • Tedesche@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        My attitude is that if people who don’t want Trump, but also don’t like Biden are stupid enough to either not vote or vote third party, and it causes Trump to get re-elected, we as a nation will deserve whatever happens under Trump, but especially those stupid MFers. You can’t stop people from being utter fucking morons.

    • chitak166@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      I’m not voting for Joe solely because of his unwavering support for Israel.

      I’ll vote third party and whatever happens, happens.

      If joe-supporters have a problem with it, they can support better candidates in the next election.

      • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Enjoy the Trump presidency then, someone who whole-heartedly supports the genocide even more than Biden.

        • chitak166@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Yeah, I’d rather vote for no genocide than the lesser genocide.

          I guess hurting the genocide-supporters is a bonus.

          Sorry, I thought about it and there is no ‘lesser-genocide.’ Genocide Joe has done nothing to curtail Israel’s genocide. Literally nothing.

          • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            And in so doing you will help get the greater genocide elected. Congrats, you managed to achieve an even worse outcome than you wanted.

            • chitak166@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              9 months ago

              Nah, it’s the people voting for genocide that got genocide to win.

              See how there’s no winning unless you support genocide?

              • Tavarin@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                Because the US is a two-party system due to first past the post voting. Until the country adopts ranked-choice or single transferable vote, there will only be two parties. A vote against one party is simply a vote for the other party.

                So by voting third party you are voting for the Republicans. Congrats on supporting the greater genocide.

                • chitak166@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  Why don’t the democrats support ranked-choice voting, then?

                  Congrats on supporting the greater genocide.

                  What has Biden done to curtail the genocide of Palestinians? There is no lesser genocide because Biden is a Zionist.

      • Tedesche@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Whoever you vote for as a write it, it will be spelled “Trump” in the end.

        I get your frustration, but this is the way our system works. You have to vote for the lesser of two evils, more often than not. I wanted Bernie in 2016, but I still voted for that cunt Hillary, because it was either her or Trump. Unless you’re certain your state will go Blue in 2024, a vote for a third party is functionally a vote for Trump. If you’re in a swing state, your protest will only amount to getting a person you like even less than Biden elected, and you’ll be part of the problems that creates.

        • chitak166@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          9 months ago

          My real frustration is having to deal with people like you every time I say I’m doing something independent.

          Ahh well. I hope Trump wins just so people like you get to suffer the consequences of your actions. That’s a boon in my eyes because otherwise you’re never going to change.

          If you don’t like it, run better candidates. Perhaps a few losses will get that through your heads. Hillary clearly wasn’t enough.

          • petrol_sniff_king@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            My real frustration is having to deal with people like you every time I say I’m doing something independent.

            Good. I love vote shaming.

            You lost us Roe v. Wade.

            • chitak166@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              9 months ago

              I’m sorry you feel that way. If a certain justice had retired sooner we would’ve been able to replace them during a Democratic presidency instead of the Trump presidency that we got because Hillary lost.

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Seriously though. Can we stop pretending like being 81 isn’t a liability? And a reasonable concern?

    If Democrats had brains, they’d run a buff, tall white guy with progressive policies and a hot wife. Fascists follow strength and heteronormative values, so? Just use it against them. Trump only looks strong next to an 81 year old dude with a speech impediment. All love to Biden, but hang 'em up, bro, damn.

    Guy can’t let go of the game even though the game let go of him.

    • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      9 months ago

      To be fair, that one also has speech difficulty.

      I’d like a refund on my government, it seems like it’s just a bunch of out of date, moldy, spoiled, cheese of some kind.

    • Stern@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      9 months ago

      Let Hunter run. We already know hes drowning in poon and has massive schmeat. Trump couldn’t possibly compete.

      • TonyOstrich@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months ago

        Jeff Jackson of North Carolina would be my personal pick. He’s just too new. If he were 4-8 years further into his career I think it would be a slam dunk.

      • curiousaur@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Yeah, I think Biden should draw all the hate over Israel, take it with him and pave the way for Newsom to step up strongly against genocide.

        • blazeknave@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          You know… The first half has catapulted me into a constant state of chagrin. But I think you’ve got a plan that can turn it around. He’s so good at the game, he could probably pull it off without even throwing Biden under the bus lol

          • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            Tim Walz, Shawn Fain, AOC…

            In Newsom’s defense, his state is overrun with the largest, most politically-active companies on the planet - but I can’t say he’s actually done much to fundamentally improve working-class conditions or addressed housing affordability or COL. He’s applied a lot of band-aids, though.

            He’s a loud voice in a liberal state, but he’s essentially just a younger Biden. He does the most optically-left thing he can without ruffling any feathers of the biggest DNC donors.

            • blazeknave@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Fuck yeah. Great selection! I wish we were still on trajectory for AOC, but 2016 set us back decades overnight. That’s how we got Biden. Walz is a great milk toast caring Dem, definitely great in Midwest, not sure about angry rust belt, don’t know his policy stances as well. Fain… oh man. That MF cares about us. He can get the Bernie vote, the wannabe libertarian vote, etc

              I might feel slightly less critical about what Gavin done here than I’m imagining your sentiment, but I can’t say you’re wrong, especially on housing. You’re absolutely right he hasn’t done the real work to make systemic changes. I do think we have tons of QoL improvements.

              To be fair, that’s my exact point. Biden’s most unelectable quality is his age. Newsom’s perfectly polished and architected candidate for this age. And he’s hot and charming. Very electable. Could probably even spin his ex for some kind of GOP brownie points?

              • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago

                On the contrary, Walz has been anything but milquetoast, he’s just not as publicity-oriented as Newsom. He’s passed a number of extremely popular progressive policies, including a campaign finance reform banning corporate contributions from companies who have 5% or more foreign ownership (that’s poised to be struck down, but still an unambiguous signal against monied interests). Minnesota also has one of the lowest inflation rates in the country.

                He’s done his wildly progressive legislating while lowering taxes and running a surplus.

                But Newsom is the Democratic darling because he’s… Hot? Idk what makes him a good candidate other than his optics, and even then, he’d have almost as bad a time as AOC would agaist a reactionary GOP, but with none of the desirable progressive policies we actually need. I’m honestly a little frustrated by this sentiment… He’s a neoliberal candidate that has no other actual qualifications other than his media literacy and age, but he’s also basically the GOP’s definition of ‘Elite-westcost-liberal’. I think he’s the worst of the losing choices.

                • blazeknave@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  I don’t think you’re hearing my point. Electability, not policy. I agree with you on what makes for good policy. It unfortunately doesn’t stop a Trump election win

        • danl@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Biden’s whole pitch is “I’m boring and sensible”

          Trump’s campaign is going to be “Let me finish what I started…Trust what you saw last time.” - so he can leverage both voters who want change and those who want the same old.

          If there’s a new Dem candidate, all of a sudden they’re trying to convince people to expect stability from trying something new.

          Compared to that, Trump looks a lot more reliable. And that’s before you even get into the personal attacks (which Biden thinks he’s already covered).

          • CleoTheWizard@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            9 months ago

            We’ve also already passed the point at which the DNC would start backing a new candidate. We’re stuck with Biden unless he croaks before election night.

        • agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Incumbent bump, appeal to moderates/neo-libs, decades of experience in D.C. I suppose the mentality is that Trump will get the MAGA and R-no-matter-who voters, which form too great a bloc to gamble against.

        • He isn’t, but he beat Trump once already. He may not see anyone in the Democratic field that he trusts to win. It’s his decision to run or not; he’s going to follow what he thinks is the best course to deny Trump a second presidency. Not running means he has no control over the outcome.

          In his place, would you roll those dice?

  • HWK_290@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    46
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    I feel like, in this highly politicized environment amplified by misinformation, echo chambers, and the horrors of social media, no incumbent president will ever again crack 50% approval

    • themeatbridge@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      You know what it would take? An actual thought leader. Someone who can make a persuasive argument and communicate a coherent message. Someone who can actually convince supporters to follow, who can challenge the bullshit and elevate the actual dissenting opinion.

      But I’ve just rewatched The Newsroom, so I’m feeling particularly spicy about the quality of journalism right now. We let our politicians feed the echo chambers because consumers retreat to safety when challenged. Nobody argues, nobody calls out bullshit, nobody is challenged at all. Your identity is your team, and your actions are good or bad because of who you are. It is entirely upside down.

      • banneryear1868@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Obama was I think their best case scenario in this era, he gave the party a powerful brand people could adopt. Trump is essentially that for the GOP now.

    • ReallyActuallyFrankenstein@lemmynsfw.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      Nah, I’m pretty sure after Trump is elected he’ll be at 90%+ approval, according to mandated “fake news-adjusted” polling by OAN, Fox News and Newsmax, the last remaining news sources under the Trump Media Reform Act of 2025.

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is me caring about horse-race corporate news articles.

    Did you hear about her emails?

  • kttnpunk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    9 months ago

    Well, to be fair he did steal the presidency from Bernie Sanders and doom us all to pre-fascist neoliberal hell

  • GodlessCommie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    38
    arrow-down
    28
    ·
    9 months ago

    Condoning genocide and telling us we are doing great when we can see we are not might be impacting those numbers. He needs to drop out. And Dems refusing to demand their party offer up someone else are complicit when trump gets reelected

    • Tedesche@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      17
      ·
      9 months ago

      I don’t particularly like him either, but if he doesn’t run again, it becomes significantly easier for Trump to get reelected. Pick your poison. I’d rather Biden than Trump, so I want him to stay running and I’ll vote for him again.

      Maybe you should vote for a write-in candidate if you feel that strongly about it? Just know that whatever you write, it will spell “Trump.”

      • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        9 months ago

        I don’t think Biden should drop out.

        I also don’t think Biden should be the automatic nominee. There should be a full primary election, and whoever wins that (maybe Biden, maybe someone else) goes to the general.

        Biden has done a bunch of good stuff, but he’s also woefully out of touch on an absolute FUCKTON of issues that non-boomer voters give a whole hell of a lot of shits about. I am so fucking done with gerontocracy.

        • n2burns@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          9 months ago

          I also don’t think Biden should be the automatic nominee. There should be a full primary election, and whoever wins that (maybe Biden, maybe someone else) goes to the general.

          So…exactly what is happening?

            • n2burns@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              9 months ago

              There is a full Democratic Presidential Nominee primary election happening this year. Biden is almost certainly going to be the nominee, but primaries/caucuses are happening in every state and there are other candidates (Marianne Williamson & Dean Phillips).

              So exactly what you asked for is happening.

              • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                9 months ago

                Not sure if you’ve ever paid attention to the US electoral process, but lately, the DNC and its leadership have definitely put its finger on the scales more than a bit in tons of recent elections. That interference has directly caused serious yet preventable failures in general elections multiple times, to the extent that the Democrats might have maintained their majority in the house if not for some wrongheaded influence in key races, and a total lack of support provided to some others.

                • n2burns@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  …okay. What does that has to do with our conversation here?

                  If you had said from the start that you don’t like how the Democratic primaries are run or wish there were better candidates, great. I’d agree with you! However, that’s not what you said.

      • Uranium3006@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        A generic Democratic Perry cannidate would be a safer choice. Draft a blue state governor or something

  • qwertyWarlord@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Polls don’t mean shit, they’re wrong constantly and shift on a dime. Just write some good fucking policy and focus on the people

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Polls are actually pretty good. It’s just that people only really notice when they are “wrong.” At this time, they probably don’t mean much when it comes to the outcome of the election because we are so far out, but that doesn’t take away their value when it comes to taking the temperature of the American people.

      • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        It’s just that people only really notice when they are “wrong.”

        they also get wildly misreported and speculated on. this is the source of the idea that “the polls were wrong” and “trump outperformed the polls” in 2016. The real truth is that the polls said that clinton wins three times out of four, but you had media outlets like HuffPo reporting that she had a 99% chance of winning, and they established the narrative that trump was a clown and the election was a foregone conclusion. Then the coin came up heads twice in a row, which is what a 25% chance represents in intuitive terms, and while Clinton was doing her preemptive victory lap in BlUe TeXaS he actually won the election.

    • chetradley@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      Nothing can predict the election with 100% confidence, but polls are literally the best data we have to go off of. Sure, they can vary pretty wildly based on who the research agency is, but there’s no better predictor of election outcomes than a good meta analysis / aggregate. If the research is sound and the poll results shift, that’s typically a good indicator of actual voter intent.

  • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    9 months ago

    It is worth pointing out that a number of state democratic parties have declared the only primary candidate will be Biden. Others are denying some combination of candidates from being on the primary ballot opposing Biden.

    So that kinda sucks, and something people should be aware of: attempts are being made to force Biden as the candidate by the party.

    • hark@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      9 months ago

      Biden was already the forced candidate in 2020 so I don’t know why people care now.

      • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        9 months ago

        2020 actually had debates and a primary process wherein Biden was yes, forced. Much like Hillary was in 2016.

        But this time the DNC is trying to avoid a primary process altogether. Running any kind of reelection campaign is a liability for Biden.
        Any amount of spotlight on Biden will probably damage his chances in the general, which the party is all to aware and afraid of.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Can anyone make the case that either of these candidates was forced? They both won overwhelmingly more votes more than the next closest candidate.

          • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            In 2016 and 2020 alike Bernie Sanders was winning the primaries. Each time the party pushed the scales away from the popular candidate.

            In 2016 the superdelegates, which is essentially party establishment, backed Hillary in spite of the primary votes supporting Bernie to tip the scales. It caused the convention rules to be changed in 2018 so superdelegates can only vote in a contested convention instead of being able to just pick their chosen candidate.

            In 2020 with the rule changes you had a few maneuvers in the primaries designed to hamstring Bernie and split votes. Namely by having Warren stay in the race and all the moderates and conservatives drop out and back Biden. You also have Clyburn in South Carolina. They manufactured consent for Biden being the popular candidate.

            Definitely was a case for a forced candidate by the party establishment to control the options the people could choose from.

            • EatATaco@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              9 months ago

              The only point at which sanders was winning the primary in 2016 was after like the first couple of primaries. Quickly after that, Clinton started to crush him. She won the popular vote, by far, so trying to pin it on super delegates doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. Without them, she still crushed him. I don’t see any way to argue that Clinton was forced on the democratic party.

              In 2020, youre right a bunch of moderates were splitting the vote, they dropped out and all of the moderate votes went to a single moderate candidate. There’s no doubt they picked the one who they thought had the best chance of beating trump. However, that candidate went on to crush the total of both sanders and warren put together in the popular vote. He won a majority of all votes cast, not just most of everyone remaining. Clearly the moderate candidate better reflected the will of the voters.

              Maybe one could argue that some other moderate candidate got screwed, but this a problem with the fptp voting system where if all the moderates stayed in, sanders, someone who doesn’t (unfortunately) represent the will of the voters likely would have won. I don’t see how that would have been better representation of the will of the voters.

              • ZombiFrancis@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                9 months ago

                In 2016 the superdelegates coming out early and in support of Hillary was specifically to stunt the momentum Bernie was showing early on. That reality is why the party had to change the rules in 2018.

                In 2020 the DNC similarly made effort to contest the convention to sidestep the 2018 rule changes to allow the superdelegates once again the room to tip the scales.

                The thing to keep in mind is this happens outside the presidential elections. The state and local elections with the Democratic Party also follow this pattern. Progressive suppression is their mode of operation, it is just people only engage in politics once every four years typically.

                Also, slightly aside you also had media storms expressingly fear and loathing about progressive candidates like Sanders, like suggesting public executions in central park should he win.

                • EatATaco@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  So you’re saying that people were basing their votes on how the superdelegates were voting? I find this incredibly hard to believe. Do you have any information to back this up? Either way, how is the party having a preference for a candidate forcing it on everyone?

                  At the end of the day, both Clinton and Biden received far more votes than any progressive candidate. The democratic party is just not that progressive. Whether or not people are manipulated into feeling this way doesn’t change the fact that it’s not a forced thing. They voted this way.

            • Xtallll@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              If Super Tuesday had been a week or two later, after the lockdowns got serious, I think we would have President Sanders or Yang. But the world was still mostly normal besides Trump’s bs, so a return to status quo candidate carried the day.

        • hark@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          The debates between biden and trump will be so pathetic. Just two decrepit fools, desperate to hold onto power, bumbling about whatever.

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldB
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    This is the best summary I could come up with:


    After pardoning a pair of turkeys, an annual White House tradition, Biden delivered some stern words for the small group assembled: His poll numbers were unacceptably low and he wanted to know what his team and his campaign were doing about it.

    He complained that his economic message had done little to move the ball, even as the economy was growing and unemployment was falling, according to people familiar with his comments, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss a private conversation.

    Rep. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), who is running for the state’s open Senate seat, has expressed concern to allies that she may not be able to win her race if Biden is at the top of the ticket, according to people familiar with the conversations.

    Adding to the challenging political landscape, Biden’s agenda hangs in the balance on Capitol Hill as his pleas to provide more aid to Ukraine and Israel are mired in partisan battles after the visit from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky failed to secure a breakthrough.

    They routinely point to comments made by lawmakers, donors and pundits who declared Biden’s 2020 primary campaign over when he was routed in Iowa and New Hampshire before he went on to win the nomination and the presidency.

    Only recently, though, have Biden officials started to scale up the campaign, which they launched in April, after months of warnings from top Democrats in battleground states that they were too slow to build out their operation.


    The original article contains 1,575 words, the summary contains 247 words. Saved 84%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!

  • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    support americans instead of genocide and your numbers will improve. this thing where you treat votes as a necessary evil and your real mission is to allow the wealthy to plunder the globe and murder the inconvenient has become really clear in the last few years.

  • Bonskreeskreeskree@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    Could legalize weed today and announce single payer plan that just needs house and congress control to pass. Could sweep the elections. But won’t. Best he can offer is alienating supporters with weapon bans.

  • kowcop@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    9 months ago

    Hasn’t there only been a single ‘one term’ president in about 50 years? (Trump). I just can’t see how a bloke who lost the last one of going to find new votes given the charges he is facing. Seems like clickbait

  • Transporter Room 3@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    If I were to show a poll that indicates people hate heavy metal, but my poll criteria involved camping out next to opera houses, college theater groups, and retirement homes with the questions “would you rather watch a production of Lion King: The Musical or Corpsegrinder” I’ve technically polled multiple places, with multiple age groups and multiple ethnicities and backgrounds, but it’s a very heavily skewed poll because of how I went about filling those.

    Which is basically a long winded way of saying poll numbers rarely mean shit, Go Vote.