Biden may already be going too negative in reaction to Trump insults.
Joe’s best strategy is to be too busy governing to go into the gutter. For example, he should be spending a lot of time planning for the predicted record hurricane season. Publicize that. And give a speech telling people on the east and Gulf coast the prediction, and advise them to be ready to evacuate. Mention that even Michigan should prepare for torrential rainfall.
Is this more gubernatorial than presidential? Absolutely. A good governor is much more popular than a good president.
Here we are, advancing the quaint fiction that the elections in 2016 and 2020 were just Business as Usual elections, without interference from foreign governments, without an entire party dropping all pretense of governance in exchange for raw power alone (remind me; what was the Republican platform in 2020?) and no acknowledgement of the single-minded efforts of a partisan Supreme Court working to hamstring fair elections as often and in as many places as they can.
Is there clear proof of the advantages resulting from higher ad expenditures?
I agree. But the problem is that the dumbasses who want the candidate to be physically present in their state/community to show that “they care about ME!” have votes that count exactly the same as yours and mine. And if a candidate does not stop off, press the flesh, kiss babies, and eat some rubber chicken, those dumbasses might stay home. Or vote for the other guy who is clearly incompetent, but at least he stopped at the corner coffee shop…
This stupid electoral college requires that the candidates try to motivate and appeal to the margins in a very few states. So the folk with the most impact on the outcome are likely the folk who are least informed or aware. American exceptionalism indeed!
So at the end of the day, you actually agree with us.
If you thought your vote mattered, apparently you’d be voting differently.
If you’re really this annoyed at the Democrats, then now is the time for you to get involved for the next election cycle. Participate in the actual processes of the party, support a local candidate that you agree with, find a national candidate you want as President in 2028, and start pushing them now.
I completely agree that these GOP senators are spineless worms who should be forever shamed in our nation’s history.
But as far as this OP goes, they may be more responsible for Biden winning than Biden losing.
If they had precluded Trump from ever holding office again, someone like Nikki Haley might be the nominee – and that person might very well have had a better chance of beating Biden than Trump does.
To add to what SyncoSmalls said, I would like to add a modified version of an old quote: Do you want to feel good, or do you want to succeed?
Democrats have consistently embraced the feel-good approach: that is, 1) deny that they face serious electoral danger and 2) when the danger does strike, such as when Hillary lost to Trump, then resort to blaming voters or factors outside of one’s control.
But to embrace the successful approach calls for something very different: 1) acknowledge that the danger that is faced is very real, and 2) address it by focusing on what one oneself is doing wrong and can change, not what is outside one’s control.
If Trump was barred from holding office again, Biden might have decided a year or so ago that it was time for a well-earned retirement, and the Democrats might well be choosing between Gavin Newsome and Gretchen Whitmer right now to be their 2024 candidate.
Consider that the reason that Biden threw his hat in the ring for 2020 was because of Donald Trump. If Trump is out in 2024, I think Joe decides its his opportunity to take some time with the kids.
And I agree with Biden’s instincts here - Donald Trump represents a threat to democracy that Nikki Haley doesn’t. Biden didn’t realize that the Trump fever of the Republican party was not going to break, but once he saw that was the case, he decided it wa important that the only guy who beat Donald Trump in a presidential election would be around to try and do it again. So I don’t think the OP would apply if Trump were out of the running.
But they already did that. And you just can’t see it.
Choosing Biden to run in 2020 was actually succeeding. They could have run some feel good protege. And they would have LOST.
You have to understand that defeating Trump under those circumstances was against the norm. William Howard Taft, Hoover, George HW Bush, yeah they all lost after a single term, but they came after more popular predecessors that were also Republican. Trump didn’t. Once he got elected, Trump was the lead dog, he got the benefit of all of that good old Republican traditionalism just the way Reagan did, Nixon did, W did. So to actually defeat Trump under those circumstances was no easy thing. Tradition dies hard, very hard, which is honestly a lot of the reason Trump is in the picture, the emperor has no clothes syndrome, people simply can’t betray their cherished ideals and see Trump for what he is, they will make anything up to maintain their traditionalism.
Biden was the ONLY Dem candidate who could have won in 2020. So they picked the right person. He was the best suited to make Trump look the worst. That’s why they won. And changing horses at this point would not work, the Dems would have no chance with Harris or anyone else. So they are indeed taking an extremely practical approach, which you claim they are not doing.
If I understand correctly, you would vote for the Democratic nominee if residing in a swing state. So the Democrats do not need to please you.
As a formerly Republican centrist swing voter (although I mostly vote Democratic lately), I say they need to listen to people just like me.
Am I totally serious? Maybe not. So long as the Republicans keep on nominating nativists, and the Democrats remain more or less sympathetic to Israel, it will be hard for me to vote for a Republican for president or Congress.
Point is, telling the Democrats to pander to any particular viewpoint may not be best for the party.
I think in 2020, Biden was the only Democrat who could win against DJT. I think the same thing holds true in 2024. I also think that were it not for Dobbs things would be very grim indeed.
To those that thumb their nose and vote third party and say that neither party serves your interest, I ask you to reconsider. Odds are great that there is no candidate, major or minor party, that agrees with you on every single issue. You have a choice that is binary- vote for Biden or never have another free election again. It’s that simple. You don’t want to explain to your grandchildren that you voted to end democracy because you disagreed with a Democratic policy or two.
Nah, it’s been made very clear that you are Norman Muller and that the direction of a country of 330 million with a 30 trillion dollar economy rests on the shoulders of one person on a minor message board. Enjoy the burden.
And more to the point, even it there are choices that are much much better, they don’t have the popular support that the main candidates do. Even if Cornel West is a certified genius and humanitarian who would bring about a golden age of peace and prosperity for the world, if only 5% of the population wants him to be president, he doesn’t get to be president. That is not a flaw in the system that is the way its supposed to work, and f you want to a voice in who does get to be president you will need to support one of the people who might be president.
Yes and no.
My first stimpulation would be, as you posted in your next sentence, that a Biden administration at his most pro-Israel is better for everyone than a Trump presidency would be, even (and possibly especially) for the Palestinians. Second Biden is walking a fine line, while I agree with you that what is being done in Gaza is horrific, the knee jerk reaction of the American people is to support Jews and Israel, and view Palestinians (and other Muslims) as terrorists.
His policy might have cost him a significant number young pro-Palestinian voters, but doing otherwise would cause him to lose a much larger proportion of main stream voters. As the support for the Israeli war against Gaza has declined, he has toughened his stance with Israel, and may even be able to win back some of the disaffected pro-Palestinian vote. To those who argue that following the polls on such a moral issue is self serving and that he should strive to do what is right and good regardless of its popularity, I point you to my first stipulation. In this case the greater good is getting re-elected, everything else is secondary.
If everything else is secondary, then Biden should adopt all Trump’s positions that poll well. The problem with that is – those positions are pretty darn important, and I oppose them.
When Gallup asked Americans, as an open-ended question, last month, what they think is the most important problem facing America, they said immigration:
While it depends a bit on how you word the question, even when you word it in a way that makes the Trump position sound extreme, the Trumpy position gets a clear plurality, and maybe a majority. See:
Are there posters here who would blame Biden for losing on grounds that his immigration policy was more generous than Trump’s? I won’t. Biden isn’t worth voting for if he becomes just as nativist as Trump, popular as that would be.
First, an acknowledgement that my original statement was a bit hyperbolic. All generalities are false, and there could be some stances which might marginally improve his chances but not enough make them a net good relative to harm caused by enacting them.
Second, the calculus of which positions will increase or decrease Biden’s chances is more complicated than just looking at the absolute poll number. Even though Trumps position on immigration is overall more popular than Biden’s switching to it might not help Biden’s chances and could actually hurt. Much of that 44% who Trust Trump more on immigration are die-hard MAGA fans, who are unreachable by Biden, and likely among those 30% who didn’t answer the poll are a number who dislike Biden for being too tough on the Border. So endangering the 25% who support him and that portion of the 30% who think he’s to aggressive just get a fraction of the 44% who would switch to supporting him if he took Trumps position would be a bad move politically.
I agree with this on most issues. For example, if Israel defeats Hamas, and U.S. citizen hostages are recovered, polls will look different than if Hamas retains a strong position. Anyone who is sure of the war’s future progress and outcome does not understand the situation. So it is currently impossible to predict how Israel will poll in October.
But I’m afraid that immigration is an issue where Trump’s relative popularity doesn’t vary over time.
In your reply, you seem, if I understand correctly, to fasten on 44 percent trusting Trump, more than Biden, on immigration as if that means there is a 44 percent “die-hard MAGA” ceiling. But that poll was just an example of how much better Trump polls on immigration over Biden. My other link had 51 percent for mass deportation. That may sound like a tie, but factor in the undecided, and the GOP electoral college advantage, and immigration hurts Biden.
Here is a poll showing swing state voters favoring Trump immigration policy:
Okay, so they give you the “I’m listening” treatment. Then they enact the policy choice you didn’t like anyways, because they really think it’s the better idea, or because it’s popular and not entirely evil in itself, or whatever. So do you vote for them then? Why or why not? What impact did “listening” actually have on your decision?
Ironically I’d blame just about everyone other than Biden.
Biden has done an objectively great job. I guess his biggest misstep was nominating Garland for AJ.
Even Gaza…I’m certainly not happy about it, but he’s pulling as far away from unconditional support for Israel as any US leader can*
The main reasons that this is actually close, is structural issues to do with news media and free speech in the US.
Old news media bends over backwards to try to be “fair”; meaning criticize both political wings equally, and all in a faux-politeness way, to try to ensure they keep access to guests. Conservative media has learned a whole new model of just being on the attack 100% of the time and making up shit, no matter how absurd, because it sells and their audience will never know any different.
So they go on and on about e.g. an economy in crisis and a migrant crime wave, and meanwhile the MSM is criticizing Biden for looking old and for inflation (with no context or wider economic status mentioned)
* On MSNBC, they showed a clip of students calling for a ceasefire. Then they cut back to the studio and they first heavily implied that it was Hamas’ fault that the ceasefire deal had failed, before asking their guest “How much of a problem is antisemitism on college campuses?”
That’s how left-wing media is covering this.
