e; I wrote a better headline than the ABC editors decided to and excerpted a bit more

According to the poll, conducted using Ipsos’ Knowledge Panel, 86% of Americans think Biden, 81, is too old to serve another term as president. That figure includes 59% of Americans who think both he and former President Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, are too old and 27% who think only Biden is too old.

Sixty-two percent of Americans think Trump, who is 77, is too old to serve as president. There is a large difference in how partisans view their respective nominees – 73% of Democrats think Biden is too old to serve but only 35% of Republicans think Trump is too old to serve. Ninety-one percent of independents think Biden is too old to serve, and 71% say the same about Trump.

Concerns about both candidates’ ages have increased since September when an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 74% of Americans thought Biden – the oldest commander in chief in U.S. history – was too old to serve another term as president, and 49% said the same about Trump.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240214133801/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-americans-on-biden-age/story?id=107126589

Part that drew my eye,

The poll also comes days after the Senate failed to advance a bipartisan foreign aid bill with major new border provisions.

Americans find there is blame to go around on Congress’ failure to pass legislation intended to decrease the number of illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border – with about the same number blaming the Republicans in Congress (53%), the Democrats (51%) and Biden (49%). Fewer, 39%, blame Trump.

More Americans trust that Trump would do a better job of handling immigration and the situation at the border than Biden – 44%-26% – according to the poll.

So that bipartisan border bill stunt was terrible policy, and it doesn’t seem to have done anything for the Democratic party politically

Can we please stop trying to compromise with fascists now?

  • stoly@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    You have to convince the RNC/DNC but Boomers’ last grasp at controlling the world won’t let them give it up.

  • Yeller_king@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    What does it matter? Since one of them will serve another term unless Republicans decide to vote for Nikki Haley?

  • LemmyKnowsBest@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    The 41% of Americans who don’t think Biden and Trump are too old for this bullshit, are probably beyond elderly themselves.

  • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Well, too bad. Those are the only two viable options, so most likely it’s going to be one or the other. The time to do something about it has long passed. All we can do is hope Trump is jailed or either of them die.

    • hglman@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The democratic primary has hardly started, its literally exactly the time to do something.

      • candybrie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        That’s not how that works. Even if we somehow managed to bypass filing deadlines up get this theoretical candidate on the ballot (that have likely already been printed, and in many cases mailed out), they don’t really have time to get their message out and persuade voters. You don’t just start running for president 3 weeks from super Tuesday.

        The only way Biden isn’t the democratic nominee is if he steps down or is really incapable. And then it’s pretty much guaranteed to be Harris. I don’t think most people want that.

        If democrats wanted a different candidate, they needed to start like 6 months ago minimum.

        • crusa187@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Democrats do want a different candidate, and have been very vocal about it for 4 years.

          The DNC does not.

          • Feathercrown@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Eh I’m good with Biden. Nobody else has shown themselves to be relevant enough for me to know their positions.

            • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Because they’re not being given the time to debate and be seen by the public like in elections past.

              Because the DNC doesn’t want someone else.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Neither Marianne Williamson nor Dean Philips would be presidential material if only more people could hear them speak. Williamson had plenty of time during the last primary to be seen and Philips is just an even more conservative Biden that has the sole virtue of not being on death’s door.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            The DNC didn’t make this decision. Biden did. Doesn’t matter what the Jamie Harrison thinks, Biden’s the president and no one wants to challenge their party’s incumbent.

            • crusa187@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Yes that’s right. Biden, despite promising to be a 1 term transitional president, has reneged on that promise because his ego says that good presidents get 2 terms, and he thinks he’s so good he might as well be FDR 2.0

              Well, the primary challengers disagree, I disagree as a Dem voter, and many others do as well. We have eyes, we see the writing on the wall, and it’s obvious Biden is going to lose, even to a disastrous opponent like Trump.

              Biden doesn’t care what we think. He doesn’t care about the democratic spirit of a healthy primary. And so, he will lose this election, and risk what little democracy we have left in the process. Maybe not a big deal for a literal fossil with one foot in the grave like him, but for the rest of us, it’s very concerning to say the least.

              • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                Biden didn’t shut down the primary either. He’s running in it. They could have just canceled it.

                There’s no democratic solution to this problem. Either we say just let voters choose (a primary, but no one of consequence wants to challenge so we don’t really have a real choice) or Biden unilaterally decides to step down (not “the democratic spirit” but probably the right choice). No one has shut down democracy, it’s just a shitty system where the individual choices of a powerful person means no one who could be a successor thinks it’s an optimal choice to challenge him.

                • crusa187@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  This is categorically false. Biden is not running in the primary - he didn’t even go through the basic steps to get on the ballot in New Hampshire. The DNC absolutely refused to put together any kind of debate to draw in contenders. Further, he’s working behind the scenes with the state DNC commissions to either remove primary challengers from the ballot (South Carolina), or not hold primary elections at all (Florida).

                  I agree, he should drop out of the race, because poll after poll shows Biden losing to Trump badly in 6 out of the 7 key battleground states, while “any generic Dem” maintains a lead. The people have already spoken - we don’t want Trump, but we want Biden even less. Now why in the hell would you force run a candidate under those conditions?!

                  The democratic process demands that voters get to choose their representatives, and Biden isn’t allowing that to happen. Instead he’s working behind the scenes to threaten both the current primary challengers, as well as those “of consequence”, with burying their political careers if they dare to challenge him.

          • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            It’s pretty clear the vast majority of people just don’t understand how this shit works. Don’t get me wrong, it’s a bad system. I just don’t see how demanding people take actions so late in the process that it will benefit the GOP is productive.

            • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              I honestly don’t see what action can be taken at this point. We have to either wait for Trump to get convicted or for one of the two of them to die or become to incapacitated to run. Neither of them will step down unless they have no choice.

              • gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                I do think it’s important to note that Biden likely wouldn’t be running if it weren’t for Trump still (somehow) being a viable candidate. I think he’d agree that he’s too old for this shit, but if it’s going to be either him or Trump, I pick Biden with zero hesitation.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I don’t know. People with the tenacity to get to the presidency cling to power like it was keeping them from dying. I honestly don’t know if he would have dropped out of running for a second term.

                  You don’t have a normal-sized ego and run for president unless you’re Jimmy Carter.

        • Dojan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          I just find it really weird that you can be under such heavy legal proceedings and still be eligible to hold office, like in general. If a teacher is suspected of being inappropriate with students, they’re pulled. If a president is inappropriate with democracy, they can run a second term?

          Last time I expressed my incredulousness over this, I was told “innocent until proven guilty”, but again, with the above example; if a teacher is suspected of being inappropriate towards student, they are pulled and put on leave for the investigation.

          It seems to me that Trump shouldn’t be allowed to be the president incumbent until all the legal stuff he’s through clears.

          • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Also, innocent until proven guilty is how the government treats the accused (well, theoretically, lots of poor people get to rot in jail because they don’t have bail money). If you saw someone punch a baby you don’t need to wait for a court decision to kick them off your softball team.

            • Dojan@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Like on one hand I get that, but on the other, that feels like a really relaxed attitude to an attempted coup. Like if there are any doubts whatsoever that someone tried to undermine the democratic systems, perhaps they shouldn’t be eligible to hold the position of president until the doubts are cleared.

              Just feels like a sensible precaution to me. Does it suck for the person if they’re innocent? Absolutely, but not as much as being imprisoned for decades on a crime they didn’t do. The vast majority of people miss out on being the president, so it really isn’t that big of a deal.

        • Nudding@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          And you don’t see that as the end of your country? Nothing else left to do but vote for ham sandwiches? Lol

          I thought y’all liked freedom or some shit.

          • jballs@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Trust me, I would love for the Republicans to nominate a well qualified candidate - or for us to use something like ranked choice voting so we could pick candidates that closer align with our personal beliefs.

            But until those things happen, in ham sandwich v Trump, I’d take ham sandwich every time.

            • Nudding@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              The ham sandwich allowed record oil production, agreed with republicans that the border needs to be armed, breaks strikes, is 80 years old, is guilty of aiding in a genocide, attacked multiple targets in the middle east, and goes behind Congress back to make arms deals.

              See the problem?

    • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      There was NEVER anything any of us could do. The moment Biden announced he would run for reelection, everyone who mattered fell in line.

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        As it should be. Anything else would have been giving the GOP a golden ticket for their golden turd

        • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          as it should be

          No, it should not be.

          There was once a time when politicians would use election time to debate the president anyway, allowing up and coming politicians to get their views and voice out there while also letting the current president show their strength, conviction, and skill even within their own party. Time that’s used for inter-Party debates is time where that party’s points are being broadcast to all, as well.

          But now that we’re all so scared Trump’s gonna win were tossing that in the garbage because “any question to Biden at all means we get a fascist!”, which is only gonna bite the US in the ass when Dems eventually have nobody that’s well known ready to take the seat

          Biden absolutely should have been challenged in the primaries by competent Dems that will be the next generation

          • stoly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            There was once a time when politicians would use election time to debate the president anyway

            This was an anomaly that happened during the post-war era for a couple decades and ended when Newt Gingrich came along. Before that, the politician that could afford the most booze got elected.

          • Wrench@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            You’re wanting ambivalent debate during a war.

            The Right has weaponized propaganda. They are extremely effective had taking any perceived weakness in their opponent, and blowing it out of proportion that even non-Right leading voters believe their new talking point is a real problem.

            The landscape of politics has changed. Until we can get back to normal philosophical difference between adults, we can not let the Dems implode in inner fighting, as they are known to do.

            I wholly reject your argument. There is a time and place for your idealistic model. This is not it. This country is hanging on by a thread, and the GOP is actively trying to cut it.

            • stoly@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              I neither up nor downvoted you, but really have no idea what you’re trying to say.

              • Wrench@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                I was refuting that open debate against the incumbent president would be good for the Dems. That the DNC funding alternate candidates would be a net positive. My argument is that it could only result in division, and would greatly improve the GOP’s position.

                • stoly@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Well at this point, it certainly would. We’re too far into the process. But for next time, this needs to be done differently.

        • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Nonsense. I think it would be hard to find anyone under 50 that wouldn’t wipe the floor with trumps broken corpse. The only person Trump has a chance again is an octogenarian with no persona.

    • CosmicTurtle@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      All we can do is hope Trump is jailed

      Nothing in the Constitution bars Trump from holding the Office of the President while in a super max prison.

      Absolutely nothing.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Maybe, but good luck doing it from there.

        I think congress would have to make a ruling on that and I doubt they would say that he could be president in prison.

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Congress has no say here unless they decide to try an impeachment and then the Senate would have to remove. Otherwise, there’s nothing to stop this from happening. You’d genuinely have secret service people in the prison and intelligence officers doing daily briefings and the VP would be the one to be present for events, meetings, etc.

  • Chainweasel@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    We have a minimum age to become president, 35, so if that doesn’t qualify as “age discrimination” then a maximum age limit shouldn’t either.
    65 should be the max, you get 30 years to try for the presidency then you’re forced to retire.
    And honestly that should be the maximum age for any elected official, not just the president.

    • Yeller_king@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Why 65? It seems like many people nowadays are totally coherent at that age. I don’t even think of 65 as old as this point. I can’t think of any other occupation that’s forced to retire then.

      • Not_mikey@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Because you want a person for president who’s seasoned through and through, but not so damned season he won’t try something new.

      • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Retirement age. They can go do their speaking engagements, book deals, and paint Scottish terriers until they die but they should not hold public office and make decisions that matter to future generations.

      • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        If nothing else, a maximum age would give younger generations a better chance to have some power. We’ve been ruled by boomers for far too long.

      • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Research shows that the majority of people have some level of cognitive impairment by 70. Just because you may not notice it in some people doesn’t mean it’s not there.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      In America age discrimination is only illegal once you’re 40 years old…

      If you’re 39 and 11 months, you can be denied a senior position for being too young, even if you have 20 years experience

      Because old people write our laws, and they don’t see a problem with telling a middle aged adult that they’re too young.

      If only one out of two groups have protection, it’s not equaly opportunity, it’s legislated discrimination.

      It’s insane because republicans constantly complain about valid equal opportunity, but never mention the one that’s actually discriminatory.

      It’s especially insane when we have to pretend like an 81 year old magically is immune to scientifically proven medical facts

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      It is age discrimination but it’s legal because it’s built-in to the Constitution. Not joking, the “founders” decided that there was a such thing as too young but not too old.

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        I think the founders made a lot of decisions based on the assumption that voters would vote in their own interests. This would preclude, for example, voting for insurrectionists, criminals, or corrupt power brokers.

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Not really. The lifespan includes GIGANTIC numbers of babies dying at birth–that brings down the average in a big way. Poor people also had it harder. If you were a rich person? 80 wasn’t a big deal.

          • Death_Equity@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Those lifespan ranges account for the infant mortality and are based of someone who lived past 15. 39 for men and 56 for women.

        • Doubt. In 1890*, if you made it to 20, it was a 50/50 chance of making it to 65 and about a 1 in 3 chance of making it to 75. 1 in 3 is hardly exceptional. Just slightly better than average. You need to go to 85 to the top 10% and mid-90s to get top 1%, which is what I’d start to think of as exceptional. Most of the difference between 1780 and 1890 was liking decrease in mortality in the 0-25 yo range, so I wouldn’t expect there to be much difference for 1780 data starting with 20yos.

          *https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life1890-1910.pdf using the table on page 127

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    73% of Democrats think Biden is too old to serve but only 35% of Republicans think Trump is too old to serve. Ninety-one percent of independents think Biden is too old to serve, and 71% say the same about Trump.

    This is one of the really interesting takeaways. People are looking at Biden’s gaffes–and he has always made verbals gaffes throughout his career as a politician–and saying that it’s a sign that he’s too old. Meanwhile, Trump, who trails Biden by a mere four years of age, is viewed as energetic and mentally sharp by Republicans. So essentially, Dems are pretty realistic in their assessment of both candidate’s ages, while Republicans are only realistic about Biden.

    Also - forcing the Senate to vote against their own compromise bill, a bill they’d worked on for months, was a fantastic bit of hilarity. They know that they’re not going to be able to get a better bill under Trump–because the majority in the Senate would still shoot down their worst tendencies–but they couldn’t risk bucking Trump. So they undid all their own work. ::chef kiss::

    • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      That is cause the other 65% think Trump is too crazy to serve

      Haha, a man can dream …

    • Blackbeard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Meanwhile, Trump, who trails Biden by a mere four years of age, is viewed as energetic and mentally sharp by Republicans. So essentially, Dems are pretty realistic in their assessment of both candidate’s ages, while Republicans are only realistic about Biden.

      I would bet my entire life savings that if you asked exactly the same Republicans exactly the same question about Trump in 4 years, their response would be exactly the same. Their assessment is not whether an 81 year old is too old to serve, it’s that an 81 year old Democrat is too old to serve.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      You’ve basically just touched on how conservatives operate. It’s never actually about any sort of philosophy, it has always been about control and projecting insecurities on the world.

    • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Which won’t happen unless we call out the people who voted for him in the 2020 primaries. They made a selfish and foolish decision.

      • nomous@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        It actually won’t happen until there’s real grassroots support and people working locally to get people elected. Lots of people just come out once every 4 years and wonder why nothing is changing.

          • nomous@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Because I’m interested in NOW and next year not choices that were made 4 years ago. Why are you obsessed with it? Every post you make in this thread is “what about the 2020 primaries!?”

            You play the card you’re dealt and you keep moving forward and pushing for what you want. It’s something the “left” (what passes for it) could learn from the right.

  • mellowheat@suppo.fi
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    You’re not voting for only Trump or Biden. What you’re also voting for is the people they bring in as admin.

    • hyperhopper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Who cares? We shouldn’t have the choices on the ballot being both choices that the majority of Americans don’t want

      • mellowheat@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        While you’re right that the options are shit, I’m just pointing out that the background people will be more different than the presidents themselves.

        • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Yeah, this admin ranges all the way from corporate toady Pete Buttigieg to Lina Khan, who has been kicking ass and taking names at the FTC

  • Iwasondigg@lemmy.one
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I literally don’t care if they Weekend at Bernies Biden, I will vote for him happily if the alternative is Trump.

    • I_Has_A_Hat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Biden could drop out and they could nominate a literal piece of driftwood covered in seagull shit, and I would vote for the driftwood if it were between that and Trump.

      • mellowheat@suppo.fi
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        This might be the enlightened libertarian in me talking now, but I believe said driftwood would also be superior to Biden.

        • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Which illustrates the missing piece of this conversation: When are we going to talk about the people who voted for him in the 2020 primaries? When are we going to state, repeatedly, voting for Biden in the 2020 primaries was a selfish and foolish thing to do?

          • frunch@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Well, first thing i would do is insult them. Then I’d tell them who they were supposed to vote for.

            When are we going to state, repeatedly, voting for Biden in the 2020 primaries was a selfish and foolish thing to do?

            Ah i see you already covered my main tactic. Now onto the spicy stuff: who’s the candidate they’re supposed to vote for? Or is it only important to vote for not-Biden? I’m curious who else would have crushed Trump in the election. Bernie?

            • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Rather than attempt to defend my approach since you clearly disapprove of it help me understand what your plan is. The DNC primaries continue to produce shit candidates. How does that change?

              I’m not claiming my plan is above judgement and your critique is certainly fair. But without an alternative to compare against those concerns are moot.

              • jkrtn@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                The DNC primaries continue to produce shit candidates. How does that change?

                The Dem candidate is the representative for everyone who isn’t an insane far-right theocratic fascist. You aren’t going to convince anyone that they did anything wrong in 2020. People who don’t like Biden today aren’t the ones who voted for him in the primaries. We all voted for him anyway in the general because we don’t like flushing our ballots down the toilet.

                We will always have shit candidates until the general election uses an intelligent voting system such as score or STAR.

                • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  I’m not seeing anything in your comment about an alternative plan to change the outcome. Do you have a plan for changing the general election to use the voting system to use score or STAR?

                  Again, I’m okay with the critique of my approach but if you don’t have one of your own then as you said “we will always have shit candidates”.

          • mellowheat@suppo.fi
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Then again, we can be certain that Biden won Trump. It’s possible that somebody else would have, too, but we cannot be certain. What is utterly dumb in 2024 was not so much in 2020, in my opinion.

            • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              Then again, we can be certain that Biden won Trump.

              There’s an argument to be made he defeated Trump because there were leftists and progressives who were willing to give him a chance. Do you feel confident he can count on those votes for a second time?

  • nxdefiant@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Well, who do y’all think can beat trump, because that’s who’s running in 4 years regardless of this election’s outcome.

    • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Any Democratic candidate with a pulse, and tbh we could probably get voters to moderate their expectations on both of those points if we had to

      60% of the country has grown to hate and fear Trump just as much as 40% of it adores him

      • EatATaco@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        Polls consistently show that Biden does the best against trump compared to any other Democrat. Why so many people have deluded themselves into believing that Biden is the worst bet against trump will never cease to baffle me.

      • nxdefiant@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I meant my question literally. If Biden wins 2024, Kamala 2028 feels like a bad decision. If it goes the other way, there’s a non-zero chance the Dems are running against trump3, or a trump-like that beats him in the gop primaries, or both.

        Whoever the Dems field in 2028 has to start making a name for themselves sooner rather than later, and I’m mostly disappointed the Dems aren’t using the primaries as a way to show off that candidate.

        • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          After Obama’s upset rise it seems like the old guard are more dedicated to ensuring no such breakout could occur again. I can’t even recall who did the keynote address in 2020. AOC had to be invited in by Bernie to get some stage time. The only progressives I can remember were the actual primary candidates.

          AOC is a fantastic communicator and Ayanna Pressley is probably the best orator in the party, but they’re just continually on guard from their left flank so instead of trying to build a youth operation that shares the same big tent but might be a little leftier than themselves they just shut them out of everything.

      • TempermentalAnomaly@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The 60/40 split is just untrue. And it’s untrue in a meaningful way. The favorability/unfavorability split is closer to 52/43 leaving 5% in afuzzy place. Without attuning to the needs and concerns of this 5%, a false sense of certainty can emerge leading to being surprised when things don’t go the obvious way.

        Subsequently, people lean in to the only thing left to do, cantankerous online debate with people who just don’t get it.

        These favorability polls don’t mean as much as giving the people who matter a story to pull that lever for your candidate. And the people that matter are the undecided in swing states. Without meeting and talking to these people, we don’t know what’s important for them.

        • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          That same metric for Biden is ~55/40, but he’s polling just barely ahead or even with Trump when the question is “who would you vote for” in pretty much all of the recent polls I’ve seen. I don’t think favorability is going to translate well into votes this election because there’s a decent number of voters out there who disapprove of Biden but are going to vote for him anyway, while all of Trump’s supporters are cult members who are going to give him 10/10 and everyone else 0s anytime they get the chance to.

          These favorability polls don’t mean as much as giving the people who matter a story to pull that lever for your candidate

          If it was a different election and we had different candidates, sure, but polls have been remarkably consistent - voters do not like Joe Biden. The best argument to get them to vote for him anyway “the Republicans will destroy the country, look at their nominee,” but it’s a really strong argument. That’s what won in 2020 and it’s only going to become a stronger message every time Trump gets a headline for saying something dumb and hateful.

      • nxdefiant@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I’m not making an argument, I’m quite plainly asking for names, because the reality is that now is the time for whoever that is to start building a base. 2016 taught us that pure fucking charisma is enough to win an election, and that’s what the GOP is going to bank on from now until eternity since it worked for them once.

        (And for anyone doubting Trump’s charisma, remember that a Sibriex has 25 CHA https://www.aidedd.org/dnd/monstres.php?vo=sibriex)

  • Optional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    98% of poll takers won’t do a goddamn thing about it. Even though that’s all it takes to get someone else elected.

  • MonsiuerPatEBrown@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I would vote for VP Kamala Harris to be POTUS before any of them others.

    So Biden it is. The “Eisenhower Box” bends to No Hitler.

    • randomaside@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      “I’m not a Hitler!” Screams the politician

      “That’s probably exactly what a Hitler would say!” - Americans treating politics like a game of Werewolf.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Where I’m at is that we vote for Biden, he survives 2 years and 1 day into his next term, then we get 10 years of President Harris.

  • Alex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Isn’t this why you have the VP running mates? You vote for them just as much.

    • Cosmic Cleric@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Isn’t this why you have the VP running mates? You vote for them just as much.

      VPs are chosen for ‘helping to win an election’ reasons, not processional/competency reasons.

      They’re usually chosen to pull in very specific groups of voters/states to ‘shore up’ what the president can’t pull in on his or her own.

    • Alien Nathan Edward@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      this is certainly why you have primaries. not participating in the primaries is like saying “I don’t care” when someone asks you what restaurant you want to go to then complaining about the menu selection when you get there.

      • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        “So, do you want dog food or do you want someone to shit in your mouth? No, the Mexican place closed. No, the Italian place closed. No, the Chinese place closed too. … Dog food it is then!” - Democratic primary 2024