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

  • Decoy321@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    47
    arrow-down
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    From what I’ve heard and seen, there’s a massive astroturfing effort to discredit Biden over the actions of an allied nation. It’s as if a massive propaganda machine is at work that completely ignores the fact that Republicans would have an even worse stance than Biden on this issue.

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Charles Manson would make a better US president than Hitler…

      Doesn’t mean people are going to get hype to go vote for Charles Manson.

      And telling people those are the only options will depress turnout.

      And when turnout is depressed, republicans win.

      So how about we try running someone who actually cares about genocide and will at least stop trying to get the perpetrators even more money while telling their own citizens we’re the only first world country that can’t afford universal healthcare?

      Like, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that would get more votes.

      But the people running the Dem party aren’t going to just turn down those AIPAC kickbacks if they can get away with “at least we’re not republicans, so shut up and vote for another genocide supporter”.

      They’ll always aim for “barely better than a Republican”. So let’s fucking replace them with people willing to do more than the absolute bare minimum

      • SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        So how about we try running someone who actually cares about genocide and will at least stop trying to get the perpetrators even more money while telling their own citizens we’re the only first world country that can’t afford universal healthcare?

        This is an unpopular opinion and unpopular opinions lose you elections

        The real world isn’t lemmy.

    • bhmnscmm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      The “but it could be much worse” argument doesn’t carry much weight for many people on this issue.

      • AnonTwo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Has anyone tried explaining that if you allow in the people literally trying to take their rights away, they won’t get another chance to vote in a politician against genocide?

        Like the genocide is awful but it shouldn’t make people forget they have very close to home issues currently happening right now.

        • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          I hear that excuse every single election and have always found it lacking.

          If we always have yo wait until after the next election to demand better of the Democrats then we’ll never see any change. “Lesser evilism” will only allow the Democrats to continue sliding the overtones window to the right.

          Even if you’re already planning to vote a straight Democrat ticket, don’t tell them that. Make them think you’re a swing voter they need to pander to.

          • AnonTwo@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            How are you hearing it every single election? The main issues didn’t start popping up (or at least blatantly enough to change voter turnout) until the 2016 election.

            Like that’s not nearly enough elections in between to hear the excuse every election.

            • SCB@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              How are you hearing it every single election?

              He’s only seen 2 that he remembers.

              • AnonTwo@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                I don’t particularly care about the democratic party threat, I care about the uptick in voting issues, the supreme court, and…you know…that the opposing party is trying to vote in someone who attempted to not give up the office

                So you know, the recent ones that a lot of people started voting in about.

                • knightly the Sneptaur@pawb.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  I’m not going to compromise my principles out of fear. I’d rather write in “none of the above” than hitch my wagon to a party that gets campaign donations from corporate bombmakers like Raytheon.

                  If the Democrats want my vote, they should start acting like it. They need to stop pretending they can coast to victory on “lesser evilism” before they end up repeating all their mistakes from 2016, and the threat of withholding my vote is the only leverage I have.

                  • AnonTwo@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Stop bullshitting. You’ll sit on your morals while a dictator takes over, just being happy you didn’t “compromise your morals.”

                    Which ultimately just means doing nothing while the dictator takes over.

      • Decoy321@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which is still an ignorant take, because we’ve only got two realistic options. Bad and worse.

        Any complaints otherwise are ignorant at best, if not maliciously deceptive.

        • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Which is still an ignorant take, because we’ve only got two realistic options. Bad and worse.

          The solution isn’t “shut up and be grateful we’re not worse”. It’s actually running someone that’s good.

          We’ve tried the “shut up you don’t have a choice” strategy and that just keeps ending up with republicans in office.

          Why not just run good candidates that want to help America if they get in office?

          • chakan2@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why not just run good candidates that want to help America if they get in office?

            Because that doesn’t make nearly as much money donations as “Look at how awful the Republicans are.”

            If the D’s ran a real candidate that actually cared about the country, they’d get blasted in fund raising…People like Booker would go broke overnight if we got universal healthcare. Pelosi would lose her ass if we outlawed congressional trading.

            We’re fucked…irrevocably completely and utterly fucked.

            • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              If the D’s ran a real candidate that actually cared about the country, they’d get blasted in fund raising

              Not really, Bernie and even trump made enough off “small” donations to run effective campaigns.

              The difference is small donations from voters don’t come with all the perks and kickbacks as the same amount from a single PAC/billionaire/organization.

              And as long as the bare minimum is having a D next to your name, grifters are going to run with the D, and get those huge donations because the people making them expect a return.

              So yeah…

              People like Booker would go broke overnight if we got universal healthcare. Pelosi would lose her ass if we outlawed congressional trading.

              Those are two great examples of politicians that need to be replaced, and why our standards need to be more than a single letter.

    • wishthane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      There are absolutely very important reasons to still vote for Biden, but you can’t rely on millions of people to all do the right thing just because it’s logical. The person who’s running for office ultimately has the responsibility to ensure people want to vote for them. It’s just not really useful to blame millions of people when you know that there are statistically for sure going to be disaffected people out of those who need to be motivated. It doesn’t even matter whether most voters who would vote for Biden turn out to vote for him - they almost certainly will - because this fight is at the margins, and to win, you have to capture the irresponsible and unreliable people too.