How Popular Does Biden Need to Be to Beat Trump? Not Very.
nymag.com
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.
Don't take it for granted. Hilary lost because of this. Get out and vote.
Hillary lost because she couldn't read the writing on the wall and told everyone she deserved to win because it was her time. She was the worst person on the planet to go against Trump. The GOP spent 30 years demonizing her and she played right into their hands. Biden should have been the candidate then but that is hindsight.
And even with all of her mistakes and her total lack of charisma, she still only lost because of an archaic system that lets the winner of the popular vote lose.
It's not like this system was sprung on her at the last second. She didn't take it into account. She pretty much ignored key swing states that wound up going to Trump.
She was carried in a palanquin across the finish line in the primaries and didn't understand that she had to run the rest of the way.
Bruh. She ignored a lot of close call battleground states and instead spent the end of the campaign doing "victory laps" in solid blue states like Cali because she was obsessed with beating Obama's popular vote total...
You could argue her and her campaign should have known better, I just don't know where you'd find someone who disagreed to have that argument with.
And that's not even getting into how with population growth, popular vote totals will be record breaking damn near every election.
She was supposed to have the best campaign team in modern history, and either they were too stupid to know what the electoral college is, or they were unable to talk sense into Hillary and get her to actually win the election instead of her fucking self esteem tour to make her feel good about herself after losing to Obama.
I'm just tired of people making excuses for her one second like it's her first day in politics, then trying to claim she's the greatest political mind of her generation the next.
It can't be both.
"Shattered" is a book which goes into a bit more detail about what went wrong with the Clinton campaign. Also, this particular review represents a rare moment of lucidity from Matt Taibbi, back when he hadn't quite completed his devolution from whip-smart political correspondent into a Trump apologist for some fucking reason.
I'm not defending Clinton in the least, man.
You said she only lost because of the electoral college like it's some weird thing no one knew about...
Maybe you didn't intend to defend her, but that's what you did.
He also said "with all her mistakes and total lack of charisma". It read, to me at least, as anti-Trump and not pro-Clinton. (Even a bit anti-Clinton, as defending someone by saying they have no Charisma is... a weird way of going about it at least.)
She "only" lost if she didn't know how the scores were counted?
If neither her nor or her entire campaign team knew what decided the winner of a presidential election, I highly doubt that was the only issue with her campaign...
You will have to talk to @PugJesus@kbin.social about the valid usage of the word "only". They also said "many mistakes", so they also seem to agree that there were many other issues with her campaign.
My only point was rightly accusing Clinton of having a complete lack of charisma is a weird way to defend her. But honestly this hill has already made me too tired to bother dying on. Have a good one!
You are not wrong.
This is like saying basketball is archaic because it lets the team with the most hoops lose.
If we were deciding our leadership based on basketball games, I'd sure as shit say it was archaic.
Biden had just lost his son and didn't want the job. He later said he regretted that decision.
It's not just that, also remember that Biden had made a minor career out of losing the Democratic Presidential Nomination before Obama asked him to be VP. Much of the reason for that is that he had the tendency to say dumb shit. Remember all those "Gaffes"?
I don't think Biden could have ever become President before Trump, because we used to have higher standards for what was "Presidential". But once Trump became President, now all the dumb gaffes Biden makes are no longer a liability.
I admit I have been more impressed with Biden then I thought I would. I think a big issue is he is a much better President than he is a candidate for President.
All those "dumb gaffes" are because he has a stutter. It's actually way more impressive how well he's trained himself out of doing it constantly.
They're not all due to his stutter. He didn't stutter when he said this about Obama:
The entire nation regrets that decision.
She absolutely was. And with the pied piper strategy, she basically said who she thought the worst candidate was in the opposition's field, then lost to him.
biden would have easily won, being the outgoing vp of a well-liked (by most) two-term president. him not running in 2016 is, i think, ultimately what enabled the hateful, incoherent, diaper-wearing buffoon to even have a chance--which was only enhanced by the dnc playing favorites and essentially handing the nomination to clinton.
i get the 'why' he didn't run; but man, it sure fucked-up this country (and beyond).
Nope.
What gave trump a chance was Hillary boosting him because she thought she had a chance against him, but no chance against even Jeb Bush.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428/
Also, the structure of the Republican primary meant that the person with a plurality of votes got all the delegates. And because there was such a split field and Trump was a celebrity, he got a lead in delegates which gave him more press.
if biden ran in 2016, clinton would have been a non-factor. dinglebutt would have still made it to the ballot only to waddle home in defeat.
Then why did Clinton feel her team had to boost him?
Do you know more than her campaign team?
I totally agree.
That year was probably when we would've gotten "peak" or near-peak Biden, but that was around the time when his other son Beau Biden had died, which I thought was the reason he sat out the Primaries, which might've made them a bit more interesting, but would've had the same effect of shutting Sanders out. The way I remembered it, Biden essentially saved the 2012 Obama campaign against Romney, as Obama had been having a shitty campaign and debate performance up until Biden went up against Paul Ryan and dominated. After that debate, things seemed to turn around and I thought he was a shoe-in for 2016.
If your state has mail-in voting, just use that. I like to vote while not wearing pants.
Pics or didn't happen
I'm not giving this sweet ass away for free
Do you take expired Reddit gold?
Asking for a friend.
Moderates are really really motivated to only be just slightly better than Republicans.
They want to be as corporation/billionaire friendly as possible, so they get as many donations as possible.
It's why Hillary spent money, time, and effort boosting trump and Ben Carson in 2016. There wasn't much difference between her and Jeb Bush, so she didn't think she had a chance at beating him.
The obvious risk was Hillary was/is a horrible candidate and might not have even been able to win against them, which she wasn't.
It's like if the pitcher in a MLB game bet for his team to win, but by less than the spread. He still wants to win, but he keeps throwing softballs over the plate if he starts to win too much.
But that's just a game, this is literally playing with people's lives.
Welcome to US politics.
I could be wrong, but I think this impression comes because they are skewing more towards the mean or average, whereas on social media we are quite far left. So to us, they appear similar to republicans, because we as online users on Lemmy are quite far left. However, in reality Dems are quite left of Repubs.. just not left enough from our point of view because they appeal to the mean American. Am I making sense? I don't think I did a good job of explaining myself.
From what I've heard and seen, a lot of younger voters are disillusioned by the Democrats' stance on genocide. I've heard the comment many are repeating that they are single issue voters when the issue is genocide.
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.
The "but it could be much worse" argument doesn't carry much weight for many people on this issue.
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.
I hear that excuse every single election and have always found it lacking.
If we always have to 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 overton 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.
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.
He's only seen 2 that he remembers.
With my ears, of course. Trump isn't the only threat to the Democrat party, just the most recent one.
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.
If you truly believe that's nothing new, i'll just consider you to be part of that astroturfing described above and ask you to stop wasting my time. Seriously.....
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.
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.
Am I bullshitting, or am I applying the only leverage I have over the party?
We can't afford politicians, so the threat of withholding our votes is our only tool for influencing the party.
I advise you to stop being a "safe" voter that will always and forever vote blue no matter who. Even if you're going to vote for Dems anyway, make them think that they need to work for it.
These tired ass arguments will no longer work for the younger generation.
Thank god
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.
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?
You push the Democratic Party candidate to the left. Supporting Republicans (which is what you're doing if you don't vote for Joe Biden, full stop) isn't going to help anyone and won't get you better candidates in the future. It will literally have the opposite effect. There's a great batch of possible candidates for 2028 (Witmer, Shapiro, Newsome, etc). Sure I'd prefer them over Biden for 2024 but they're not running.
"Vote red no matter who, because Dems are worse" is how trump became the face of the Republican party...
If the Dem party's only standard is "there's a D next to their name" we'll gonna keep getting shitty candidates that lose half the elections to republicans. And even when they do win, nothing gets fixed.
Normally I'd push for primary participation and then begrudgingly voting for the winner of the primary.
But we don't even get a primary because a private organization controls that, and they decided we don't get one.
Will I still vote for Joe?
Sure, I've voted for every single shitty D candidate in the general since I turned 18. But telling people to just shut up and stop complaining about how fucked it is won't fix anything. Hasn't for decades.
And pretending that shitty milk toast candidates don't depress turnout and give Republicans a chance, is like asking why poor people don't just make more money. But you're not going to reach that 1/3 of eligible voters on a political sub on a fringe social media website
The absolute easiest way to get them to vote, is run a good candidate.
So how about you spend your effort communicating that to the Democratic party? That might actually accomplish something....
Although, they're probably just say "shut up and vote for me, at least I'm not a Republican".
Because that doesn't make nearly as much
moneydonations 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.
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...
Those are two great examples of politicians that need to be replaced, and why our standards need to be more than a single letter.
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
This is an unpopular opinion and unpopular opinions lose you elections
The real world isn't lemmy.
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.
While implying that Trump, a literal white nationalist authoritarian fascist, somehow doesn't support the genocide of brown people
A lot of people are clueless that Trump is going to be the GOP candidate.
The issue with that is that Republicans hold an even worse position on genocide in multiple ways and would have been gunning for not only Israel killing all Palestinians, but ejecting all Muslims from the US as well. Which they will also totally do if they win the election.
Two fascist parties?
Time to stay home on election day. I refuse to be complicit in the crimes of the State.
If the Democrats want my vote, they can start pandering to me instead of AIPAC.
I don't have to like Joe or his policies to know that voting for him is the better choice. It sucks to have vote for the lesser evil, but right now the gap between the lesser and greater evils is so large that it makes the decision simple.
Joe will be
a lame duck in 28'ineligible to run in 28'which will hopefully give us a chance to force the issue on not wantting to vote for the lesser evil then. However right now the greater evil is the issue, if we want to have a system to reform in 28' the choice on who to vote for now isn't a choice at all.I feel like I'm taking crazy pills when my best choice is to vote for someone who I know will not adequately address the multitude of extremely time sensitive issues facing our planet and country.
Like yeah, Trump will be worse, and the system is such that you literally have to vote blue if you want to mitigate the damage. But climate change isn't waiting for us to "fix the system", Americans dying of inadequate health care don't have time to wait, the rich aren't going to stop widening the wealth gap just because. And for all of this, my vote goes to an administration that will only employ soft tactics to stop genocide...
But hey, at least it could be worse right...
Lesser evil might have been a thing 20 years ago, calling Biden lesser evil is just ignorant.
He's going up against a man that does not believe in democracy or the peaceful transition of power.
It's like looking at broccoli and dog vomit and saying I'll eat broccoli it's the lesser of two evils.... 🤷♂️
Pretty good metaphor since the only one who'd say that for real is a fucking child who's mad they don't get ice cream for dinner
?
He can't run a third time, even if he's alive by then.
I was under the impression that "Lame Duck" refers to a sitting president that can no longer run. I was incorrect. I ment to state that with Joe being unable to run, 28' is the better time push the lesser vs greater evil issue.
Ah, ok.
Are people this dumb? Would they really consider Trump for another presidency, let alone another insane Republican candidate?
Imagine if the DNC gave democrats a worthy candidate. Then we wouldn't have to strongarm democrats to vote for democratic candidates.
Who?
The problem is sort of chicken and egg: if there were an obvious democratic alternative the party could agree on, Biden would be out. There is no such person, so we get stuck with what we have right now.
Hard to fault the party for not wanting to bruise their most likely candidate in a tough primary, either.
This sucks, but it's not the Democrats' fault: it's our first past the post voting system.
Who would've been better?
If the DNC hadn't shoved Hillary down our throats, Bernie would have certainly won the primary. But on policy the best candidate would have been Andrew Yang.
The DNC would rather lose elections than give us non-establishment politicians.
I was under the impression that Bernie was too left even for a lot of Democrat voters, so winning the elections could've been a tough one
And just like that, the party's voters aren't expected to fall in line for a candidate they don't want in order to stop Trump.
Not like expecting them to fall in line would've done anything if you're losing a hefty chunk of the moderates. That's what seems to decide American elections, who can claw more of the middle ground undecided voters to their side.
So "vote blue no matter who" was a crock of fucking bullshit put forth by hypocrites who never intend to follow their own advice if a candidate isn't their very first choice.
I wouldn't think it's the moderates or undecided people that are saying that.
Then you're either not paying any attention whatsoever, or you're gaslighting me. Either way, there is no reason to continue this conversation.
Why would those who are closest to switching or especially those who are undecided be hardcore about always voting Democrats..?
Oh yes how the DNC shoved Hillary down our votes by mind controlling millions of so called Bernie supporters to not even turn out for him and then throw a tantrum that other voters didn't vote for him on their behalf.
Imagine if people who pissed and moaned on this point actually turned out to vote in the primary process that selects the candidates.
Sadly, yes. Even a lot of people who talked about how dangerous he was while they worked in his administration aren't willing to commit to voting for Biden over Trump if it comes down to them in the general election.
Pence is going to vote for him despite that whole attempted murder thing. What I want to know is what Mother thinks about that.
If Trump is still the nominee, he will likely have been convicted in at least one of those 4 criminal cases, but still holds sway in the party to win anyway and will double-dog-dare Georgia to throw him in jail. In that case, I don't think enough people would willingly vote for a felon (even a Republican one) to give him a chance.
This leaves Biden a single thing he absolutely needs to win the election: a pulse. I think the only person keeping America from becoming a fascist dictatorship is not Biden, it's his cardiologist. That doctor needs to keep Biden's heart ticking until Jan 21 2025.
It does lay the groundwork for a civil war. You know some redneck dumb fucks are going to try to break him out of jail, and then it's on. It's clear that Trump's base is voting Trump no matter what.
His base sure, but his base aren't all of the people who've voted for him, and being a convicted felon is going to tank his numbers outside that base
The other people that voted for him are still going to vote for him because R.
Pretending otherwise is why Biden is behind in the polls.
I'm equally happy with a Saddam style lookalike or if he kicks the bucket in the last few days, even a Weekend at Bernie's solution.
The worst possible timeline is if Biden wins the election, but croaks before the election can be certified by Congress. There will be legitimate challenges over whether any Biden/Harris electors can be accepted at all, and the election may go to the House/Senate to decide. And even if the Democrats control Congress , if the House has to vote on who should be President each state's delegation gets 1 vote, and that math favors Republicans.
In that scenario, a Trump/Harris administration is extremely likely, even if the Biden/Harris ticket won enough EC votes to win.
I think the most important metric for Biden and the Democrats in the upcoming us election is a blood pulse.
I would argue that some cognitive ability is required also, in order to perform at the debates. But Trump has already set the precedent that the front runner can ignore debates.
So the only metrics Biden needs to meet are
If he does all that, but keels over on Jan 21, his second term will still be a success.
Why does anyone presume that his opponent will be the orange guy? If he hasn't keeled over with hamberders and buckets of KFC, he still has 91 felonies hanging over his head. He likely will be imprisoned, or disqualified by then.
Because he's winning the primaries now by some distance, it's not illegal for him to run from prison and at least one state court has already decided that he did engage in an insurrection but that that doesn't disqualify him either.
I thought they decided that he did but that didn't disqualify him.
Here I am thinking they decided that he did but that didn't disqualify him.
What are you implying? That they decided he did but that didn't disqualify him?
Listen, I'm not sure where you get your news, but what I'm reading is that they decided he did, but that didn't disqualify him.
Found the typical Lemmy user! Always reading things and then thinking about things before commenting on things. You need to go back and re-read what you were reading when you read that, because it's clear that they decided he did, but that didn't disqualify him.
Well for starters a lot of his full trial dates are being set for after the primaries
They're basically trying to take what comy did to Clinton and dial it to 11
Speaking of which, the Russian emails, had presumably classified information. The rules over classified documents are to never comment about them, because any information released is another clue about what is contained in actual classified documents. This left Clinton in a limbo of not being able to defend herself, while being smeared. Comey, believed the emails, until they were fully investigated and well after the election. We didn't hear about the planted parts, one way or the other, because of those same security rules. I DO remember the US security council trying to limit damage after Trump was elected.
The GOP has a choice of whom to run. I assume there will be a way that will be found, for them to switch candidates, if Trump is in prison, Even if it occurs in the window between his winning the primary, and election, they will find a way. It may even be to their advantage, as the new candidate receives Trumps blessing and gives Trump clemency.
Russian emails? Are you thinking of the Wikileaks stuff, with the hacked data from Clinton's campaign staffers? I am pretty sure those are different and separate from the emails that Comey was investigating for the FBI.
There are two "Hilary's emails" stories. It is easy to confuse the two -- Republicans worked very hard throughout 2016 to make it easy to confuse the two -- yet they are two different series of events and almost totally unrelated to one another.
The original "Buttery Males" story: Comey and the FBI investigated emails that were stored on a private server owned by the Clinton Foundation, a server that Hilary had used for official business while serving as Secretary of State. In July of 2016, Comey announced that while they did find a small number of documents marked "classified" stored on the server, this violation was obviously inadvertent and should not be prosecuted. "Sloppy but not criminal," or something like that. Then later in October (after taking a few months of heat from his fellow Republicans for not going after Clinton harder) Comey announced that there may be files on a laptop owned by Hilary's assistant, Huma Abedin, that the FBI had not yet had a chance to review. Comey announced this privately to a congressional committee and it was leaked almost instantly, about a week before election day.
The "From Russia with Love" email story: Meanwhile, Russian hackers infiltrated Hilary Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign and stole thousands of personal emails and other data from her staffers and people they'd communicated with. None of these emails were classified and the FBI never investigated the Clinton campaign in this case (except as the victims of a crime). Wikileaks and Julian Assange got in on the action and built up lots of hype. That's when, in the middle of a campaign speech, Trump made his famous on-stage plea: "Russia, if you're listening, I hope you're able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing. I think you will probably be rewarded mightily by our press."
Trump was clever, mendaciously associating the original "classified documents on your private server" controversy with the "Russia stole your data and is about to release it on Wikileaks" controversy, but the two stories don't really have anything to do with one another, at all, and they never really did.
I also have been wondering what the race will look like in six months, when all this speculation about Trump's trials (and potential prison time?) will be upon us for real.
Legally (so far at least) they say Trump can run from prison. If he were to win, as POTUS he'd have many options available to clear his name, dismiss his accusers, and attack his opponents.
I don't think Trump will give another candidate his endorsement, even from prison. If he does, it won't be without that other candidate publicly swearing fealty and promising to grant clemency, as you say. The way I see it, any candidate who'd be willing to do that will look weak and subservient, and probably look worse than Trump's going to look, even from prison, by the time they get to the general election.
I think the only way another candidate wins the GOP nomination is by taking it from Trump -- not by Trump lending it out to them.
Good points. A sycophant will rail about how unfair the partisan attacks have been against Trump. They will right this grievous wrong, and will pardon Trump. Anything less is akin to leaving a fallen warrior behind.
The GOP would never go against whomever wins the primary and he is facing state level charges as well as federal.
I wish I had your optimism.
He shouldn't have been the nominee in 2016, either. It's not safe to assume anything at this point.
The Russian playbook of getting dirt to smear an opponent did not work when the Biden hard drive was shown to be Russian sourced. Gulianni's provider is charged as being a foreign agent, as of a week or so ago.
You really think Trump will serve any time? If it were anyone else I might agree. Can't wait to see how this plays out.
Most of those won't go to trial until after the election, and the courts have shown zero desire to actually punish him in a meaningful way. I will be very surprised if he is not the candidate
Yeah it would be surprising, it would also upend the entire democratic election strategy so not planning for that outcome is still a risk. Biden is a huge liability if anyone but trump comes out to rep the gop.
Literally every trial begins before the election.
Why do you assume that he will suddenly begin seeing proportionate consequences for his actions in the next 12 months when it's never once happened in his life before this point?
I agree with your disposition toward him and admire and envy your optimism...I just don't share it.
I'm old and cynical, but my opinion is that Trump will never go to prison. That is a pipe dream.
I'm hoping for Christie
I keep seeing messaging that essentially amounts to "Biden doesn't have to try, everything is great actually, and, besides, Trump is unelectable". Clearly the democrats learned nothing from 2016. This is too big to fuck up, don't phone it in.
The secret here is the D's aren't actually trying to win this one.
I want to disagree with you, but I just can't wrap my head around team Biden's messaging feeling this completely disconnected from the reality on the ground for a lot of Americans. And when you call out the disconnection, the answer isn't anything approaching empathy or understanding, it's "you're wrong lol". It just feels like they're not even trying.
Trump has all the weaknesses of an incumbent and few of the benefits. I knew some people who tried to play very agnostic about his record in 2016, but now as in 2020, the American people have a record to judge him on. And it's not very pretty. Biden is going to start laying into that record. And soon the negative polarization will build back up, after the GOP decides who exactly the are with their candidate chosen.
The issue of abortion has already decided the partisan general.
Bar is low but I'm not sure if he reaches it
He’s already reached it. If he fails it won’t be a failure of his administration, it will be a failure of the electorate.
He seemed to lose in the most recent poll I heard of
So the American people would rather have a fascist that has sworn revenge on his political enemies, to Biden who actually helped American families. Telling.
Time for everyone to bemoan the two party system but you dont dare suggest they stop supporting it
How pathetic is it that we are forced into a situation where both candidates suck ass. Let me vote harder for shit to get worse either way.🙄
Yay, more "both sides" bullshit!
Yup, Biden is absolutely the same as Trump. Nothing progressive has come out of his administration at all.
Cool bro, my grocery bill is fucking outrageous the cost of living is going up with no raises for the regular guy. They do everything but actually help the middle class.
I'm not giving Biden a full pass, but inflation has struck across the globe. Why do you think we would be special?
There's a land war on in Europe, and another more recently in the middle east, tech is still confused about how to deal with a post COVID world, and just laid off hundreds of thousands of employees, refugees from climate crisis and political unrest are fleeing across the Americas, Asian and Europe, nationalism has been on the rise for nearly a decade, and here at home the GOP is in a true state of crisis, as their old guard evil white guys are dealing with the insane fascists new guys.
The world is crazy right now, but eggs are expensive, so fuck voting I guess.
There might be yet another land war in Africa soon,
Ethiopia has been developing some very strange definitions of colonialism, specifically that water rights and sovereignty over your own coastlines are colonialism apparently.
Also those egg prices spiking headlines have been around times of deadly avian flu outbreaks over the past couple years (we just had another one too). Kind of the the cost of cheap eggs. If you want your eggs dirt cheap, well they get that cheap because they come from giant factory farms with them all crammed together in horrible conditions ripe for diseases to spread. So everytime there's an avian flu outbreak, they have to kill of millions of chickens to prevent it from spreading further, and egg prices will spike again. In the outbreak in 2022 egg wholesale prices doubled in less than a month after an outbreak, and 20% of all egg laying chickens in Iowa (nation's biggest egg producer) alone were culled. Eggs are often loss leaders for grocery stores too who may sell them for even less than wholesale, so the price is quite manipulated and retailer dependent. Often why you find them way in the back corner of the store so you have to walk by all the higher margin products. Point is, eggs are a terrible gauge of who to vote for, unless you're trying to reduce animal cruelty but that would make eggs more expensive anyways so, /shrug
Corporations are gouging for more profits and Bidens response is to tell them not knock it off? It’s greedflation and our representatives refuse to do anything to help the regular person. I don’t see the c suite sacrificing.
Mine too!
I'm Canadian so how did Biden do that?
Wow our governments are both ram my neo-libs wonder what we have in common🤔
Can you try this part one more time?
Oh boy we have a grammar correction!
I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying, I can usually figure out typos.
If you can’t use context clues to figure out an m instead of an n typo. Well yikes.
It's taken you longer to be a dick then just clarify what you're saying and I still don't understand you.
Don’t be so butt hurt when people criticize Biden and trump and we wouldn’t be having this conversation. You people think trump is the fucking Antichrist. Get a grip.
Oh, I definitely would have never gotten that from your previous comment.
Maybe you should work on your communication skills a bit?
Yes, the president is single person that can change all of that for you at the snap of their fingers.
Yup. It's definitely all about you.
Bye.
Good luck winning the average middle class American and young people lmao.
Have you considered quitting and getting the same job at a different company for more money?
Biden doesn't suck ass. That's meme-tier shit.
I’ll agree when he doesn’t put out an economic plan that isn’t means tested garbage. Didn’t do shit about student loans either. So yea for the average middle class person they both suck ass.
Are you in favor of a flat tax too?
All student loan forgiveness has been by executive order, thus Biden is literally the only person who has ever done anything about student loans
Studies have shown that the benefit Means Testing earns by excluding would be users of that program is vastly outweighed by the expense required to actually means test every applicant for that program.
Weren't these studies specifically about drug testing welfare?
Like, I'm all for means testing Social Security, because it becomes immediately solvent if you do, and it's very easy to do.
No it was about any means testing, the cost outweighs the benefits, what makes Social Security solvent is removing the income cap on your contribution
Porque no los dos?
Do you have a link to the study? Very interested in challenging my priors on this one as I currently very strongly favor means testing as a concept.