this post was submitted on 21 May 2024
53 points (82.7% liked)

politics

18828 readers
4572 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Joe Biden’s campaign is facing a strategic dilemma. Since the president’s job-approval ratings have been consistently low, his path to reelection depends on making 2024 a comparative choice between himself and Donald Trump, his scary, extremist predecessor. That task is becoming more urgent as evidence emerges that a sizable number of voters either don’t remember or misremember the four turbulent years of the Trump administration. But paradoxically, educating voters about the potential consequences of a Biden defeat could annoy and alienate them by pushing Trump fatigue to new heights.

top 40 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (1 children)

@[email protected] thoughts on this article? I know a lot of people really do have Trump fatigue and no longer pay attention when the news talks about him.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 3 months ago (1 children)

I read the first little bit. My thoughts are that it would be nice if the article painted this whole issue as a media issue instead of a what-Biden-should-do-better issue. It’s not like they’re wrong in anything they’re saying, but leaving out the WHY aspect of how the average voter is so badly misinformed, leaving room for the reader to conclude that Biden’s campaign just isn’t doing a good job in an otherwise neutral situation, seems like a notable omission.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Is the Biden campaign doing itself a disservice by mostly running on "but Trump"?

[–] [email protected] 14 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (1 children)

I watched most of his speech to the NAACP, after verifying that you were right about him saying he was VP during Covid and it was just as bad as it sounded. He did mention the fact that Trump would be an objective catastrophe and that’s relevant, but I think people already know that; he actually spent most of the speech talking about what he’s done, which I think an overwhelming majority have no idea about beyond a handful of anecdotes. It’s actually so out of line with the popular perception that when he talks about his record (a lot of the same stuff I keep talking about here), it sounds weird and outlandish and comical because a lot of people just have never even heard of it before.

I actually don’t think his campaign is depending mostly on “but Trump,” although I haven’t kept close tabs on it. Are you sure you’re not engaged in an effort to shift the blame for his poor performance onto some tactical failures in his camp whether real or imagined, as opposed to the news media which is overwhelmingly lazy and irresponsible at best, and at worst actively working to undermine him at every turn?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Don’t we all…

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

That's absolutely understandable, the weird part is how media and about 50% of voters don't.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 months ago

It is certainly your right to vote for Trump, yes.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Almost like he should just listen to the voters and also all the fucking scientists and economists if he wants to energize tired voters.

“Stop selling Israel weapons.” “Be more aggressive with climate policy, we’re already late and can’t dilly-dally anymore.” “Oh my god just actually make a fucking effort instead of offering lukewarm responses all the time.”

It’s not hard, and the science backs up the demands.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Be more aggressive with climate policy, we’re already late and can’t dilly-dally anymore.

Wellllllllll

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

Welllllllllll

Biden took half a trillion dollars’ worth of action on climate change which he funded by taxing Amazon + friends which ticked emissions down to 40% reduction by 2030 which is way too late and nowhere near enough no but he started working on it the instant he got in office and had to do the whole thing twice because Manchin blew up the first much more aggressive one at the last minute so yes we need to do a hell of a lot more but it seems weird to pick out the ONE guy in American government who has achieved ANY level of forward progress and give him and only him criticism about how important is climate change and we can’t possibly elect him especially since the other guy wants to undo even that step and start blowing up the planet even harder which makes me question a little bit whether you REALLY care about climate change or whether your explicit targeting of the one guy who made some progress on it is maybe

🎶

Just maybe

Focused and directed in service of an agenda which is maybe

🎶

Maybe just maybe NOT

🎶

Aligned with solving climate change

🎶🎶🎶

Especially given the fact that you seem totally uninterested in conversations about solving climate change which do NOT lead in direct and immediate A->B fashion into not voting for Joe Biden

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 months ago (3 children)

"It’s not hard"

You run for President then hotshot

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 months ago (2 children)

Yes, hello. I understand you’re giving out Presidental Campaign starter packages?

I’ll take the Newport parents, Ivy League College, multi-millionare basic bundle. That comes with the limited-time “My Parents donated to most of my future colleagues’ war chests” add-on, right?

Do I have to upgrade to get rid of the early-to-mid-life scandal?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 3 months ago

Sadly the contract requires you to sell your soul to AIPAC and promise your liver and lungs to Lockheed Martin as collateral

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Do I have to upgrade to get rid of the early-to-mid-life scandal?

That depends if you took the 'media-mogul' tract or the 'oil-and-gas magnate' tract for your "son-of-a-billionaire" class.

Also, if you took the 'tech-bro' multi-class early on, that can unlock the "every-crisis-is-an-opportunity" story-line where you buy a floundering media company in an attempt to preserve your image.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 months ago

A genius rebuttal, why didn’t I think of that?

[–] RIPandTERROR 2 points 3 months ago

Actually I am running for president. I'm just poor AF so you'll have to use a write in since I'm not really party allegiant or super well known.

It's not hard.