this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
182 points (92.9% liked)

politics

18870 readers
4887 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
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 46 points 9 months ago (6 children)

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.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 50 points 9 months ago (4 children)

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.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 29 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

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.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 16 points 9 months ago (2 children)

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.

[–] mo_ztt@lemmy.world 8 points 9 months ago

"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.

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

I'm not defending Clinton in the least, man.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world -5 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.)

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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...

[–] SquirtleHermit@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago

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!

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 6 points 9 months ago

You are not wrong.

[–] shalafi@lemmy.world 22 points 9 months ago (2 children)

Biden had just lost his son and didn't want the job. He later said he regretted that decision.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 20 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] joenforcer@midwest.social 2 points 9 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] dhork@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

They're not all due to his stutter. He didn't stutter when he said this about Obama:

I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that's a storybook, man.

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world 7 points 9 months ago

The entire nation regrets that decision.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 17 points 9 months ago (1 children)

She was the worst person on the planet to go against Trump.

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.

[–] PeleSpirit@lemmy.world 10 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

She still won the popular vote by a couple million, we have an electoral problem.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Yeah, that electoral college really snuck up on her. Just popped out of the blue in 1789, giving her no time to prepare.

[–] ares35@kbin.social 4 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

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).

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

him not running in 2016 is, i think, ultimately what enabled the hateful, incoherent, diaper-wearing buffoon to even have a chance

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/

[–] Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social 6 points 9 months ago

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.

[–] ares35@kbin.social 1 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

if biden ran in 2016, clinton would have been a non-factor. dinglebutt would have still made it to the ballot.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 1 points 9 months ago

Then why did Clinton feel her team had to boost him?

Do you know more than her campaign team?

[–] YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world -1 points 9 months ago

I totally agree.

[–] paddirn@lemmy.world 4 points 9 months ago

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.