this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2024
13 points (93.3% liked)

politics

19097 readers
3434 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.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. 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
top 24 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Not sure why they always make it about age. Age doesn't really matter as long as the cognitive ability is there

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Probably because thentisk of cognitive ability decline over a 4 year period increases significantly. Even if either were at their peak now, there is a higher risk of cognitive decline. Biden already shows signs of decline, so will likely worsen significantly. Trump likely has severe mental health issues and was never in peak health since entering politics.

Pressure should be placed in Biden to stand down. Trump too, but he won't respond to calls to do the right thing. Biden might. Biden whole reason to stand was to not have Trump. Well, he's causing it to be more likely Trump. He should state that both of them are too old and mental faculties are not there and stand down.

If he does not, everyone we sensible should still vote Biden in. Trump is dangerous and unhinged.

[–] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com -5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Trump didn't seem that dangerous or unhinged to me. I also don't see mental decline in Trump like I do Biden. I don't see how any sensible person could vote for Biden. The US cannot be run by someone with dementia

[–] HasturInYellow@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Do you see how it could be led by a fascist? Does that seem good to you..? Are you just ok with Americans being murdered by the right? That will happen with Trump, I guarantee it.

[–] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com -5 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Why didn't it happen when he was in office before? And right now we're being murdered by illegal aliens, and that'll continue until Biden is gone

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (1 children)
[–] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com -2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

They're just less likely to have it reported to the fbi statistics. 40% of our major cities aren't reporting crime statistics to the fbi now. No matter how you try to frame it, there are still illegals in our country murdering, raping, and robbing people, crimes that were completely preventable. And you don't know me, people like you just call everyone a racist that doesn't agree with your ideology

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Youre talking about that change in reporting requirement from 2021. Good thing this article cites studies and timelines well before then.

[–] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com -2 points 4 months ago

Yeah, back then we hadmore of a process and they weren't coming in by the numbers they are now, or not coming in from every corner of the globe

[–] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

And just because migrants might have been less likely to commit a crime 20 years ago doesn't mean it's the same today. These crimes are completely preventable though. There's no reason they should even be happening everyday

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago (1 children)

20 years ago, 10 years ago, 5 years ago, this year, there is no data you will accept, your racism transcends truth

[–] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com -3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Right, everyone is racist. Got ya.

[–] blazera@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Makes sense why you wanna disenfranchise georgian voters

[–] dhork@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Cognitive ability alone is not the whole story, the ability to be persuasive and communicate well is also a key point. I watched the whole debate, and Biden did not communicate well at all. He started out lousy, got a bit better in the middle, but then fell off the wagon again. I think if he had finished strong it would be a lot different.

Age is a key concern because it will affect everyone. Not every 80 year old is diminished, and not everyone has that mental decline before their physical decline accellerates. But we all end up in the same place, in the end. So his age is the one concern that Biden can't counteract with a policy change or an executive order. All he can do is show us what he has. And he simply didn't deliver, even after all his debate prep.

[–] Melvin_Ferd@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

Yea and then you have a 50 year old like Trudeau and they all say he's too young

[–] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com -3 points 4 months ago

I agree 100%

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

This is a meaningless poll. Bidden has a leg up because of his incumbency and because he's the presumptive nominee

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Now those are utterly meaningless. Incumbency worked so well for Trump, amirite?

I can't believe you can write that with a straight face when he's losing in national polling, losing with battleground state swing voters, and losing large chunks of critical Hispanic and Black voters.

Every single data-point is significantly-worse than Biden's 2020 performance where he won by a whole 40,000 votes in battleground states.

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 0 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Compared to other democratic candidates, biden has a leg up because incumbency. This link is about the nominee, not who wins.

And trump absolutely benefited from incumbency. The whole GOP practically rebuilt itself around him.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's irrelevant if it doesn't actually propel you past the finish-line, though, isn't it? So explain to me how incumbency and the DNC "building itself around" Biden is substantively altering the outcome of, for emphasis:

  • Losing large chunks of critical Hispanic & Black Voters (voters who shouldn't be in question to begin with)
  • Losing Battleground swing-state voters.
  • Losing in national polling versus Trump (where he was ahead in 2020 or at worst even)
  • Has aggregate approval ratings in the 30s.

I'll wait.

Next, answer this: Joe Biden is not the nominee yet either, for the convention has yet to happen. Now let's be clear: In the event Biden voluntarily steps down and either an open convention occurs or he endorses, is it really that inconceivable for you to believe overnight polling for such a candidate would skyrocket as both grassroots and establishment and MASSIVE widespread media press inundate such a person with coverage...?

So at the end of the day, we have high confidence Biden will lose in November 6th if we stay the course. If that's the case, I believe we should take the chance to put someone fresh in and who is younger. That assuages a major concern for 70% of the electorate and reinvigorates people to vote for someone new. As Mehdi Hasan said, "Americans love new shit."

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 0 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (1 children)

Okay I didn't that because its likely off topic.

This article is about a statistic, which says (very narrowly) that Biden (is currently) polling better than other hypothetical nominees. I'm saying that this is because Biden is more well known, due to his incumbency.

This statistic does not and can not sat anything about if a different Democratic candidate would poll better or worse than Biden if they were nominated or were the presumptive nominee.

Because Biden is the president, he is in the news more, and is more recognizable, and thus more people "like" him than whoever else was listed on this study.

There is a reason incumbents are almost always the nominee. Voters are generally not well educated and the vast majority of them just know Biden.

[–] lennybird@lemmy.world -1 points 4 months ago

I will agree with the longstanding precedent of incumbent-advantage; but I do not see how that shores up support here and in the now. Put it this way: Polls show incumbent advantage is doing fundamentally nothing to put Biden past the numbers he needs in order to cross the finish-line.

And But don't you think Biden's numbers -- steadily declining for months if not years, mind you -- are sort of baked in? Media saturation has taken place, and Biden in the spotlight long enough that projections would suggest nothing will fundamentally change and that these are losing numbers -- yes? So between knowing we will likely lose versus taking the gamble of garnering viral excitement from nominating a younger fresh face, the latter would be better in my view.

Look I'm sorry, but you gave zero response to the damaging statistics I mentioned except to point vaguely toward incumbency which clearly isn't helping enough with the output of those statistics. So can changing candidates do more? I think so.

[–] gravitas_deficiency@sh.itjust.works -1 points 4 months ago (1 children)

I don’t know why so many people are convinced that polls are meaningful. I don’t know anyone under 40 who has a landline, or who answers cold calls from random numbers, which is how the vast majority of polling in the US is done.

[–] NoSuchAgency@reddthat.com -2 points 4 months ago

I get polls through the mail