this post was submitted on 09 Nov 2023
492 points (91.8% liked)

politics

19072 readers
4650 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
 

The poll found 50% of Democrats approve of how Biden has navigated the conflict while 46% disapprove — and the two groups diverge substantially in their views of U.S. support for Israel. Biden’s support on the issue among Democrats is down slightly from August, as an AP-NORC poll conducted then found that 57% of Democrats approved of his handling of the conflict and 40% disapproved.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Joe-Blow240@kbin.social 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

This is one part of why it is even possible for him to lose. States that managed to eek out an extra brain cell last time may not this time. Minnesota, Wisconsin, Georgia, New Mexico, and Arizona could be in play for anyone with a heart beat that is not Joe Biden.

There had better be a strong Democrat primary in 2024. If the party capitulates to Biden, the base is going to heave a depressed sigh and probably stay home. The loud people online who swear Americans are too afraid not to vote for him are a tiny vocal faction. 2016 should have proven that. Many more people would rather watch it burn than continue the farce that got us here.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Pro-Tip - Nobody serious will primary him.

The history of primarying a sitting President is that if you do the damage, you won't win, but the President will fail in the General.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

How many times has that happened?

Once with Carter?

And wasn't that the moderate establishment intentionally kneecapping his second term because if a Republican won they could say it was because Carter was too progressive and the Dem party needed to be more conservative? But if Carter got a second term, progressives would keep winning primaries?

I can't think of another time an incumbent Dem president was primaried.

But I bet the next time it happens is after the first term of a progressive president. Suddenly party leadership will decide we deserve a say in their private event where they don't have to respect the results.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Johnson was primaried, did poorly in VT and withdrew his nomination. Nominee lost to Nixon.
Ford was primaried, lost to Carter.
Carter was primaried, lost to Reagan.
H.W. Bush was primaried, lost to Clinton, but was also fighting Perot.

So basically every time it's happened in recent times.

[–] givesomefucks@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Guess there was few more.

This article should help you:

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-biden-2024-primary_n_6503225de4b0800d579d8f64

Tldr:

Saying primary challengers make incumbents lose is like saying getting a warning for speeding makes someone more likely to get a speeding ticket

Driving over the speed limit makes both more likely.

So in addition to my point about Carter, and this shouldn't need to be said, but if a president is so bad that they have to fight a tough primary as an incumbent, they're probably not going to win their general.

An easy fix is to normalize a primary. Strong incumbents get a second go, and we're not running an incumbent no one likes in the general if they lose

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

I think there were legit weaknesses in Johnson, Ford, and Carter.

Johnson because of Vietnam of course. Ford because he pardoned Nixon, and Carter due to the hostage crisis.

Bush was more hurt by Perot than the primary. Buchanan got all pissy over the "read my lips, no new taxes" thing.

[–] APassenger@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

If Biden foregoes a run (he won't) and named an heir, we'd be in a better place than described. But it cannot look like Hillary Clinton on the way to a coronation. We lost that one.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 5 points 1 year ago

Yup, that's what I'm aftraid they're setting up for '28 and Harris - "Her Turn 2.0".

[–] DharkStare@lemmy.world 13 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Biden is almost guaranteed to be the Democrat nominee. They aren't going to do a serious campaign against their own incumbent.

The 2024 election is going to be Biden vs Trump unless one of them dies or goes to jail.

[–] snownyte@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

I do worry for 2024 because I can really tell that the Democratic party will still lean hard on Biden, regardless. I mean, they leaned on Hilary Clinton very hard even though there were actually better and more suited candidates running. Right now, I'm only hearing crickets as to what the Democrats can prop up as running candidates. This is really worrying, in an election that should be a given, because Republicans are busy eating at eachother. That should be taking advantage of, not resting on your laurels in hopes it guarantees you another term.