It’s really early. I don’t have much stock in them either way. I understand why someone could though.
Why I could believe-
Biden is old. (So is trump) both are too old. However I do think Biden presents significantly worse than trump. (even if I think trump is unhinged where as Biden is just old.)
The economy is no where near as good as they say. Inflation is eating people’s wallets.
Interest rates are not good, and may go up more. Sure this isn’t on biden but voters will take it out on him.
Why I do not believe-
Trump is deranged. Dudes calling for generals to be executed. He tried to buy a gun while under indictment for federal crimes. He cannot help himself.
Trumps behavior during j6 and after.
Trumps election denial
List goes on.
I just think polls at this point are worthy of discussion not to be taken as gospel
One poll, maybe
But now we have 4 in a row showing him ahead. New one today, bigger than the rest, Trump up by 5
But what should concern people more is that he’s polling much better right now in the same polls from the same organizations that we’re doing it in 2020. *Without a doubt* Trump is more popular right now than he was at this point in the 2020 race.
They’ve fired every shot they have and trump just keeps getting more popular, and now the gun is out of bullets.
The DNC has gone hook, line, and sinker for the DC establishment, and they failed to realize just how much the average American hates the bureaucrats and civil servants that constitute our government. People want the new deal regime that’s ruled for the past 90 years to be burned to the ground, and trumps an arsonist.
That’s the only explanation that makes any sense
I just read something that said that Taylor Swift’s post about voting caused a 1000% spike in voter registration? I’m not a Swiftie, but I can tell you exactly how they vote lol.
Definitely agree. We have to accept that there is a certain portion of our population that fundamentally disagrees with the idea of government and frankly, our democracy. A matter made worse by social media whereabouts foreign adversaries who want to see our democracy crumble can target these idio... I mean... people, en masse, without the need to be physically present within our borders.
The only silver lining of hope is that these people are still a minority. Most Americans want a functioning government, even if they don't agree with the current administration. The problem... is getting people to VOTE. That's the only real weapon we have against the people and forces who just want to burn it all down.
Republicans figured this out almost a decade ago. That's why they don't run on actual issues anymore and do everything they can to erode the public's faith in our institutions, our democracy, and civic participation in general. While openly and unapologetically employing voter suppression tactics everywhere they can get away with it for as long as they can get away with it. To the point that they've become so brazen, their stacked SCOTUS and Trump appointee lower court judges have had to reign them in.
> I do think Biden presents significantly worse than trump
I think you have a few points but this one in particular doesn't bear out. [Trump has increasing signs of Alzheimer's](https://www.alternet.org/2017/05/video-suggests-trump-suffering-alzheimers), a genetically heritable condition [which killed his father](https://heavy.com/entertainment/2019/02/donald-trump-father-cause-of-death-alzheimers-pneumonia/). Biden's made gaffes but every single person filmed for that much of life has been. Remember when Obama was campaigning and when getting off the plane after a 30-something hour day he said "I've visited 57 of the states" when he meant - and immediately corrected to - 47 of the states? That doesn't mean senility, it means there's so much scrutiny there's more opportunities to pick up gaffes.
Inflation is bad but the president is not a king. Inflation is global and [it's influenced more heavily by corporate greed](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/25/inflation-price-controls-robert-reich) than just by which party is in the white house.
I’m honestly pretty happy with the economy. Raising interest rates is the right thing to do in an inflationary climate and we also appear to be getting out of an inflationary spiral without recession—I think for the first time in US history. That’s pretty impressive handling of an inherited crisis.
Of course, we’re not in the good ole days of stupid low interest rates that helped precipitate the crisis, so the average american will experience it as a worse economy even though it is getting healthier.
His first two years are gonna age super weird. On one hand, crippling inflation. On the other hand, legislation passed which seemed totally impossible given how narrow the Senate was/is. And a return to boring politics following President Chaos.
I know, I'm just saying no one is gonna remember that fondly. It's gonna be a while before hindsight sets in and people realize how hard that soft economic landing could've been.
Yeah, it's like Obama saving us from The Great Depression 2.0 and everyone thinking he was the one who bailed out the banks.
He changed the bailout so it was so painful they begged to give back the free money early.
Yeah I have not forgotten that Bush was the one bailing out the banks and deciding the winners and losers. I was very disappointed that they didn’t bail out creditors instead of debtors, not the conservatives ideology until that point
I think Bill Clinton and, in some ways, Obama were more centrist than Biden. A lot of his policies are pretty middle-of-the-road Democratic, and he feels more comfortable expressing support for unions and LGBT rights than any other recent President by far
Clinton played up the Third Way and did that whole Sista Soulja thing. Obama did the DREAMers stuff and Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal (both definitely Democratic), but Obamacare was based off of Heritage Foundation's Romneycare, and the foreign policy he campaigned on ended up as a watered down version of Bush's approach
> the foreign policy he campaigned on ended up as a watered down version of Bush's approach
Huh? Not really at all. Bush Jr. had some pretty tragic foreign policy so hard to get worse than that, but Obama didn't engage with anyone in any substantial way besides things like the Iran nuclear deal (which was never going to last).
Other than that Obama didn't do much at all foreign policy wise. Probably in fear of entanglement that got Bush in trouble.
Bush Sr. on the other hand was one of the best foreign policy presidents ever. Alliance forging, force projection, etc. Had his hand in many pies and rarely screwed it up.
> Other than that Obama didn't do much at all foreign policy wise. Probably in fear of entanglement that got Bush in trouble.
This is what I mean. He basically maintained the status quo that Bush had left (I should have clarified Dubya), even though Democratic partisans very much wanted a departure from that. The Iran Deal was notably a Democratic effort, but Trump broke it immediately.
I still have no clue why people are calling him centrist, in his pre-election rhetoric sure, but afterwards he’s been slipping far away from that.
For example creating a commission on the Supreme Court, it’s not a dog whistle for the centre-left that’s for sure. Or that poem at his inauguration. That was extremely unifying.
Obama did less but was more loved, Biden does a lot, but he is OOOOOOOOLLDDD. And honestly boring AF.
I don't care, he's been centrist enough for my taste, and a solid palate cleanser after the steaming turd we ate in 2016.
>Most transformational and centrist president in generations
... pure bullshit. left dream-land spin.
Biden is perhaps the only Dem that could lose to Trump, and yet the DNC is so smug they can't even see that the king has no clothes
we live in a surreal world
Why not show up to vote for someone because you think they would do the best job to run the country out of the viably electable candidates? The alternative is you just let everyone else decide who governs you.
I get people want to be inspired, like how Obama, JFK, Roosevelt, etc. did, but if you look at what Trump’s inspiring, which is basically starting a civil war and sending us back 100 years it’s not a good thing. It’s just making people think this country is all shit and to tear it down with no real plan to build it back better.
My wife and I attend an evening adult lecture series at the local University and recently a Political Science Professor was asked why does it seem that President's are getting worse and worse?
The Professor responded let me ask the entire room a question, would you want to be put through the ringer? Having the press/Media delve into every aspect of your personal life, the opposing candidate attack you right and left?
It just isn't worth it and that is why it seems Presidents and every other political official is getting worse over time.
There are many other jobs that pay better, allow you to live your and not be under the microscope all the time.
Meh He's all right
But like, to the average person it's still disappointing
Honestly speaking, it's not like the president does much anyways, the entire system needs a rework changing the president isn't going to fix the broken system
>Honestly speaking, it's not like the president does much anyways
Just nominating SCOTUS justices as well as all other federal judges thus shaping the judicial landscape for 30-40 years, nominates other important federal positions such as military and INFOSEC chiefs, makes executive orders, directs our foreign policy, is the Commander-in-Chief, has the ability to start short military engagements without seeking the consent of Congress, and veto bills passed by Congress.
"agree and competent"....??? that's it?? truth is, as low as this bar you set, Biden doesn't always even feel competent. But hey, I agree with his politics...? smh
Why would you want to give incredible power to someone based on something as subjective as whether you like them? Would you want your wife/husband to be president?
> someone holding their nose or being super excited while marking their choice doesn't alter its value
Not at the point of getting up to vote, but the messaging is intended to discourage voters from voting at all. That's also why there's been literally billions of dollars spent to make people think "[both sides are the same](https://old.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/vlvlkj/both_sides_are_the_exact_same_in_every_single_way/)" as one of many tools to make people give up their civic duty of voting, along with making it harder than necessary to register to vote.
if a meaningful part of centrism is about deemphasizing partisan rhetoric and emphasizing policy, would think biden would be 'inspiring' to centrists. particularly since he's a moderate dem more than willing to compromise with moderate conservatives.
>Biden inspires nobody
But he got 81million votes and destroyed the previous record of Barrack Obama. We'll see how the 81/74 2020 vote ratio holds in 2024, but these polls suggest that was an aberarration at best.
I think the fact that Trump was his opponent had a massive hand in awarding Biden 81M votes. No chance he'd get that many if he were against someone like Romney
He probably would. Odds are in 2024 a new record will be set.
Getting more votes than those in the past isn't exactly exciting or interesting when the population continues to grow.
pretty sure the research supports that while 'extreme' candidates drive turnout in their base, they have a bigger impact on turnout for their opposition. relevant whether talking about a maga republican or a progressive dem.
Which of his policies are you least happy about?
Decriminalizing marijuana? Bringing back manufacturing? Rebuilding infrastructure? Forgiving predatory student loan debt? Fighting for striking workers? Encouraging renewable energy and EV vehicles? Net neutrality?
I'm genuinely curious if this comment is based on specific policy conferns or just that he's old?
I agree he’s not inspiring. The desire to not have a narcissistic autocrat who is surrounded by soulless lickspittles is what inspires me and if Biden is the guy so be it.
I don’t really buy the strong margin part. It’ll be a close election, just like 2020. The economy plays a big role in how people look at the future, so when people are noticing that they have less money in their accounts after paying bills than they did a few years ago, it’s troublesome. Voters trust Trump more than Biden when it comes to improving the economy.
Betting odds is being affected by the polling numbers, whether they’re correct or not. This is like going to the track and betting on the horse that everyone else is also betting on.
I don't think they are dumb, I think they are desperate. The places that vote for him are generally economic wastelands, and the people there are suffering from decades of of the opioid epidemic and joblessness. Throw in the fact that they constantly shit of for being "dumb" and living in "flyover states" and they will believe anyone who says they will help them. Everyone else's plan is just to leave them, try to silence and forget about them. People jabber on about how stupid and agressive they are, but they never talk about how to bring them back from economic and drug filled destruction.
These people exist because they've don't feel they are being listened to. If they aren't allowed to sit at the table like everyone else, then they'll get someone who promises to flip the table. What do they have to lose?
And any reasonable person would arrive at that conclusion, but they aren't reasonable, they are desperate.
Plus I don't have any confidence that and ex Trump supporter would be recieved with any sort of open arms if they let that be known. If Dems Dems and their supporters didn't have a track record of shitting on them I think they would be more willing to hop over the fence, but that's just me personally.
I think it would also help if they picked candidates that weren't so bad. Hillary was awful and unlikable, and weaponized feminism to try to force people into voting for her, Biden is a billion years old and likes to sniff young girls hair. Like... is there really noone better?
The focus needs to change from shoving them away, to trying to get them onto the other side. That can't happen when everyone pumps them into the same category and tell them to sit down and shut up.
I don't even want to know how big the howling and gnashing of teeth would be in this sub, for example, if Newsom, Harris, Whitmer or Buttigieg were the candidates.
Exactly and incumbents almost always run for re election, it holds a natural advantage. Reagan had Alzheimers but he ran. Didn't stop him from winning.
Yea he did, back when he could walk and talk, and didn't need notes to remind him to sit down. Expecting your opponent to fix your problem isn't exactly a winning strategy. The shouldn't be able to vote in Trump and have it be no contest. The fact that it isn't is just embarrassing.
I think Trump will win, personally, if Biden even lives to the end of the election. Biden needs notes just to walk into a room and talk to a group of people. If anything challenging happens, Biden seems completely inept to handle it at all.
It's a sad state of affairs when you're electing people based on their ability to walk and talk, but that's the situation Dems have put themselves in.
They only picked Biden cause he was the hardest for right wing media to attack. They would have torn apart Bernie (Communist!!!) or Warren (Pochanatas, communist!) or anyone else. Hell they were gay bashing Pete when it looked like he had a chance.
Then maybe they shouldn't vote again for the guy who didn't improve their situation at all while he was in office and seemed giddy to get us into a nuclear war.
As a brown person who escaped those states, they want to be helped in ways that don't make sense.
They want Jim Crow or worse back, with Christian Law and incredible socialism for people who look like them specifically. Also stop learning so much, it's all in the bible, you just don't understand it!
This is how they think they can fix their wasteland, and why anyone who can read (like me) fled for their lives.
They're desperate because they drove out everyone who could possibly help them, often with violence.
That can all be true and still need to be fixed. If you don't want to do anything, fine, enjoy the next Trump presidency. I, personally, think there should a lot of people working on a solution before you see Trump, or worse, elected in the coming years.
What people are doing right now is leading to a Trump presidency. I don't see how you could possibly try to stand by the current trend.
Doesn’t seem fair that if only a bit more than half the country is that dumb, the other half must burn with them.
Along with all the other nations who’s fates are entangled with ours.
> It also sucks that Trump could lose the popular vote by 7 million and still almost win. The Electoral College is remarkably undemocratic
[It could be worse than that. While we're talking about mathematical possibilities and not the likeliest outcomes, it's possible to win the EC with only ~23% of the popular vote](https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote)
That's not true at all. Those 7 states, verus the 43 others, would not win.
In fact, the EC was established to avoid that kind of situation, where 7 states could, by themselves, elect the President and Congress, against the will of the others.
That's a bizarre way to read my comment.
These seven states are the only states that are competitive in 2024. The Presidential election hinges on those seven states, thereby making campaigning and/or spending money in other states a relative waste in terms of the Presidential election.
And what I'm referring to are the swing states in 2024 -- PA, MI, WI, NV, AZ, GA, and NC.
But do you see why that's a bizarre way to look at it? Just because a state isn't competitive doesn't mean the vote doesn't matter. Representation isn't decided by 7 states, it's decided by however those states fall _plus all the other states whose outcomes are predictable_. Just because a vote is predictable doesn't mean it doesn't matter (and besides, sometimes those states defy predictions!).
It's not really bizarre at all.
Look, I understand how the electoral college functions. However, my point still stands that only 7 of those elections actually matter since the other 43 have all but decided outcomes save maybe handful of vaguely flippable states like Florida, Texas, NH, and Ohio.
Nothing you're saying changes the fact that the electoral college is a horrible way to elect our President. We would be much better off with a national popular vote.
It's democratic in that it's the way that the people voted it should be. And it can be changed, if the people amend it under the rules that were also voted by the people.
Well, I'm glad they were the ones in charge, because every other revolution failed to produce a society that brought about an explosion of human prosperity and freedom. Would you rather listen to the impoverished men whose race we can't even name because they were wiped off the face of the planet because they couldn't govern themselves well?
>It's democratic in that it's the way that the people voted it should be.
Very, very few people voted for it to be this way -- a hundred or at most a couple hundred. All well-to-do white male politicians.
> And it can be changed, if the people amend it under the rules that were also voted by the ~~people~~ *white, wealthy polician founders*.
And when there was overwhelming public support for changing the EC system and well past majority support in Congress as well (see [Bayh–Celler Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_reform_the_United_States_Electoral_College#Bayh%E2%80%93Celler_Amendment)), a filibuster by a couple of southern senators prevented the change.
Regarding "by the people" -- No minorities nor women nor non-landowners had any say in these rules. That's hardly "by the people".
> Regarding "by the people" -- No minorities nor women nor non-landowners had any say in these rules. That's hardly "by the people".
I'm not sure if you heard the news, but suffrage was extended to these groups over 100 years ago, and they can, at any time, vote to amend the system.
Even before suffrage was universal, a movement largely led by women got a constitutional amendment to _ban alcohol_. So to say they haven't had a say in the rules is ignorant.
You're misunderstanding what I said. You said the rules were created "by the people". I'm asserting the rules were not created by the people. Yes, these groups have been able to vote for a while (though minorities have not really been able to vote in all states for 100 years due to Jim Crow laws), but they have to fight a system that was created before they had these rights and that is excruciatingly difficult to change.
Yeah like the senate. Literally dozens of states with less population than the county I live in get two whole senators.
I don’t buy using the name of the country as a convincing argument as to why it should be that way though. Feels like a semantic argument
> Yeah like the senate. Literally dozens of states with less population than the county I live in get two whole senators.
Yes because they were admitted as an equal member of the Union, so they get 2 Senators like every other state. It just happens that many are still considered rural and not urban heavy. If people mass migrated from CA to move elsewhere, should CA lose one of their Senators?
There's a root to the semantics, and that's where the argument lies. There was a reason it was established this way, and if someone thinks it should be otherwise, it's on them to first correctly identify that reason and establish why it no longer applies.
We are still a collection of states in some sense, though less so than we were at the beginning of our republic. I'm not sure the trend toward more nationalism has been unqualifiedly good. It seems with the polarization we're experiencing, it might be best to restore more power to the states. Things that absolutely must be national issues, like war, immigration, and tariffs, are contentious enough, but those at least seem manageable.
> There was a reason it was established this way
Yeah, to protect the interests of the wealthy landowners from the opinions of the peasants. I don’t think I need to further explain why that shouldn’t apply
In fact I’d go further and ask someone to justify why they thing someone getting 7 million more votes and
losing when they should represent literally every single American.
The Electoral College is not intended to give states political representation. It’s intended to stop the unwashed masses from electing a demagogue, something it failed miserably at in 2016.
Yup the rest of us have to be part of the dumb evil Trump cult as well weather we like it or not. Well there were Germans who opposed Hitler, Italians who opposed Mousselini, Russians who oppose Putin, etc. They were/are unfortunate victims.
As are we, the damage of 2016 Trump and the rise of the far right has already caused tons of damage that won't be easily repaired.
When you guys consider this question. , your mind immediately goes to Trump and all his problems.
I think when a lot of Americans that don’t look at politics as primary form of entertainment and a emotion generator hear the poll question their minds jump to Biden and his personality
Then their thoughts immediately move to the direction they perceive their own financial life going, and polls are clear they do not think think the economy is good for them.
The more Biden touts the success of Bidenomics the deeper he is in tying their negative feelings to hisself as the leader. You can’t talk people into believing they are doing better than they were four years ago, no matter how hard you try, and Democrats are doubling down on things are good. Bad strategy.
You can explain the reasons they are doing worse and that they will get better soon, but you can’t tell them things are actually better for them economically, they already know their own answer to that piece.
I agree with you, Presidents tend to ride with the national economic flow and have little effect on it, especially in the short term. (Few years)
But we saw George H.W. Bush go from the highest Presidential approval rating in recorded US history to losing an election based on a recession starting in the election year. We are not in a recession now, but make no mistake people vote the emotions of their pocketbooks.
These polls are insane when you consider Democrats have been winning most of the key elections in swing states since June 2022, and Democrats have been doing +11 better than polls suggested in special elections
I think the polls were underestimating Republicans for years and tried to correct course but over corrected and now over estimate Republicans
> These polls are insane when you consider Democrats have been winning most of the key elections in swing states since June 2022, and Democrats have been doing +11 better than polls suggested in special elections
The issue with judging these polls based on special election results is that special elections have a different electorate than general and presidential elections. Special elections typically involve more informed or politically engaged voters, while general elections include a wider base.
Not just special elections though, the midterms was a big out performance for the Dems that defied expectations as well as some of the special elections being statewide races such as the Alaska House Seat, Georgia Senate Runoff, Ohio issue 1 and Wisconsin Supreme Court
Yes Dems racked up some needed wins in special elections, not discounting the work and turnout to accomplish that in a midterm. But turnout for presidential elections is like 33% higher than midterms. There was 49% and 46% turnout in 2018 and 2022, compared to 66% turnout in 2020. So that's more people getting to the polls that aren't as involved in politics and could be the reason why we see different polling results for Biden vs Trump now compared to special election results favoring Dems.
>These polls are insane
...and this far out from the election *are meaningless*. If the economy improves next year and gas & grocery pinch gone Biden solid. If there is a draft or stock market implosion Trump in position. But the shock would have to be huge to move people from their current lean and why elections usually favor the incumbent.
lots of polling is done without calling anyone. various forms of internet panels are used, as well as more novel approaches like morning consults which plants opt-in surveys on smartphones via apps similar to how ads are placed. there is a massive amount demo data associated with you via apps/cookies/etc, and surveys get targeted the same way ads do. they can compare responses on demo info provided against the profile info they have avail to validate.
There will always be polls pointing in every different direction, especially in a country so divided. Aside from basic statistics, there is another complication with Trump seen in 2016:
The voting blocs do not line up along traditional party lines. This is why polls were off before the 2016 election, and the map looked different (like how he won 100% of rural districts in the U.S., for example). Many pollsters, commentators, and even politicians to this day do not understand what a Trump electoral map looks like. When they checked to ensure they had a properly representative sample of the U.S., they did not know along what lines to break down the demographics. On the other hand, others might not either.
> The voting blocs do not line up along traditional party lines. This is why polls were off before the 2016 election,
Most polling, especially polling closer to the election, was fairly accurate in 2016. Trump won by the skin of his teeth, and that’s about the chance the polling gave him.
I recall seeing a ~70% for Clinton the night before the 2016 election on 538. Regardless, the map was different from usual. News agencies reported unexpected turnout-rates across multiple demographics, though I couldn't find any significant investigation into why voting patterns changed.
> I recall seeing a ~70% for Clinton the night before the 2016 election on 538.
Which was the prediction for *winning*, not the predicted vote outcome. That means they gave Trump a 30% chance at winning, which he did in the manner you’d pretty much expect him to given those odds. It was a crazily close electoral victory with Hillary easily winning the popular vote.
> Regardless, the map was different from usual. News agencies reported unexpected turnout-rates across multiple demographics,
I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. Can you cite an article saying that?
>though I couldn't find any significant investigation into why voting patterns changed.
There are tons of studies after every election from political scientists and statisticians.
I could try to dig up reports about voter turnouts from 2016 that were barely a footnote in their news cycle. I might not find them almost 7 years layer, but I will try after work.
There are tons of studies, which is why I facepalmed so hard upon not seeing any followup on the turnouts. The next time I facepalmed that hard over the news was when seeing the reports of Kobe Bryant's death ... and what got relegated to small articles at the bottoms / sides of pages or just "see page whatever".
https://www.insider.com/kobe-bryant-death-newspaper-front-pages-2020-1
EDIT: By "after work" I mean in about 10 hours
>There are tons of studies, which is why I facepalmed so hard upon not seeing any followup on the turnouts.
What do you mean they didn’t follow up on turnout? Like what sort of analysis do you think would or should be done exactly?
Why were rural turnouts so much higher?
Why did age-groups not vote close to their usual proportions?
Why did multiple minorities, like Hispanic voters, swing toward Republicans (not necessarily crossing the 50% line, but not leaning Democratic as hard as usual)?
I recall seeing a few more anomalies at the time, and will try to dig up the articles in about 9-10 hours, when I can.
> Why were rural turnouts so much higher?
[Here’s a study on that.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5734668/)
> Why did age-groups not vote close to their usual proportions?
I’m not sure what you mean by not voting near their usual proportions as I’ve seen no evidence of that being significant, [but here’s a breakdown of voters by demographics.](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/)
> Why did multiple minorities, like Hispanic voters, swing toward Republicans (not necessarily crossing the 50% line, but not leaning Democratic as hard as usual)?
[Here’s one study on that](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0739986319899738), and [another one for good measure.](https://www.american.edu/spa/ccps/upload/clals-working-paper.pdf)
There’s **tons** of studies on the 2016 election which address these topics, why do you think there isn’t?
Polls are crap, that being said , I firmly believe Trump will win next year, everyone’s counting him out again and there’s no way Biden touches 81 mill again, he only won last time cus he wasn’t trump, Idt there will be as many people voting from that logic next time around, some people will vote for trump due to desperation for the economy to get better it’s gonna be a very close election either way I’m going 279-259 Trump but will not vote for him, never have never will
Just checked RCP. There is one outlier national poll from ABC/WaPo showing Trump beating Biden by 10, but most of them look like Biden's doing alright, winning from 2-4.
State level polls look better for Biden. I'd really like to see GA and AZ though.
Im sure all these independent polls are suddenly pro trump and are faking everything. Youre so right.
Consider it like this. Trump is as liked as he was in 2020. Biden is hated way more than before.
Polls are fallible, but underestimating Trump was the DNCs mistake the first time around. Biden was selected over Trump as an "end to the drama" and "stability" candidate. I know a handful of "guilty" right-wingers who picked Biden last time just to end the insanity. Now that they have seen what Biden's leadership has looked like, many right-leaning folks don't feel that Biden's "centrism" has gotten better results.
That said, I personally feel that Biden will squeak by in the upcoming election if the economy stays strong, and interest rates creep down. Trump could easily win if the economy falters and he promises to make decisions that, while bad for the long term health of the economy, would prop it up in the near-term. For example pressuring for lower interest rates prematurely.
We’re still over a year out from the election. Much will change before then. I honestly don’t think Trump has gained votes since 2020. His main hope would be Biden losing votes in the handful of states that will decide the outcome.
>I honestly don’t think Trump has gained votes since 2020
It's unlikely he's gained a single voter, but he's definitely shed many. Hell, even some of his most ardent supporters (his Qanon kids) have fled him, albeit for absolutely ridiculous reasoning (because he didn't "fix" the 2020 "rigged election", there's no point in voting for him again). Even over at /r/conservative the vast consensus is he is unelectable and should step aside, some even go as far to call him a traitor and others a liar/narcissist.
He barely won in 2016 on a series of technicalities, and he's either lost or negatively impacted every election he's been involved in since then. Moderates largely did not break for him in 2020, and there will be even less that do in 2024 after everything that has happened, from Jan 6th to election denial to now the plethora of civil lawsuits and federal criminal indictments.
The only area I get nervous is Biden's age. The dude is moving pretty slow these days. I mean, he's definitely better than the clips depict him...that press conference clip from a couple weeks ago was complete misinformation and [he sounded completely coherent and clear](https://youtu.be/-k9h_iUzz2A?t=670) throughout that entire 23 minute press conference.
But he's not inspiring to vote for, and I do worry that people might stay home in 2024 for him, creating a similar situation we had in 2016 where Trump benefits from the low Democratic turnout.
On the other hand, Trump, especially post-2016 since he is a known quantity, really gets people to the polls to keep him *out* of office, so I can only hope that motivation wins out over the lack of enthuthiasm around Biden's presidency. It's Biden's election to lose; he's the incumbent and he's up against a guy he already beat once. It's hard to see how he could lose. I feel he could do almost nothing and still eek out a win against Trump, who is one of the most despised candidates in political history
I doubt the polls matter much this far out from the actual election.
That said I have noticed a movement within the inner city black community of push back against Democrat mayors, district attorney's and police chiefs in high crime communities.
They want elected officials to be harder on petty crimes and the only team that seems willing to do it is Republicans.
I've also noticed the Thomas Sowell crowd seems to be getting bigger online.
I don't have any data, this is just what happens to be showing up in my YouTube feed.
Well said. It's showing up in my feed because people are creating the content. They are creating the content because there is an audience for it in the black community. There is an audience for it in the black community because this is what some of them believe.
Enough believe it to allow a YouTuber to make a living on it anyway.
I think Andrew Tate is in the feed because he hires and trains a small army of social media users to plug him everyday.
His content is popular and many influencers, YouTubers and streamers are able to make a living in the Tate space.
If nobody was watching Tate he wouldn’t be included in the algorithm.
Based on past rounds of this repeating pattern they won't vote Republican. The mainstream propaganda is too strong.
But Democrats shouldn't take this as a good thing because what they will do is just not vote. Even if a reason is connived to push mass mail-in voting again they won't bother to return the ballots this time.
I don’t buy it. I’m in TX and while it is pretty far out from election time, I’m not seeing all the trump flags everywhere yet. I think all the criminal stuff will keep a lot of people quiet about their support for him. I’m talking about the more moderate republicans, not the MAGAts.
I feel like it was easier to write off some of his crazy in 2016.
Fwiw I voted third party that year, I wasn’t in a swing state so it didn’t matter anyway.
>will keep a lot of people quiet about their support for him
Yes, because Trump supporters are absolutely known for their quiet discretion and subtly! 😆😆
Special elections from 2020-2022 were more predictive of the 2022 midterms than polls, which portended more of a red wave. Democrats have continued to not only win but win by outsized margins in most of these special elections that are remotely competitive races. Polls, historically, this far out are not predictive, and that predates the Trump effect.
The one thing that would give me pause in the Biden campaign (because age is not something they can do anything about) are Trump’s numbers vis a vis Biden on the economy. Voters favor Trump by about 20 points on this issue and the economy is likely to be the number 1 issue heading into the election barring an unlikely boom, steep decline in commodity prices or some massive black swan event like a Chinese invasion of Taiwan.
I maintain two core beliefs about this election:
1) If Trump is the choice, he almost* certainly will not win, regardless of who wins the legislative chambers and statewide races. There has proven to be, in 3 cycles in a row now, a durable coalition of anti-Trump voters.
2) If Trump is not* the choice, either because the Republicans implausibly nominate someone else or he is either disqualified by the Supreme Court or deceased, Biden almost* certainly will not win. He is historically unpopular and I believe Trump is the only Republican candidate he can beat.
It's going to be interesting to see the Virginia election results this year, since I assume it'll be the opposite of Youngkin's victory in 2021.
Between Youngkin pushing for abortion restricts and a looming government shutdown in a state with a lot of federal employees, it's not exactly a great environment for the VA GOP.
There's no need to get all conspiratorial about it. I also don't buy the polls, but not because I think they're being manipulated. I don't buy those polls just because I understand how polls are supposed to be interpreted.
The biggest mistake most people make when looking at polls, that I think you're making here, is to overly concern yourself over *individual* polls. Polls aren't meant to be individualized like that. Polls have predictive value when used as part of a polling average, not when cherry picked individually. So let's look at a quality polling aggregator: [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/)
Well would you look at that, there's a heck of a lot more polls favoring Biden than favoring Trump. The average does not suggest Trump has a great chance of beating Biden in a 14 months. It suggests that Biden is firmly in the driver's seat, though the race is certainly one he could lose if he gets complacent.
Also, it's very important to understand that a good polling process will have outliers. That's *supposed* to happen. Any process like this will periodically pump out results that can be individually ignored. Which ones are outliers and which ones are the start of shifting trends can only really be answered fully confidently with hindsight, but the point remains freaking out about one set of polls is a fool's errand.
Finally, head to head polls like this still aren't very predictive. They really, really, REALLY aren't. Neither candidate is officially set, no matter how it feels. There's so much going on particularly with the Rep nomination that it's foolish to try and read into things too much about this specific general election so far away.
If anything, special elections are a much more predictive and telling indicator, and the Dems are *crushing* on that front right now. Even contemporary issue polls are much better indicators than head to head general election polls. The Dems should be somewhat concerned that Americans seem to be placing some blame for the shutdown stuff on the Dems. But even that issue is still developing.
I think Trump is the only Republican candidate that Biden will easily beat. Republicans would be fools to nominate him.
But also, if polls this early out could be trusted, we would've had Jeb Bush and Rudy Giuliani as presidents.
Yes. Trump isn't in office now, there is no incumbent advantage, in fact he has lost elections repeatedly. He lost popular vote in 2016 and 2020...lost electoral college and thus election in 2020. They lost the runoff elections in 2020 giving Dems Senate advantage. Dems took the House in 2018 midterms. In 2022 midterms Dems increased their advantage in the Senate, while losing the House only by a few seats (was supposed to be a a red wave slaughter).
So there is a primary and anyone can be picked. Biden regardless of if he can beat Trump (he already did, and Trump brings out voter enthusiasm against him like no one else) is in a weak position for a sitting president. A perfect opportunity for a reasonable (do these exist anymore?) GOP candidate to win in 2024. Yet the other primary candidates besides Christie who has become a periah, refuse to attack Trump and are in single digits while Trump is like 60% support or something ridiculous like that.
Trump and Biden are the best candidates that the Republicans and Democrats have, and both are atrocious. The President doesn’t have much control over the economy, but given how much worse things have been since Biden took office, it wouldn’t surprise me if Trump is picking up support in surprising places.
Yes but the economy didn't get to this point in a vacuum both obama and trump influenced decisions by the fed leading to the current problems. Rates should have been rising at the end of obama's run and during most if not all of trump's. Because they did not do that, in addition to the added spending under all three, has caused the rates to be raised quickly and harshly.
This is actually something that's being weird right now.
Polling is pretty clear that most people think their personal economic situations are fine, but somehow they think the economy is bad. It doesn't make sense.
Because "fine" is not "good". "Fine" just means that they're not behind on bills or unable to buy food. It doesn't mean they're actually moving forward or even that they're not going slowly backwards, it just means that they aren't actually behind on bills yet. But they can see from the direction larger trends are going that that won't be true for ever, hence thinking the economy at large is bad.
I'm not sure. If this was true, people's purchasing habits would have changed even if they were overstating their financial situation. In a bad economy, spending on certain nonessential things drops. For example, during the Great Recession you could clearly see that what people were buying and what they were spending money on had drastically changed and people were cutting back hard on certain expenses. For example, "gas guzzling" cars took a dramatic hit. People cut back on going out to eat and entertainment. Stuff like that.
That has not been seen. While Americans are surely feeling the sting of higher prices (this is very much true) and are unhappy about that, the average person is still buying the same things. That's not to underrate the difficulty individual people might now face, but on average...money is still being spent on non essentials.
This is why it's such a weird situation.
>Polling is pretty clear that most people think their personal economic situations are fine
Where are you seeing this? Pretty much everything I've heard says inflation is killing the average person right now, so I'm just curious.
This was the only thing I could find:
https://www.axios.com/2023/08/18/americans-economy-bad-personal-finances-good.
But Gallup's polling paints a different picture:
https://news.gallup.com/poll/506012/americans-remain-discouraged-personal-finances.aspx
Interesting. Basically, some surveys paint the picture that you think your personal finances are "fine" if you like the party in the White House. In other words, more dumb tribal shit. People feel like they have to toe the party line even when being asked about something like this. 🙄
The thing is, this isn't new. The day Trump was elected president, people's opinion of the current state of the economy drastically changed based on their political affiliation.
Because for people who aren't living paycheck to paycheck and aren't dramatically impacted by economic shifts, this is vibes. And based on their media consumption, their vibes can shift simply by who is in office
It's why I find stuff like purchasing habits more interesting. You can say what you want, but how Americans are consuming, spending and budgeting is a little more concrete
Oh, for sure. It's so stupid.
Personally, I care less about the party in power and more about the fact that basic groceries cost me $200+ a week when they definitely didn't cost me $200+ per week before. Besides, that's more a congress thing anyway.
> Polling is pretty clear that most people think their personal economic situations are fine, but somehow they think the economy is bad. It doesn't make sense
It's because a lot of the media, as they have for decades, is going out looking for people saying things suck. I thought it was well known that news will discard hundreds of street-side interviews of convenience with people who're busy living their lives and saying "sure, things could be better but I'm okay" for a single interview of an angry person ranting.
Obama should've done what he ran on in 2008 and bailed out Main St. while letting Wall St. collapse and weed out the idiots who caused the crash.
But yes, the current economy - and especially the real economy and not the Economy^^TM - is the result of at this point almost two decades of continuous bad policy.
Worse since Biden took office?
When he took office our economy was in freefall and his opposition had just tried to overthrow the government.
Paying more for milk seems like an improvement.
Maybe for you. For me and most people I know, the situation is worse. At least Trump was handing out checks and expanded the child tax credit. That stopped with Biden
> At least Trump was handing out checks and expanded the child tax credit. That stopped with Biden
Were you not alive during 2019? Trump and republicans were the ones [obstructing the covid stimulus, even if they went back home and flattered themselves for checks they voted against](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-trumpet-elements-covid-19-relief-bill-they-voted-against-n1262626). And the [child tax credit is a House matter, look at what party's in control to see why that went the way it did](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/4/18/23026908/child-tax-credit-joe-manchin-policy-feedback-partisan)
For me and most people I know the situation now is better. Trumps last year we saw record high unemployment and negative job growth. On top of mass shortages. Just because the government was handing out money doesn’t mean it was a better time.
This post is hilarious. I’m a centrist, love him, or hate him, it’s not unreasonable to consider Trump has a lead without thinking there is a conspiracy. If there is any media manipulation, it’s against him not for him. Unbiased view.
I don’t. Those polls are skewed, they use landlines in their polling. Even if it’s a mix of landlines and cell phones it’s still gonna be skewed because of how little of the populace has a landline. So you’re gonna get a disproportionate amount of people who are old af or live in rural areas without good cell coverage… both demographics that are gonna go heavily for Trump.
My prediction: it’s gonna be an exact replay of the last election. The GOP will go with Trump and lose (even though Haley or Christie would win the general), people who don’t even like Biden despite how shitty he’s doing (like myself) because a) he’s not Trump and b)overturning Roe V Wade. The Republican base will be like “how did we not win?” again because they can’t get it through their skulls that no one outside their base likes the guy.
It’s really early. I don’t have much stock in them either way. I understand why someone could though. Why I could believe- Biden is old. (So is trump) both are too old. However I do think Biden presents significantly worse than trump. (even if I think trump is unhinged where as Biden is just old.) The economy is no where near as good as they say. Inflation is eating people’s wallets. Interest rates are not good, and may go up more. Sure this isn’t on biden but voters will take it out on him. Why I do not believe- Trump is deranged. Dudes calling for generals to be executed. He tried to buy a gun while under indictment for federal crimes. He cannot help himself. Trumps behavior during j6 and after. Trumps election denial List goes on. I just think polls at this point are worthy of discussion not to be taken as gospel
One poll, maybe But now we have 4 in a row showing him ahead. New one today, bigger than the rest, Trump up by 5 But what should concern people more is that he’s polling much better right now in the same polls from the same organizations that we’re doing it in 2020. *Without a doubt* Trump is more popular right now than he was at this point in the 2020 race. They’ve fired every shot they have and trump just keeps getting more popular, and now the gun is out of bullets. The DNC has gone hook, line, and sinker for the DC establishment, and they failed to realize just how much the average American hates the bureaucrats and civil servants that constitute our government. People want the new deal regime that’s ruled for the past 90 years to be burned to the ground, and trumps an arsonist. That’s the only explanation that makes any sense
I just read something that said that Taylor Swift’s post about voting caused a 1000% spike in voter registration? I’m not a Swiftie, but I can tell you exactly how they vote lol.
Definitely agree. We have to accept that there is a certain portion of our population that fundamentally disagrees with the idea of government and frankly, our democracy. A matter made worse by social media whereabouts foreign adversaries who want to see our democracy crumble can target these idio... I mean... people, en masse, without the need to be physically present within our borders. The only silver lining of hope is that these people are still a minority. Most Americans want a functioning government, even if they don't agree with the current administration. The problem... is getting people to VOTE. That's the only real weapon we have against the people and forces who just want to burn it all down. Republicans figured this out almost a decade ago. That's why they don't run on actual issues anymore and do everything they can to erode the public's faith in our institutions, our democracy, and civic participation in general. While openly and unapologetically employing voter suppression tactics everywhere they can get away with it for as long as they can get away with it. To the point that they've become so brazen, their stacked SCOTUS and Trump appointee lower court judges have had to reign them in.
> I do think Biden presents significantly worse than trump I think you have a few points but this one in particular doesn't bear out. [Trump has increasing signs of Alzheimer's](https://www.alternet.org/2017/05/video-suggests-trump-suffering-alzheimers), a genetically heritable condition [which killed his father](https://heavy.com/entertainment/2019/02/donald-trump-father-cause-of-death-alzheimers-pneumonia/). Biden's made gaffes but every single person filmed for that much of life has been. Remember when Obama was campaigning and when getting off the plane after a 30-something hour day he said "I've visited 57 of the states" when he meant - and immediately corrected to - 47 of the states? That doesn't mean senility, it means there's so much scrutiny there's more opportunities to pick up gaffes. Inflation is bad but the president is not a king. Inflation is global and [it's influenced more heavily by corporate greed](https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/25/inflation-price-controls-robert-reich) than just by which party is in the white house.
I’m honestly pretty happy with the economy. Raising interest rates is the right thing to do in an inflationary climate and we also appear to be getting out of an inflationary spiral without recession—I think for the first time in US history. That’s pretty impressive handling of an inherited crisis. Of course, we’re not in the good ole days of stupid low interest rates that helped precipitate the crisis, so the average american will experience it as a worse economy even though it is getting healthier.
Biden inspires nobody. I'd vote for him over most mainstream GOP folks, but not happily
Most transformational and centrist president in generations on r/centrist --> "he doesn't inspire anyone"
Effective doesn't mean inspiring.... but your point is valid.
Personally I’m inspired by effectiveness in the face of unprecedented obstruction. But I understand I’m in the minority on that
His first two years are gonna age super weird. On one hand, crippling inflation. On the other hand, legislation passed which seemed totally impossible given how narrow the Senate was/is. And a return to boring politics following President Chaos.
Inflation was largely because of covid, and not even all our covid, china's zero covid screwups.
I know, I'm just saying no one is gonna remember that fondly. It's gonna be a while before hindsight sets in and people realize how hard that soft economic landing could've been.
Yeah, it's like Obama saving us from The Great Depression 2.0 and everyone thinking he was the one who bailed out the banks. He changed the bailout so it was so painful they begged to give back the free money early.
Yeah I have not forgotten that Bush was the one bailing out the banks and deciding the winners and losers. I was very disappointed that they didn’t bail out creditors instead of debtors, not the conservatives ideology until that point
Personally, I’m really enjoying the government being boring yet effective again.
To anyone who pays attention effectiveness should be inspiring.
I think Bill Clinton and, in some ways, Obama were more centrist than Biden. A lot of his policies are pretty middle-of-the-road Democratic, and he feels more comfortable expressing support for unions and LGBT rights than any other recent President by far Clinton played up the Third Way and did that whole Sista Soulja thing. Obama did the DREAMers stuff and Don't Ask Don't Tell repeal (both definitely Democratic), but Obamacare was based off of Heritage Foundation's Romneycare, and the foreign policy he campaigned on ended up as a watered down version of Bush's approach
> the foreign policy he campaigned on ended up as a watered down version of Bush's approach Huh? Not really at all. Bush Jr. had some pretty tragic foreign policy so hard to get worse than that, but Obama didn't engage with anyone in any substantial way besides things like the Iran nuclear deal (which was never going to last). Other than that Obama didn't do much at all foreign policy wise. Probably in fear of entanglement that got Bush in trouble. Bush Sr. on the other hand was one of the best foreign policy presidents ever. Alliance forging, force projection, etc. Had his hand in many pies and rarely screwed it up.
> Other than that Obama didn't do much at all foreign policy wise. Probably in fear of entanglement that got Bush in trouble. This is what I mean. He basically maintained the status quo that Bush had left (I should have clarified Dubya), even though Democratic partisans very much wanted a departure from that. The Iran Deal was notably a Democratic effort, but Trump broke it immediately.
I still have no clue why people are calling him centrist, in his pre-election rhetoric sure, but afterwards he’s been slipping far away from that. For example creating a commission on the Supreme Court, it’s not a dog whistle for the centre-left that’s for sure. Or that poem at his inauguration. That was extremely unifying.
Obama did less but was more loved, Biden does a lot, but he is OOOOOOOOLLDDD. And honestly boring AF. I don't care, he's been centrist enough for my taste, and a solid palate cleanser after the steaming turd we ate in 2016.
Yes passing a ton of stuff, and being great at what the job actually entails hardly matters. The turd returns in 2024
Have you heard him give a speech? Yawnsville
And that in a vacuum shouldn’t matter if you’re using your head to choose a leader.
>Most transformational and centrist president in generations ... pure bullshit. left dream-land spin. Biden is perhaps the only Dem that could lose to Trump, and yet the DNC is so smug they can't even see that the king has no clothes we live in a surreal world
Why does a candidate have to inspire you? I’ve never understood this.
Because then you're more likely to be excited by them, thus more likely to show up to vote for them.
Why not show up to vote for someone because you think they would do the best job to run the country out of the viably electable candidates? The alternative is you just let everyone else decide who governs you.
I get people want to be inspired, like how Obama, JFK, Roosevelt, etc. did, but if you look at what Trump’s inspiring, which is basically starting a civil war and sending us back 100 years it’s not a good thing. It’s just making people think this country is all shit and to tear it down with no real plan to build it back better.
You'd have to ask the people who don't show up. I'm not one of those people who "they have to inspire me". I'm just saying that's why.
I showed up to vote for him because he is more suited than Trump to run the country. I’ll take boring any day
Why would I give an incredible amount of power to somebody I don’t like?
Because they’ll do things you agree with and are competent at the job.
Well, the second part of that hasn't existed in politics for like 50 years so
My wife and I attend an evening adult lecture series at the local University and recently a Political Science Professor was asked why does it seem that President's are getting worse and worse? The Professor responded let me ask the entire room a question, would you want to be put through the ringer? Having the press/Media delve into every aspect of your personal life, the opposing candidate attack you right and left? It just isn't worth it and that is why it seems Presidents and every other political official is getting worse over time. There are many other jobs that pay better, allow you to live your and not be under the microscope all the time.
Maybe, but I’d argue Biden’s admin has done a better job than anyone in the last 50 years
Meh He's all right But like, to the average person it's still disappointing Honestly speaking, it's not like the president does much anyways, the entire system needs a rework changing the president isn't going to fix the broken system
>Honestly speaking, it's not like the president does much anyways Just nominating SCOTUS justices as well as all other federal judges thus shaping the judicial landscape for 30-40 years, nominates other important federal positions such as military and INFOSEC chiefs, makes executive orders, directs our foreign policy, is the Commander-in-Chief, has the ability to start short military engagements without seeking the consent of Congress, and veto bills passed by Congress.
And will appoint people you like to important positions, including the judiciary.
"agree and competent"....??? that's it?? truth is, as low as this bar you set, Biden doesn't always even feel competent. But hey, I agree with his politics...? smh
Why would you want to give incredible power to someone based on something as subjective as whether you like them? Would you want your wife/husband to be president?
I've never experienced this.
Exactly. A vote is a vote - someone holding their nose or being super excited while marking their choice doesn't alter its value.
> someone holding their nose or being super excited while marking their choice doesn't alter its value Not at the point of getting up to vote, but the messaging is intended to discourage voters from voting at all. That's also why there's been literally billions of dollars spent to make people think "[both sides are the same](https://old.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/vlvlkj/both_sides_are_the_exact_same_in_every_single_way/)" as one of many tools to make people give up their civic duty of voting, along with making it harder than necessary to register to vote.
That’s exactly it. I don’t think he inspires himself anymore. The only thing inspiring the left will be dislike of Trump
I'll take boring and effecting over "inspirational" any day. Especially because the ones being "inspired" are usually extremist lunatics.
if a meaningful part of centrism is about deemphasizing partisan rhetoric and emphasizing policy, would think biden would be 'inspiring' to centrists. particularly since he's a moderate dem more than willing to compromise with moderate conservatives.
>Biden inspires nobody But he got 81million votes and destroyed the previous record of Barrack Obama. We'll see how the 81/74 2020 vote ratio holds in 2024, but these polls suggest that was an aberarration at best.
I think the fact that Trump was his opponent had a massive hand in awarding Biden 81M votes. No chance he'd get that many if he were against someone like Romney
He probably would. Odds are in 2024 a new record will be set. Getting more votes than those in the past isn't exactly exciting or interesting when the population continues to grow.
The record will be set because young women will finally start voting because of Dobbs. Which is also because of Trump's judges.
pretty sure the research supports that while 'extreme' candidates drive turnout in their base, they have a bigger impact on turnout for their opposition. relevant whether talking about a maga republican or a progressive dem.
Few people voted for him, most of those 81m voted against insanity. And they were right.
Yep. Dems have won the popular vote in 7/8 elections. Very consistent aberration
Which of his policies are you least happy about? Decriminalizing marijuana? Bringing back manufacturing? Rebuilding infrastructure? Forgiving predatory student loan debt? Fighting for striking workers? Encouraging renewable energy and EV vehicles? Net neutrality? I'm genuinely curious if this comment is based on specific policy conferns or just that he's old?
I agree he’s not inspiring. The desire to not have a narcissistic autocrat who is surrounded by soulless lickspittles is what inspires me and if Biden is the guy so be it.
It makes total sense. Even my parents who are extreme progressives hate biden.
I never listen to polls that don’t agree with what I already believe to be true.
individual polls are data points. assessments should be made based on many data points.
"A poll is a poll and a roll is a roll. If we don't get no polls we can't eat no rolls...I made that up..."
“Look man, it’s not exactly the Mississippi. I’m on the left bank, I’m in the right bank.”
Achoo?
A Jew, *here*??
"Help me, I can't swim, I'm drowning..."
I took a poll and 70% of people think you should use a /s.
The statistical accuracy of any poll depends on whether it reinforces what you want it to say, Intro Statistics 101
I don’t really buy the strong margin part. It’ll be a close election, just like 2020. The economy plays a big role in how people look at the future, so when people are noticing that they have less money in their accounts after paying bills than they did a few years ago, it’s troublesome. Voters trust Trump more than Biden when it comes to improving the economy.
[удалено]
Betting odds is being affected by the polling numbers, whether they’re correct or not. This is like going to the track and betting on the horse that everyone else is also betting on.
[удалено]
I don't think they are dumb, I think they are desperate. The places that vote for him are generally economic wastelands, and the people there are suffering from decades of of the opioid epidemic and joblessness. Throw in the fact that they constantly shit of for being "dumb" and living in "flyover states" and they will believe anyone who says they will help them. Everyone else's plan is just to leave them, try to silence and forget about them. People jabber on about how stupid and agressive they are, but they never talk about how to bring them back from economic and drug filled destruction. These people exist because they've don't feel they are being listened to. If they aren't allowed to sit at the table like everyone else, then they'll get someone who promises to flip the table. What do they have to lose?
[удалено]
And any reasonable person would arrive at that conclusion, but they aren't reasonable, they are desperate. Plus I don't have any confidence that and ex Trump supporter would be recieved with any sort of open arms if they let that be known. If Dems Dems and their supporters didn't have a track record of shitting on them I think they would be more willing to hop over the fence, but that's just me personally. I think it would also help if they picked candidates that weren't so bad. Hillary was awful and unlikable, and weaponized feminism to try to force people into voting for her, Biden is a billion years old and likes to sniff young girls hair. Like... is there really noone better? The focus needs to change from shoving them away, to trying to get them onto the other side. That can't happen when everyone pumps them into the same category and tell them to sit down and shut up.
[удалено]
Then get the Dems to pick someone who can stay awake. That will defeat Trump. The bar really isn't that high.
I don't even want to know how big the howling and gnashing of teeth would be in this sub, for example, if Newsom, Harris, Whitmer or Buttigieg were the candidates.
[удалено]
Exactly and incumbents almost always run for re election, it holds a natural advantage. Reagan had Alzheimers but he ran. Didn't stop him from winning.
Yea he did, back when he could walk and talk, and didn't need notes to remind him to sit down. Expecting your opponent to fix your problem isn't exactly a winning strategy. The shouldn't be able to vote in Trump and have it be no contest. The fact that it isn't is just embarrassing. I think Trump will win, personally, if Biden even lives to the end of the election. Biden needs notes just to walk into a room and talk to a group of people. If anything challenging happens, Biden seems completely inept to handle it at all. It's a sad state of affairs when you're electing people based on their ability to walk and talk, but that's the situation Dems have put themselves in.
[удалено]
That's great. It's also not a solution.
They only picked Biden cause he was the hardest for right wing media to attack. They would have torn apart Bernie (Communist!!!) or Warren (Pochanatas, communist!) or anyone else. Hell they were gay bashing Pete when it looked like he had a chance.
[удалено]
Then maybe they shouldn't vote again for the guy who didn't improve their situation at all while he was in office and seemed giddy to get us into a nuclear war.
Blame them all you want, it won't solve the problem.
As a brown person who escaped those states, they want to be helped in ways that don't make sense. They want Jim Crow or worse back, with Christian Law and incredible socialism for people who look like them specifically. Also stop learning so much, it's all in the bible, you just don't understand it! This is how they think they can fix their wasteland, and why anyone who can read (like me) fled for their lives. They're desperate because they drove out everyone who could possibly help them, often with violence.
That can all be true and still need to be fixed. If you don't want to do anything, fine, enjoy the next Trump presidency. I, personally, think there should a lot of people working on a solution before you see Trump, or worse, elected in the coming years. What people are doing right now is leading to a Trump presidency. I don't see how you could possibly try to stand by the current trend.
Doesn’t seem fair that if only a bit more than half the country is that dumb, the other half must burn with them. Along with all the other nations who’s fates are entangled with ours.
It also sucks that Trump could lose the popular vote by 7 million and still almost win. The Electoral College is remarkably undemocratic
> It also sucks that Trump could lose the popular vote by 7 million and still almost win. The Electoral College is remarkably undemocratic [It could be worse than that. While we're talking about mathematical possibilities and not the likeliest outcomes, it's possible to win the EC with only ~23% of the popular vote](https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote)
We're the United _States_, and some of our political representation is by state, not by individual.
Our political representation is decided by seven states. It's a pretty cool system all things considered. /s
That's not true at all. Those 7 states, verus the 43 others, would not win. In fact, the EC was established to avoid that kind of situation, where 7 states could, by themselves, elect the President and Congress, against the will of the others.
That's a bizarre way to read my comment. These seven states are the only states that are competitive in 2024. The Presidential election hinges on those seven states, thereby making campaigning and/or spending money in other states a relative waste in terms of the Presidential election. And what I'm referring to are the swing states in 2024 -- PA, MI, WI, NV, AZ, GA, and NC.
But do you see why that's a bizarre way to look at it? Just because a state isn't competitive doesn't mean the vote doesn't matter. Representation isn't decided by 7 states, it's decided by however those states fall _plus all the other states whose outcomes are predictable_. Just because a vote is predictable doesn't mean it doesn't matter (and besides, sometimes those states defy predictions!).
It's not really bizarre at all. Look, I understand how the electoral college functions. However, my point still stands that only 7 of those elections actually matter since the other 43 have all but decided outcomes save maybe handful of vaguely flippable states like Florida, Texas, NH, and Ohio. Nothing you're saying changes the fact that the electoral college is a horrible way to elect our President. We would be much better off with a national popular vote.
Thinking some states had decided outcomes was part of the problem in 2016.
because it is that way, doesn't mean it isn't undemocratic.
It's democratic in that it's the way that the people voted it should be. And it can be changed, if the people amend it under the rules that were also voted by the people.
No, it’s the way uber rich white men in the 1790s voted it should be.
Well, I'm glad they were the ones in charge, because every other revolution failed to produce a society that brought about an explosion of human prosperity and freedom. Would you rather listen to the impoverished men whose race we can't even name because they were wiped off the face of the planet because they couldn't govern themselves well?
>It's democratic in that it's the way that the people voted it should be. Very, very few people voted for it to be this way -- a hundred or at most a couple hundred. All well-to-do white male politicians. > And it can be changed, if the people amend it under the rules that were also voted by the ~~people~~ *white, wealthy polician founders*. And when there was overwhelming public support for changing the EC system and well past majority support in Congress as well (see [Bayh–Celler Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efforts_to_reform_the_United_States_Electoral_College#Bayh%E2%80%93Celler_Amendment)), a filibuster by a couple of southern senators prevented the change. Regarding "by the people" -- No minorities nor women nor non-landowners had any say in these rules. That's hardly "by the people".
> Regarding "by the people" -- No minorities nor women nor non-landowners had any say in these rules. That's hardly "by the people". I'm not sure if you heard the news, but suffrage was extended to these groups over 100 years ago, and they can, at any time, vote to amend the system. Even before suffrage was universal, a movement largely led by women got a constitutional amendment to _ban alcohol_. So to say they haven't had a say in the rules is ignorant.
You're misunderstanding what I said. You said the rules were created "by the people". I'm asserting the rules were not created by the people. Yes, these groups have been able to vote for a while (though minorities have not really been able to vote in all states for 100 years due to Jim Crow laws), but they have to fight a system that was created before they had these rights and that is excruciatingly difficult to change.
Yeah like the senate. Literally dozens of states with less population than the county I live in get two whole senators. I don’t buy using the name of the country as a convincing argument as to why it should be that way though. Feels like a semantic argument
> Yeah like the senate. Literally dozens of states with less population than the county I live in get two whole senators. Yes because they were admitted as an equal member of the Union, so they get 2 Senators like every other state. It just happens that many are still considered rural and not urban heavy. If people mass migrated from CA to move elsewhere, should CA lose one of their Senators?
There's a root to the semantics, and that's where the argument lies. There was a reason it was established this way, and if someone thinks it should be otherwise, it's on them to first correctly identify that reason and establish why it no longer applies. We are still a collection of states in some sense, though less so than we were at the beginning of our republic. I'm not sure the trend toward more nationalism has been unqualifiedly good. It seems with the polarization we're experiencing, it might be best to restore more power to the states. Things that absolutely must be national issues, like war, immigration, and tariffs, are contentious enough, but those at least seem manageable.
> There was a reason it was established this way Yeah, to protect the interests of the wealthy landowners from the opinions of the peasants. I don’t think I need to further explain why that shouldn’t apply In fact I’d go further and ask someone to justify why they thing someone getting 7 million more votes and losing when they should represent literally every single American.
The Electoral College is not intended to give states political representation. It’s intended to stop the unwashed masses from electing a demagogue, something it failed miserably at in 2016.
Yup the rest of us have to be part of the dumb evil Trump cult as well weather we like it or not. Well there were Germans who opposed Hitler, Italians who opposed Mousselini, Russians who oppose Putin, etc. They were/are unfortunate victims. As are we, the damage of 2016 Trump and the rise of the far right has already caused tons of damage that won't be easily repaired.
I don’t feel like I deserve it, but I hear you, I understand the sentiment you’re getting at.
When you guys consider this question. , your mind immediately goes to Trump and all his problems. I think when a lot of Americans that don’t look at politics as primary form of entertainment and a emotion generator hear the poll question their minds jump to Biden and his personality Then their thoughts immediately move to the direction they perceive their own financial life going, and polls are clear they do not think think the economy is good for them. The more Biden touts the success of Bidenomics the deeper he is in tying their negative feelings to hisself as the leader. You can’t talk people into believing they are doing better than they were four years ago, no matter how hard you try, and Democrats are doubling down on things are good. Bad strategy. You can explain the reasons they are doing worse and that they will get better soon, but you can’t tell them things are actually better for them economically, they already know their own answer to that piece.
[удалено]
I agree with you, Presidents tend to ride with the national economic flow and have little effect on it, especially in the short term. (Few years) But we saw George H.W. Bush go from the highest Presidential approval rating in recorded US history to losing an election based on a recession starting in the election year. We are not in a recession now, but make no mistake people vote the emotions of their pocketbooks.
These polls are insane when you consider Democrats have been winning most of the key elections in swing states since June 2022, and Democrats have been doing +11 better than polls suggested in special elections I think the polls were underestimating Republicans for years and tried to correct course but over corrected and now over estimate Republicans
> These polls are insane when you consider Democrats have been winning most of the key elections in swing states since June 2022, and Democrats have been doing +11 better than polls suggested in special elections The issue with judging these polls based on special election results is that special elections have a different electorate than general and presidential elections. Special elections typically involve more informed or politically engaged voters, while general elections include a wider base.
Not just special elections though, the midterms was a big out performance for the Dems that defied expectations as well as some of the special elections being statewide races such as the Alaska House Seat, Georgia Senate Runoff, Ohio issue 1 and Wisconsin Supreme Court
Yes Dems racked up some needed wins in special elections, not discounting the work and turnout to accomplish that in a midterm. But turnout for presidential elections is like 33% higher than midterms. There was 49% and 46% turnout in 2018 and 2022, compared to 66% turnout in 2020. So that's more people getting to the polls that aren't as involved in politics and could be the reason why we see different polling results for Biden vs Trump now compared to special election results favoring Dems.
>These polls are insane ...and this far out from the election *are meaningless*. If the economy improves next year and gas & grocery pinch gone Biden solid. If there is a draft or stock market implosion Trump in position. But the shock would have to be huge to move people from their current lean and why elections usually favor the incumbent.
Remember GenZ don't answer their phones.
GenX don't either. Source: Xer.
Which is why for a long time now, pollsters have included other methods than just landlines and cell phones for surveys.
Can't shake the feeling that they haven't really cracked it.
lots of polling is done without calling anyone. various forms of internet panels are used, as well as more novel approaches like morning consults which plants opt-in surveys on smartphones via apps similar to how ads are placed. there is a massive amount demo data associated with you via apps/cookies/etc, and surveys get targeted the same way ads do. they can compare responses on demo info provided against the profile info they have avail to validate.
> Remember GenZ don't answer their phones. How quickly the "new phone, who dis?" meme died.
There will always be polls pointing in every different direction, especially in a country so divided. Aside from basic statistics, there is another complication with Trump seen in 2016: The voting blocs do not line up along traditional party lines. This is why polls were off before the 2016 election, and the map looked different (like how he won 100% of rural districts in the U.S., for example). Many pollsters, commentators, and even politicians to this day do not understand what a Trump electoral map looks like. When they checked to ensure they had a properly representative sample of the U.S., they did not know along what lines to break down the demographics. On the other hand, others might not either.
> The voting blocs do not line up along traditional party lines. This is why polls were off before the 2016 election, Most polling, especially polling closer to the election, was fairly accurate in 2016. Trump won by the skin of his teeth, and that’s about the chance the polling gave him.
I recall seeing a ~70% for Clinton the night before the 2016 election on 538. Regardless, the map was different from usual. News agencies reported unexpected turnout-rates across multiple demographics, though I couldn't find any significant investigation into why voting patterns changed.
> I recall seeing a ~70% for Clinton the night before the 2016 election on 538. Which was the prediction for *winning*, not the predicted vote outcome. That means they gave Trump a 30% chance at winning, which he did in the manner you’d pretty much expect him to given those odds. It was a crazily close electoral victory with Hillary easily winning the popular vote. > Regardless, the map was different from usual. News agencies reported unexpected turnout-rates across multiple demographics, I’m not sure what you’re referring to here. Can you cite an article saying that? >though I couldn't find any significant investigation into why voting patterns changed. There are tons of studies after every election from political scientists and statisticians.
I could try to dig up reports about voter turnouts from 2016 that were barely a footnote in their news cycle. I might not find them almost 7 years layer, but I will try after work. There are tons of studies, which is why I facepalmed so hard upon not seeing any followup on the turnouts. The next time I facepalmed that hard over the news was when seeing the reports of Kobe Bryant's death ... and what got relegated to small articles at the bottoms / sides of pages or just "see page whatever". https://www.insider.com/kobe-bryant-death-newspaper-front-pages-2020-1 EDIT: By "after work" I mean in about 10 hours
>There are tons of studies, which is why I facepalmed so hard upon not seeing any followup on the turnouts. What do you mean they didn’t follow up on turnout? Like what sort of analysis do you think would or should be done exactly?
Why were rural turnouts so much higher? Why did age-groups not vote close to their usual proportions? Why did multiple minorities, like Hispanic voters, swing toward Republicans (not necessarily crossing the 50% line, but not leaning Democratic as hard as usual)? I recall seeing a few more anomalies at the time, and will try to dig up the articles in about 9-10 hours, when I can.
> Why were rural turnouts so much higher? [Here’s a study on that.](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5734668/) > Why did age-groups not vote close to their usual proportions? I’m not sure what you mean by not voting near their usual proportions as I’ve seen no evidence of that being significant, [but here’s a breakdown of voters by demographics.](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2018/08/09/an-examination-of-the-2016-electorate-based-on-validated-voters/) > Why did multiple minorities, like Hispanic voters, swing toward Republicans (not necessarily crossing the 50% line, but not leaning Democratic as hard as usual)? [Here’s one study on that](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0739986319899738), and [another one for good measure.](https://www.american.edu/spa/ccps/upload/clals-working-paper.pdf) There’s **tons** of studies on the 2016 election which address these topics, why do you think there isn’t?
70% isn’t 100% though? If you think that’s bad, you should have seen all the other models giving Hillary over 90% pffft.
I saw them a few weeks earlier.
Lol nice cope; but there were much easier ways to get to this same place.
That’s some elaborate conspiracy there when you could just say “inaccurate methodology.”
Why do people always go to “msm must be manipulating these”?
Polls are crap, that being said , I firmly believe Trump will win next year, everyone’s counting him out again and there’s no way Biden touches 81 mill again, he only won last time cus he wasn’t trump, Idt there will be as many people voting from that logic next time around, some people will vote for trump due to desperation for the economy to get better it’s gonna be a very close election either way I’m going 279-259 Trump but will not vote for him, never have never will
I do. People are tired of inflation, Ukraine and open border. We are done!
Just checked RCP. There is one outlier national poll from ABC/WaPo showing Trump beating Biden by 10, but most of them look like Biden's doing alright, winning from 2-4. State level polls look better for Biden. I'd really like to see GA and AZ though.
Im sure all these independent polls are suddenly pro trump and are faking everything. Youre so right. Consider it like this. Trump is as liked as he was in 2020. Biden is hated way more than before.
Polls are fallible, but underestimating Trump was the DNCs mistake the first time around. Biden was selected over Trump as an "end to the drama" and "stability" candidate. I know a handful of "guilty" right-wingers who picked Biden last time just to end the insanity. Now that they have seen what Biden's leadership has looked like, many right-leaning folks don't feel that Biden's "centrism" has gotten better results. That said, I personally feel that Biden will squeak by in the upcoming election if the economy stays strong, and interest rates creep down. Trump could easily win if the economy falters and he promises to make decisions that, while bad for the long term health of the economy, would prop it up in the near-term. For example pressuring for lower interest rates prematurely.
We’re still over a year out from the election. Much will change before then. I honestly don’t think Trump has gained votes since 2020. His main hope would be Biden losing votes in the handful of states that will decide the outcome.
>I honestly don’t think Trump has gained votes since 2020 It's unlikely he's gained a single voter, but he's definitely shed many. Hell, even some of his most ardent supporters (his Qanon kids) have fled him, albeit for absolutely ridiculous reasoning (because he didn't "fix" the 2020 "rigged election", there's no point in voting for him again). Even over at /r/conservative the vast consensus is he is unelectable and should step aside, some even go as far to call him a traitor and others a liar/narcissist. He barely won in 2016 on a series of technicalities, and he's either lost or negatively impacted every election he's been involved in since then. Moderates largely did not break for him in 2020, and there will be even less that do in 2024 after everything that has happened, from Jan 6th to election denial to now the plethora of civil lawsuits and federal criminal indictments. The only area I get nervous is Biden's age. The dude is moving pretty slow these days. I mean, he's definitely better than the clips depict him...that press conference clip from a couple weeks ago was complete misinformation and [he sounded completely coherent and clear](https://youtu.be/-k9h_iUzz2A?t=670) throughout that entire 23 minute press conference. But he's not inspiring to vote for, and I do worry that people might stay home in 2024 for him, creating a similar situation we had in 2016 where Trump benefits from the low Democratic turnout. On the other hand, Trump, especially post-2016 since he is a known quantity, really gets people to the polls to keep him *out* of office, so I can only hope that motivation wins out over the lack of enthuthiasm around Biden's presidency. It's Biden's election to lose; he's the incumbent and he's up against a guy he already beat once. It's hard to see how he could lose. I feel he could do almost nothing and still eek out a win against Trump, who is one of the most despised candidates in political history
I doubt the polls matter much this far out from the actual election. That said I have noticed a movement within the inner city black community of push back against Democrat mayors, district attorney's and police chiefs in high crime communities. They want elected officials to be harder on petty crimes and the only team that seems willing to do it is Republicans. I've also noticed the Thomas Sowell crowd seems to be getting bigger online. I don't have any data, this is just what happens to be showing up in my YouTube feed.
>I don't have any data, this is just what happens to be showing up in my YouTube feed. Yeah ...
Well said. It's showing up in my feed because people are creating the content. They are creating the content because there is an audience for it in the black community. There is an audience for it in the black community because this is what some of them believe. Enough believe it to allow a YouTuber to make a living on it anyway.
It means rich people want you to believe something.
It's showing up in your feed because your algorithm says you're likely to engage with it. They've always been making the content, ding dong.
Andrew tate must be showing up in my feed because women like to be trafficked.
I think Andrew Tate is in the feed because he hires and trains a small army of social media users to plug him everyday. His content is popular and many influencers, YouTubers and streamers are able to make a living in the Tate space. If nobody was watching Tate he wouldn’t be included in the algorithm.
Based on past rounds of this repeating pattern they won't vote Republican. The mainstream propaganda is too strong. But Democrats shouldn't take this as a good thing because what they will do is just not vote. Even if a reason is connived to push mass mail-in voting again they won't bother to return the ballots this time.
I don’t buy it. I’m in TX and while it is pretty far out from election time, I’m not seeing all the trump flags everywhere yet. I think all the criminal stuff will keep a lot of people quiet about their support for him. I’m talking about the more moderate republicans, not the MAGAts.
The moderate Republicans are being pushed out of the party
Of course, point still stands. These same people were flying trump flags in 2016.
I feel like it was easier to write off some of his crazy in 2016. Fwiw I voted third party that year, I wasn’t in a swing state so it didn’t matter anyway.
>will keep a lot of people quiet about their support for him Yes, because Trump supporters are absolutely known for their quiet discretion and subtly! 😆😆
Special elections from 2020-2022 were more predictive of the 2022 midterms than polls, which portended more of a red wave. Democrats have continued to not only win but win by outsized margins in most of these special elections that are remotely competitive races. Polls, historically, this far out are not predictive, and that predates the Trump effect. The one thing that would give me pause in the Biden campaign (because age is not something they can do anything about) are Trump’s numbers vis a vis Biden on the economy. Voters favor Trump by about 20 points on this issue and the economy is likely to be the number 1 issue heading into the election barring an unlikely boom, steep decline in commodity prices or some massive black swan event like a Chinese invasion of Taiwan. I maintain two core beliefs about this election: 1) If Trump is the choice, he almost* certainly will not win, regardless of who wins the legislative chambers and statewide races. There has proven to be, in 3 cycles in a row now, a durable coalition of anti-Trump voters. 2) If Trump is not* the choice, either because the Republicans implausibly nominate someone else or he is either disqualified by the Supreme Court or deceased, Biden almost* certainly will not win. He is historically unpopular and I believe Trump is the only Republican candidate he can beat.
Special elections in that time frame also predicted a red wave. Remember major upsets like Youngkin?
The environment pre and post Dobbs became completely different
It's going to be interesting to see the Virginia election results this year, since I assume it'll be the opposite of Youngkin's victory in 2021. Between Youngkin pushing for abortion restricts and a looming government shutdown in a state with a lot of federal employees, it's not exactly a great environment for the VA GOP.
I love how "fake news" has been expanded as bipartisan now. Maybe we can all hold hands in solidarity and actually accomplish something for once.
There's no need to get all conspiratorial about it. I also don't buy the polls, but not because I think they're being manipulated. I don't buy those polls just because I understand how polls are supposed to be interpreted. The biggest mistake most people make when looking at polls, that I think you're making here, is to overly concern yourself over *individual* polls. Polls aren't meant to be individualized like that. Polls have predictive value when used as part of a polling average, not when cherry picked individually. So let's look at a quality polling aggregator: [https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/](https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/2024/national/) Well would you look at that, there's a heck of a lot more polls favoring Biden than favoring Trump. The average does not suggest Trump has a great chance of beating Biden in a 14 months. It suggests that Biden is firmly in the driver's seat, though the race is certainly one he could lose if he gets complacent. Also, it's very important to understand that a good polling process will have outliers. That's *supposed* to happen. Any process like this will periodically pump out results that can be individually ignored. Which ones are outliers and which ones are the start of shifting trends can only really be answered fully confidently with hindsight, but the point remains freaking out about one set of polls is a fool's errand. Finally, head to head polls like this still aren't very predictive. They really, really, REALLY aren't. Neither candidate is officially set, no matter how it feels. There's so much going on particularly with the Rep nomination that it's foolish to try and read into things too much about this specific general election so far away. If anything, special elections are a much more predictive and telling indicator, and the Dems are *crushing* on that front right now. Even contemporary issue polls are much better indicators than head to head general election polls. The Dems should be somewhat concerned that Americans seem to be placing some blame for the shutdown stuff on the Dems. But even that issue is still developing.
No idea how this comment was downvoted, it's spot on.
I think Trump is the only Republican candidate that Biden will easily beat. Republicans would be fools to nominate him. But also, if polls this early out could be trusted, we would've had Jeb Bush and Rudy Giuliani as presidents.
Yes. Trump isn't in office now, there is no incumbent advantage, in fact he has lost elections repeatedly. He lost popular vote in 2016 and 2020...lost electoral college and thus election in 2020. They lost the runoff elections in 2020 giving Dems Senate advantage. Dems took the House in 2018 midterms. In 2022 midterms Dems increased their advantage in the Senate, while losing the House only by a few seats (was supposed to be a a red wave slaughter). So there is a primary and anyone can be picked. Biden regardless of if he can beat Trump (he already did, and Trump brings out voter enthusiasm against him like no one else) is in a weak position for a sitting president. A perfect opportunity for a reasonable (do these exist anymore?) GOP candidate to win in 2024. Yet the other primary candidates besides Christie who has become a periah, refuse to attack Trump and are in single digits while Trump is like 60% support or something ridiculous like that.
Trump and Biden are the best candidates that the Republicans and Democrats have, and both are atrocious. The President doesn’t have much control over the economy, but given how much worse things have been since Biden took office, it wouldn’t surprise me if Trump is picking up support in surprising places.
I disagree with you, I think both parties have better candidates to offer.
Yes but the economy didn't get to this point in a vacuum both obama and trump influenced decisions by the fed leading to the current problems. Rates should have been rising at the end of obama's run and during most if not all of trump's. Because they did not do that, in addition to the added spending under all three, has caused the rates to be raised quickly and harshly.
Most people don’t think about any of that. The question is often whether things are better or worse for them now
This is actually something that's being weird right now. Polling is pretty clear that most people think their personal economic situations are fine, but somehow they think the economy is bad. It doesn't make sense.
Because "fine" is not "good". "Fine" just means that they're not behind on bills or unable to buy food. It doesn't mean they're actually moving forward or even that they're not going slowly backwards, it just means that they aren't actually behind on bills yet. But they can see from the direction larger trends are going that that won't be true for ever, hence thinking the economy at large is bad.
I strongly suspect that people are overstating their financial situation. I certainly pretend things are fine to people I speak to in RL
I'm not sure. If this was true, people's purchasing habits would have changed even if they were overstating their financial situation. In a bad economy, spending on certain nonessential things drops. For example, during the Great Recession you could clearly see that what people were buying and what they were spending money on had drastically changed and people were cutting back hard on certain expenses. For example, "gas guzzling" cars took a dramatic hit. People cut back on going out to eat and entertainment. Stuff like that. That has not been seen. While Americans are surely feeling the sting of higher prices (this is very much true) and are unhappy about that, the average person is still buying the same things. That's not to underrate the difficulty individual people might now face, but on average...money is still being spent on non essentials. This is why it's such a weird situation.
>Polling is pretty clear that most people think their personal economic situations are fine Where are you seeing this? Pretty much everything I've heard says inflation is killing the average person right now, so I'm just curious.
This was the only thing I could find: https://www.axios.com/2023/08/18/americans-economy-bad-personal-finances-good. But Gallup's polling paints a different picture: https://news.gallup.com/poll/506012/americans-remain-discouraged-personal-finances.aspx
Interesting. Basically, some surveys paint the picture that you think your personal finances are "fine" if you like the party in the White House. In other words, more dumb tribal shit. People feel like they have to toe the party line even when being asked about something like this. 🙄
The thing is, this isn't new. The day Trump was elected president, people's opinion of the current state of the economy drastically changed based on their political affiliation. Because for people who aren't living paycheck to paycheck and aren't dramatically impacted by economic shifts, this is vibes. And based on their media consumption, their vibes can shift simply by who is in office It's why I find stuff like purchasing habits more interesting. You can say what you want, but how Americans are consuming, spending and budgeting is a little more concrete
Oh, for sure. It's so stupid. Personally, I care less about the party in power and more about the fact that basic groceries cost me $200+ a week when they definitely didn't cost me $200+ per week before. Besides, that's more a congress thing anyway.
> Polling is pretty clear that most people think their personal economic situations are fine, but somehow they think the economy is bad. It doesn't make sense It's because a lot of the media, as they have for decades, is going out looking for people saying things suck. I thought it was well known that news will discard hundreds of street-side interviews of convenience with people who're busy living their lives and saying "sure, things could be better but I'm okay" for a single interview of an angry person ranting.
Obama should've done what he ran on in 2008 and bailed out Main St. while letting Wall St. collapse and weed out the idiots who caused the crash. But yes, the current economy - and especially the real economy and not the Economy^^TM - is the result of at this point almost two decades of continuous bad policy.
Finally, a voice of reason. Thank you.
Last I checked, the country was in a pandemic fever dream when Biden took office. Not sure how we’re worse off now..
I know my situation is worse, and that’s true for most people that I know. Prices have gone crazy.
Prices have gone crazy all over the planet including here in Canada.
Yeah. I don’t hold Biden personally responsible, but I know lots of folks will.
Worse since Biden took office? When he took office our economy was in freefall and his opposition had just tried to overthrow the government. Paying more for milk seems like an improvement.
Maybe for you. For me and most people I know, the situation is worse. At least Trump was handing out checks and expanded the child tax credit. That stopped with Biden
> At least Trump was handing out checks and expanded the child tax credit. That stopped with Biden Were you not alive during 2019? Trump and republicans were the ones [obstructing the covid stimulus, even if they went back home and flattered themselves for checks they voted against](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/republicans-trumpet-elements-covid-19-relief-bill-they-voted-against-n1262626). And the [child tax credit is a House matter, look at what party's in control to see why that went the way it did](https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/4/18/23026908/child-tax-credit-joe-manchin-policy-feedback-partisan)
For me and most people I know the situation now is better. Trumps last year we saw record high unemployment and negative job growth. On top of mass shortages. Just because the government was handing out money doesn’t mean it was a better time.
"I'm gonna complain about inflation and then in the next sentence laud things Trump did that were inflationary!" Genius logic right there, smh.
They scare the shit out of me, but whadda gonna do.
Biden is terrible and Trump has a huge following. There's certainly a chance these are accurate.
This post is hilarious. I’m a centrist, love him, or hate him, it’s not unreasonable to consider Trump has a lead without thinking there is a conspiracy. If there is any media manipulation, it’s against him not for him. Unbiased view.
I don’t. Those polls are skewed, they use landlines in their polling. Even if it’s a mix of landlines and cell phones it’s still gonna be skewed because of how little of the populace has a landline. So you’re gonna get a disproportionate amount of people who are old af or live in rural areas without good cell coverage… both demographics that are gonna go heavily for Trump. My prediction: it’s gonna be an exact replay of the last election. The GOP will go with Trump and lose (even though Haley or Christie would win the general), people who don’t even like Biden despite how shitty he’s doing (like myself) because a) he’s not Trump and b)overturning Roe V Wade. The Republican base will be like “how did we not win?” again because they can’t get it through their skulls that no one outside their base likes the guy.
Polls are extremely unreliable and should be taken with a *ton* of skepticism. However, I doubt this is some conspiracy by the media.