this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
228 points (93.2% liked)

politics

19151 readers
3629 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

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

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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

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

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Given the current state of partisan polarization, it’s unlikely Biden can get majority job approval next year even with the most fortunate set of circumstances. But the good news for him is that he probably doesn’t have to. Job-approval ratings are crucial indicators in a normal presidential reelection cycle that is basically a referendum on the incumbent’s record. Assuming Trump is the Republican nominee, 2024 will not be a normal reelection cycle for three reasons.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] YoBuckStopsHere 58 points 1 year ago (6 children)

Hillary lost because she couldn't read the writing on the wall and told everyone she deserved to win because it was her time. She was the worst person on the planet to go against Trump. The GOP spent 30 years demonizing her and she played right into their hands. Biden should have been the candidate then but that is hindsight.

[–] [email protected] 56 points 1 year ago (4 children)

And even with all of her mistakes and her total lack of charisma, she still only lost because of an archaic system that lets the winner of the popular vote lose.

[–] Ensign_Crab 38 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

And even with all of her mistakes and her total lack of charisma, she still only lost because of an archaic system that lets the winner of the popular vote lose.

It's not like this system was sprung on her at the last second. She didn't take it into account. She pretty much ignored key swing states that wound up going to Trump.

She was carried in a palanquin across the finish line in the primaries and didn't understand that she had to run the rest of the way.

[–] givesomefucks 21 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Bruh. She ignored a lot of close call battleground states and instead spent the end of the campaign doing "victory laps" in solid blue states like Cali because she was obsessed with beating Obama's popular vote total...

You could argue her and her campaign should have known better, I just don't know where you'd find someone who disagreed to have that argument with.

And that's not even getting into how with population growth, popular vote totals will be record breaking damn near every election.

She was supposed to have the best campaign team in modern history, and either they were too stupid to know what the electoral college is, or they were unable to talk sense into Hillary and get her to actually win the election instead of her fucking self esteem tour to make her feel good about herself after losing to Obama.

I'm just tired of people making excuses for her one second like it's her first day in politics, then trying to claim she's the greatest political mind of her generation the next.

It can't be both.

[–] mo_ztt 9 points 1 year ago

"Shattered" is a book which goes into a bit more detail about what went wrong with the Clinton campaign. Also, this particular review represents a rare moment of lucidity from Matt Taibbi, back when he hadn't quite completed his devolution from whip-smart political correspondent into a Trump apologist for some fucking reason.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

[–] YoBuckStopsHere 5 points 1 year ago

You are not wrong.

[–] shalafi 25 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

[–] dhork 24 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It's not just that, also remember that Biden had made a minor career out of losing the Democratic Presidential Nomination before Obama asked him to be VP. Much of the reason for that is that he had the tendency to say dumb shit. Remember all those "Gaffes"?

I don't think Biden could have ever become President before Trump, because we used to have higher standards for what was "Presidential". But once Trump became President, now all the dumb gaffes Biden makes are no longer a liability.

I admit I have been more impressed with Biden then I thought I would. I think a big issue is he is a much better President than he is a candidate for President.

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

All those "dumb gaffes" are because he has a stutter. It's actually way more impressive how well he's trained himself out of doing it constantly.

[–] dhork 1 points 1 year ago

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

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

[–] YoBuckStopsHere 7 points 1 year ago

The entire nation regrets that decision.

[–] Ensign_Crab 22 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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

She absolutely was. And with the pied piper strategy, she basically said who she thought the worst candidate was in the opposition's field, then lost to him.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

biden would have easily won, being the outgoing vp of a well-liked (by most) two-term president. him not running in 2016 is, i think, ultimately what enabled the hateful, incoherent, diaper-wearing buffoon to even have a chance--which was only enhanced by the dnc playing favorites and essentially handing the nomination to clinton.

i get the 'why' he didn't run; but man, it sure fucked-up this country (and beyond).

[–] givesomefucks 6 points 1 year ago (2 children)

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

Nope.

What gave trump a chance was Hillary boosting him because she thought she had a chance against him, but no chance against even Jeb Bush.

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/hillary-clinton-2016-donald-trump-214428/

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago

Also, the structure of the Republican primary meant that the person with a plurality of votes got all the delegates. And because there was such a split field and Trump was a celebrity, he got a lead in delegates which gave him more press.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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

[–] givesomefucks 0 points 1 year ago

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

Do you know more than her campaign team?

[–] YoBuckStopsHere -1 points 1 year ago

I totally agree.

[–] paddirn 4 points 1 year ago

That year was probably when we would've gotten "peak" or near-peak Biden, but that was around the time when his other son Beau Biden had died, which I thought was the reason he sat out the Primaries, which might've made them a bit more interesting, but would've had the same effect of shutting Sanders out. The way I remembered it, Biden essentially saved the 2012 Obama campaign against Romney, as Obama had been having a shitty campaign and debate performance up until Biden went up against Paul Ryan and dominated. After that debate, things seemed to turn around and I thought he was a shoe-in for 2016.