bostonbananarama

joined 1 year ago
[–] bostonbananarama 2 points 4 months ago

That would be tough, at this point in the calendar the only incumbent presidential candidates with a lower net job approval than Joe Biden were George HW Bush and Jimmy Carter. Both of whom lost the election. Trump was a few points better in 2020, he also lost.

[–] bostonbananarama 3 points 4 months ago (1 children)

So you didn't mean Reagan, you meant Nixon. But Nixon was the incumbent and at this point in the calendar had 58% job approval (Biden: 38.5%) and a net job approval of 26.9% (Biden: -17.7%). At this point in the calendar, Nixon was 44.6% higher in net job approval. Do you really think that's analogous?

[–] bostonbananarama 6 points 4 months ago (3 children)

In 1980, Reagan beat an unpopular incumbent, Carter, by a huge margin. In 1984, Reagan was the incumbent and crushed Walter Mondale. I'm not sure which one is the, "last time we did this" though.

If anything, Reagan shows us that unpopular incumbents do not have a high likelihood of reelection.

[–] bostonbananarama 4 points 4 months ago

Sorry for having other things going on, it won't happen again.

[–] bostonbananarama 8 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Can you show an election where that strategy has worked this late in the game?

To my knowledge the President and vice President haven't stepped down from a political campaign. However, I can point to a situation in which a vice president took over for an unpopular president and lost. That would be Hubert Humphrey in 1968.

Additionally, just based on logic alone, it is ridiculous to insinuate that it wouldn't be better to have an unknown candidate than a disliked candidate.

How could it be better to have a candidate that voters do not like, over a candidate that they haven't come to an opinion on yet?

[–] bostonbananarama -5 points 4 months ago (30 children)

They both need to step aside, it's better to have an unknown than a known candidate that people don't like.

[–] bostonbananarama 7 points 4 months ago

Even after 2004, reading this still makes me angry.

[–] bostonbananarama 7 points 4 months ago (1 children)

It's sad, because it's not fair to anyone that that needs to be a concern. But given the risk, I just want Gavin Newsom to replace Biden. I don't want to take any chances. A milquetoast white guy who is middle of the road. Then president AOC if I had my druthers.

[–] bostonbananarama 17 points 4 months ago

If there are consistent calls for Biden to step down over repeated missteps and glaring concerns, it may not be the people on Capitol Hill that are stubborn.

[–] bostonbananarama 44 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Their very own messiah was built off of helping the poor

Whoa! I don't think you're knowledgeable enough about Supply Side Jesus to make such scurrilous accusations. /s

[–] bostonbananarama 1 points 4 months ago

WTF? I'm not ignoring it; the entire point of my comments has been pointing it out.

You're ignoring that Biden won't do it, Dems wouldn't allow him to do it, and the bad faith actors in place aren't Democrats. So no one, at any level, is going to allow Joe Biden to take any of those steps.

[–] bostonbananarama 5 points 4 months ago

I've seen polling that says that Michelle Obama wins by like 20 points, but I'm not stupid enough to believe that polling.

There's so much "not Trump" feeling in this country, but running a doddering octogenarian against him decreases those people willing to vote for "not Trump". I'm absolutely voting for the Dem candidate, but I have some very real concerns about it.

view more: ‹ prev next ›