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.
From what I’ve heard and seen, a lot of younger voters are disillusioned by the Democrats’ stance on genocide. I’ve heard the comment many are repeating that they are single issue voters when the issue is genocide.
The issue with that is that Republicans hold an even worse position on genocide in multiple ways and would have been gunning for not only Israel killing all Palestinians, but ejecting all Muslims from the US as well. Which they will also totally do if they win the election.
While implying that Trump, a literal white nationalist authoritarian fascist, somehow doesn’t support the genocide of brown people
From what I’ve heard and seen, there’s a massive astroturfing effort to discredit Biden over the actions of an allied nation. It’s as if a massive propaganda machine is at work that completely ignores the fact that Republicans would have an even worse stance than Biden on this issue.
There are absolutely very important reasons to still vote for Biden, but you can’t rely on millions of people to all do the right thing just because it’s logical. The person who’s running for office ultimately has the responsibility to ensure people want to vote for them. It’s just not really useful to blame millions of people when you know that there are statistically for sure going to be disaffected people out of those who need to be motivated. It doesn’t even matter whether most voters who would vote for Biden turn out to vote for him - they almost certainly will - because this fight is at the margins, and to win, you have to capture the irresponsible and unreliable people too.
Charles Manson would make a better US president than Hitler…
Doesn’t mean people are going to get hype to go vote for Charles Manson.
And telling people those are the only options will depress turnout.
And when turnout is depressed, republicans win.
So how about we try running someone who actually cares about genocide and will at least stop trying to get the perpetrators even more money while telling their own citizens we’re the only first world country that can’t afford universal healthcare?
Like, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to understand that would get more votes.
But the people running the Dem party aren’t going to just turn down those AIPAC kickbacks if they can get away with “at least we’re not republicans, so shut up and vote for another genocide supporter”.
They’ll always aim for “barely better than a Republican”. So let’s fucking replace them with people willing to do more than the absolute bare minimum
So how about we try running someone who actually cares about genocide and will at least stop trying to get the perpetrators even more money while telling their own citizens we’re the only first world country that can’t afford universal healthcare?
This is an unpopular opinion and unpopular opinions lose you elections
The real world isn’t lemmy.
The “but it could be much worse” argument doesn’t carry much weight for many people on this issue.
Which is still an ignorant take, because we’ve only got two realistic options. Bad and worse.
Any complaints otherwise are ignorant at best, if not maliciously deceptive.
Has anyone tried explaining that if you allow in the people literally trying to take their rights away, they won’t get another chance to vote in a politician against genocide?
Like the genocide is awful but it shouldn’t make people forget they have very close to home issues currently happening right now.
