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 thread.
View all comments View context
59 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

You are not wrong.

permalink
report
parent
reply
22 points

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points

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

permalink
report
parent
reply
-7 points

You said she only lost because of the electoral college like it’s some weird thing no one knew about…

Maybe you didn’t intend to defend her, but that’s what you did.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

“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.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-8 points

This is like saying basketball is archaic because it lets the team with the most hoops lose.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

If we were deciding our leadership based on basketball games, I’d sure as shit say it was archaic.

permalink
report
parent
reply
39 points
*

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.

permalink
report
parent
reply

politics

!politics@lemmy.world

Create post

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.
  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

Community stats

  • 13K

    Monthly active users

  • 15K

    Posts

  • 438K

    Comments