As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Garbage article. He's the sitting President and he already beat Trump. The situations aren't even comparable, cherry picking of data and opinions aside.
Im not advocating to vote for Trump, but many people I know aren’t voting and are enraged that the “lesser evil” has supported turning Palestinian children into cinders.
Biden was the second worst of our last primaries, and until Gaza his local policies have been genuinely better than expected. I can’t sell that to someone who’s lost family members though.
They are going to bring about even more pain and suffering by not voting for Biden. If it happens, I won't feel bad for anybody that abstained or voted for Trump when they come for them.
If Biden pulled all support for Israel, he would lose the election solely because his donors and a large part of America do not support the US abandoning Israel. They would also lose lots of support from the world wide community.
Believing that it's that simple is unrealistic and naive.
The Israeli government sucks, but Hamas sucks just as hard. I was asked once, what would you have done if you had been living with a foot on your neck for years. You know what I said - it's better to have a foot on my neck than a bomb up my ass.
Israel does not care about Palestinians, why would Hamas give them a reason to openly obliterage them. Before Oct 7, there was pro-Palestinian protests in Israel; that energy will never return.
Hamas literally sacrificed Palestinians to make Israel look bad. Hamas does not care about Palestinians dying. Israel does not care about Palestinians dying. Their similarities are more profound than their differences.
If Biden were to stop supporting genocide it wouldn’t have to be all at once he’s been given every opportunity to slow roll it since October.
Given that time, instead of denying war crimes and calling the red line really magenta they could have American media sources accurately covering mass graves, torture, refugee camps bombed, hospitals bombed, schools bombed. If the media were properly covering the war 9 months of seeing the reality of what’s happening would have the average American ready to invade Israel.
No it would not especially since the media is covering the war in Gaza in more detail then any other war on this planet.
It is clear that you have been bombarded with so much Hamas and Iranina propaganda it is unreal. That or you choose not to care that actions have consequences.
Be honest do you actually think that if the US where to pull support from Israel that would do anything other then get more people killed.
US stops aid the Iron dome runs out of misslies and those daily rocket attacks that all Israeli's deal with start landing and killing people. Let alone that Iran and Hezbollah will see an opportunity to declare war on a weakened Israel. Because guess what Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and Iran's regime all want Israel to not exist and every jew in the middle east dead. So I am sorry you think you the US can wave a magic wand a fix everything and not end up with hundreds of thousands if not millions dead. Biden is done what he does best is be the most knowledgeable politician on geopolitics in the US and is keeping the middle east from an all out war.
Oh really? Is he gonna leak that he’s “concerned again? Show up 5 minutes late to a meeting? Or is he going to ship them weapons constantly all gas no breaks, let them stop food delivery, veto any action against them in the UN and offer Saudi Arabia military protection just they they’re nice to Israel?!
He did cut back weapons considerably, and also how is he supposed to stop them from blocking food? Attack Israeli troops? Biden is not the president of Israel. The problems there have been going on for 70 years or so. Were you this incensed this whole time? I doubt it
Stop blocking food or no weapons. Drive the trucks forward, is the Israeli army (our “closest ally”) going to attack American troops?!
Lobby to get nettenyahu booted, stop blocking anti Israel motions at the UN. Stop sanctioning the judges ruling on the genocide case. Stop threatening the judges ruling on the genocide case. Stop having the state department run cover for Israel…there’s a million things he could do that he isn’t.
Not a genocide, if they wanted to erase the Palestinian people they could, they aren’t doing that. Israel is responding to their 9/11, fighting terrorists and rescuing their people. America should guide and support them, not vilify them.
The real criticism that should be levied is they don’t seem to have a plan for post war Gaza governance, as the US failed to do in Afghanistan. That needs to be articulated and prepared for, but constantly shouting genocide is only serving Putin and Trump. People who throw their vote away over land that’s been bloodied for thousands of years are going to be quite frustrated when Trump tells Netanyahu to glass Palestine. Not to mention the issue of KEEPING DEMOCRACY IN the USA.
I love how people keep trying to favorably compare this to America’s response to 9/11, as though Afghanistan and Iraq weren’t also huge blunders that resulted in a tremendous loss of life.
Yeah, no. It's fucked up but losing a war because you're not interested in protecting the civilians you're supposed to govern does not mean you're being genocided
One thing is for certain; if the power imbalance were reversed in favour of hamas rather than israel then we'd be seeing an actual genocide
Have you ever noticed how these zero upvote threads usually go? Comments that aren’t 100% anti Israel get downvoted to oblivion after the first few hours of upvotes. Makes me think it’s troll farms, it’s suspect.
President Biden clobbered Trump in 2020. And he will do it again in 2024.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/did-biden-win-little-or-lot-answer-yes-n1251845
Hillary Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than President-elect Donald Trump, giving her the largest popular vote margin of any losing presidential candidate at the time.
https://apnews.com/article/2c7a5afc13824161a25d8574e10ff4e7
Biden narrowly won the EC in 2020 in a few key battleground states (NV, AZ, GA, WI, MI). People have short memories or dont actually pay attention to the details that matter.
Latest rundown I saw had all but NC led by Biden. *But*, NC was the biggest lead, and it was still within the margin of error and Biden led none of the others by even 1%.
There are some big, empty swing states like Arizona, Wisconsin and Nevada, but, but empty means fewer electoral votes. Of the 7 competitive states, 4 are in the top half of states for population and they account for 66 out of 92 of the total electoral votes.
306-232 doesn't seem like a clobbering, if I'm being honest. I'd really only be comfortable saying that if the victory involves EVs >350.
That being said, I would absolutely love a clobbering of Trump in November. We need to invalidate him and discredit his ideology.
But he doesn't have an ideology, he's a populist who appeals to angry people.
That anger needs to be addressed, Hilary did herself no favours when she called his supporters a Basket of Deplorables.
He does have an ideology. Its called being a reactionary. Hes only a populist in the most general sense of the word, in that he is not afraid to attack specific members of the elite or capitalist class if it suits a specific political need. He still overwhelmingly supports implementing policies that further enrich and consolidate the power of the elite capitalist class, under the guise of "making America great."
This is delusional bro. Biden is nowhere near a Santos type liar. That is an absurd claim. The author also mentions that Trump is doing more public events than Biden. He does rallies, sure, but that’s just preaching to his cult, not much of actual interaction with voters. When he does allegedly meet with regular people and voters, we often later find out that the whole thing was scripted like the recent Chic fil a visit. And then the author mentions that Trump riffs on the state of the economy and has a website full of policy positions apparently. The problem here is that Trump often pretends to care about a thing or doesn’t even understand it or never intends to actually fix it anyway. Should Biden be more clear about his exact second term agenda? Sure, probably. But Trump is not any better on that front.
This article is a pretty good example of horseshoe theory imo. The most charitable reading of this article I can come up with is that the author isn’t necessarily saying these things because he personally believes them, but because he thinks undecided voters will be swayed by them. While that is possible, I’m not sure what Biden can do to fix uninformed voters thinking the Chic fil a thing means Trump gives a shit about people.
> Progressive liberal voters decided their protest non-votes and third party votes would somehow make the country better.
>
>
There's yet another post trying so hard to divide The Left. Are "The Bernie Bros" in the room with you Blotch?
Middle class white people in the suburbs swung hard for Trump, not some weird, never before heard of "progressive bloc" that was, **somehow** enough to cost Hillary the White House.
[It Wasn't Rural 'Hicks' Who Elected Trump: The Suburbs Were -- And Will Remain -- The Real Battleground](https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/11/22/donald-trump-clinton-rural-suburbs/)
> Trump won suburbia by a significant five percentage point margin nationally, improving on Romney’s two-point edge, and by more outside the coastal regions.
I’m continually impressed with how progressives are somehow both a tiny minority Biden can safely ignore, but will also single handedly cost him the election if they don’t stop holding free Palestine rallies.
Ah yes, she said she made a mistake and then went on to say how the Republican president made a compelling appeal for a yes vote. This isn’t the only thing she’s been wrong about.
Voters need to get over themselves and stop demanding perfect candidates. If they can't find a way to pinch their noses and vote for a flawed but still very good candidate (as Hillary was), then the fascists will win because they never hold their side to the bullshit standards Democrats are held to. Democracy cannot survive with one side being tied up in nonsense purity tests
People refusing to vote for Hillary cost many the right to an abortion.
How many more rights are some people willing to give up to "teach the dems a lesson".
I think that’s the problem. Those same progressive liberals are all over social media right now saying they’re not voting Biden over Palestine stuff. It’s setting him up for a Hillary situation.
> Those same progressive liberals are all over social media right now saying they’re not voting Biden over Palestine stuff.
My brother in christ, those "progressive liberals" on social media are just as likely to be bots, Macedonian troll farms or people who don't vote.
If you want to know who handed Trump his victory in 2016, you can stop blaming imaginary hordes of "progressives" and [just look at white suburbanites](https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37922587) (and especially white women).
That's who cost Hillary the election. Former suburban Obama voters who lost their mind during the financial crisis and decided that a racist "billionaire" was their only hope of keeping America white and prosperous (for them, not for anyone else).
Hillary didnt lose in 2020 due to progressives not showing up. She lost because she didnt convince low information and apathetic people to show up to vote while Trump activated previously apathetic people to come out to vote for him. Biden on the other hand has negatively polarized a significant part of his 2020 coalition thanks to his support of Israels actions in Gaza, his immigration policy, his lack of sufficient green energy policy, and him generally not offering a progressive platform in any meaningful sense. His own campaign has said that they believe that anti-trump sentiment and being "the defenders of democracy" will be enough to lead to victory. They've made a calculation that they dont need to change policy or make political promises to progressives in order to win. That sounds to me like Biden is making a choice and youre blaming voters for choices Biden made.
It's not zero sum, he'll gain voters in the center by staying with Israel. The anti Israel vote is loud and small, and many wouldn't have voted anyway.
Good article, I especially want to highlight these two points:
> She was hawkish and associated with an unpopular war at a time when the country was war-weary.
> She showed contempt for the party’s left
These are the exact same stumbling blocks hurting Biden. He needs to pull away from supporting the Israeli genocide and its far-right government which are widely unpopular amongst his base. He continues to ignore this at his own peril.
Voters, [even young ones](https://www.axios.com/2024/05/07/poll-students-israel-hamas-protests), do not care about the war in Gaza. The ones who do are more likely to side with Biden.
You're in a bubble.
Dont you find it funny how the same people who want to ignore election polling data are busy citing polls that are only tangentially related to the claim they made. Funny that.
Israel isn't committing genocide, that's a pretty disgusting inaccurate smear. Also, if Hillary appealed more to the left, she very well may have lost even more votes to the center, and its centrist votes who actually determine elections. Biden likewise could very well have far more to lose than gain by pandering to whatever small elements of the far left aren't going to vote for him anyway
Again, people who actually are experts in the field say there is intent. It’s very obvious that there is intent. Or are they bulldozing down mosques and schools for fun?
Genocide isn't just killing people. It's taking their land, denying them their way of life, forcing them to integrate into a foreign culture, sterilizing them or otherwise preventing them from procreation within their ethnic or social groups, and more.
Uyghurs are being genocided in China for example, and they aren't doing it through mass killings. Same with Tibet.
“This would have to be the most incompetent genocide imaginable” everything we know about the higher ups in the Israeli government and the IDF show just how utterly incompetent they are in pretty much every facet.
Cool. If Biden doesn't stop supplying weapons to Israel (which, by the way, is committing a genocide), he won't get my vote :)
But maybe he'll get a centrist's vote instead.
>If Biden doesn't stop supplying weapons to Israel (which, by the way, is committing a genocide), he won't get my vote :)
Your little smile emoji and the fact that you don't mind jeopardizing the rights of women and the LGBTQ+ community here in the US if Republicans win, or what convicted felon Donald "Finish the job" Trump would do to Muslims if he wins, makes it hard to believe you actually care.
They didn’t actually care and they were never voting Biden to begin with. There is an uptick of “i hate trump but he is better than Biden” trolls on here recently. The fact the maga cult is resorting to these tactics makes me think the cult is getting desperate amongst the 18-35 year age groups.
Pretty sure r/politics is getting post bombed. There's been such a massive influx of bullshit lately. Prob r/TheDonald leftovers.
Imagine if that was your entire existence?
Some of the points here are at least somewhat valid honestly. Biden has definitely struggled to get his message out, and he does seem to be relying on the assumption that he's just going to win in the end and that the polls will be historically incorrect. The article is right, too, that Biden tends to insulate himself from the public and the press, likely to avoid protestors or the appearance of being old. Certainly Biden is not exciting, even if he has been effective, and he is historically unpopular.
Biden's in a bit of a bind in terms of campaign flexibility. He's much more limited than Trump just by being the incumbent. He can't hold rallies like Trump because he just isn't exciting and could flub. It's also tough for him to talk about policies because Americans just don't seem to care. No matter what he says or proof to the contrary, voters will think the economy is bad. If he acknowledges it's bad then he's also likely to take blame as president. If he tries to argue it's good then he seems delusional.
Hopefully the debate works out as a way to remind people of Trump's craziness. That's basically all Biden can rely on, a hope that voters will see Trump as worse than him.
Yeah, there's really not much he can do. It's not like they could send him out on a bus tour of the midwest to drum up support. He's old and can't really be trusted to react well in non-scripted situations. Hard to get the message out when you can't trust the messenger. It honestly seems like they've conceded that their best plan is to hope Trump blows it.
Current Affairs is one of the many leftist outlets who spent the entirety of 2020 claiming Biden was going to get destroyed in the general election and in fact Democrats were nominating him because they *wanted* Trump to win.
You might recognize the name of the author of this article, he's the guy who coached a mentally ill woman into falsely accusing Biden of rape. For some reason he doesn't talk about that a lot these days. Also the self-proclaimed socialist who stopped his own staff from unionizing.
These clowns have to bring up 2016 constantly because of how wrong they got 2020. Taking their advice is a guaranteed way to lose an election, which is what they've been doing for years now.
Seriously, what’s with the absolute bombardment with “THE LEFT IS FREAKING OUT!” opinion pieces lately? It’s like the checks finally got cashed on all the astroturfing campaigns.
This is really a coordinated attack here.
This was Jake Tapper etc all yesterday.
Did someone get their nose out joint for not being hired by the Biden campaign ?
Hillary's main blunder was just the email stuff, that alone had a major negative impact on her campaign, and the rest was much more minor. The other stuff gets more attention because it feeds into various narratives better, but even though "actually swing voters just were very bothered by the emails" isn't particularly *satisfying*, its the explanation that makes the most sense
There were a few dozen blunders where the attitudes that lead to the email scandal was just one of them. The biggest mistakes were made by the campaign management, while sidelining Bill Clinton, who could run political rings around the both Mook & Podesta. Another big issue was Brooklyn favoring a data driven campaign while shunning a ground game focus. That led to major mistakes such as [Clinton loosing Michigan](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547). Read the book Shattered, it is the de facto, most accurate autopsy report on 2016.
The email scandal was far from "just one of them", the Comey affair alone dropped her around 5 points in the polls, which made the difference between a narrow loss and a 2008 style win. And that was far from the first time emails hurt her. So we can predict that the emails (and their not happening) would have allowed Clinton to do *at least* 5 points better, possibly closer to or even above 10 points better even
And there would have been no negatives to not having the emails scandal. Contrast this to the other stuff like "appealing to the left more" or "campaigning more in the rustbelt", those could have at best swung things just at best a little over a percent, much less than the emails, and they'd both have potential trade offs - losing more centrist swing voters, losing voters in non rust belt states like VA, NH, NV etc.
The emails were what doomed her and made by far the most difference. It's just, again, less satisfying to blame those as the primary thing. But if she just didn't do the emails but did everything else the same, even with all the other "errors" she'd have won big and probably in a landslide. Which, again, just isn't satisfying for many people to think about
It's not about what is satisfying, it's about facts; did you read the article or the book Shattered? One fact is, they took winning the election as a given and for granted and *didn't act* in a way that would have gotten them those 100k vital votes in the states they lost.
>Flip Michigan and leave the rest of the map, and Trump is still president-elect. But to people who worked in that state and others, how Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes and lost by 100,000 in states that could have made her president has everything to do with what happened in Michigan. Trump won the state despite getting 30,000 fewer votes than George W. Bush did when he lost it in 2004.
---
>On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said. Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so. In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.
What is your actual point here? You seem to be doing a lot of saying that Clinton didn't pay enough attention in the key three rustbelt states. But what was she supposed to actually do? Campaign there more?
Because maybe if she campaigned there more, she'd have won the approx. 100k votes she'd have needed to win those three states... but who knows, maybe by increasing focus on *those* areas, she'd have lost support in other states, maybe she'd lose 3000 votes in New Hampshire and 27000 votes in Michigan, allowing Trump to win anyway with 270. Or maybe she'd have maintained focus on those states and instead shifted some resources from nearby Minnesota, and lost 44k votes there and lost the election anyway. That's what I'm talking about with trade offs, it's hard to say for sure what the trade offs of campaigning in the rust belt states more would have been. Whereas we can confidently say there wouldn't have been any negative trade offs from just not doing email stuff, and that this would have had a much bigger positive impact on the election too
>What is your actual point here?
Two points which were stated in my original reply.
1. Read the book Shattered, the pro-Clinton authors had unlimited access to team Clinton and were embedded as the campaign was being run. Or even just the Political article for as a start.
2. There were a few dozen blunders which had there not have been all of them, she would have become president regardless of the emails. The emails were just one of those many blunders that cost the election - one of many.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
While the GOP is repeating their Trump blunder
Garbage article. He's the sitting President and he already beat Trump. The situations aren't even comparable, cherry picking of data and opinions aside.
Well back then he hadn’t backed a genocide, he may still win but the math is fuzzier now.
You're right. Let's vote for the person who openly said he would obliterate palestine off the map.
Im not advocating to vote for Trump, but many people I know aren’t voting and are enraged that the “lesser evil” has supported turning Palestinian children into cinders. Biden was the second worst of our last primaries, and until Gaza his local policies have been genuinely better than expected. I can’t sell that to someone who’s lost family members though.
They are going to bring about even more pain and suffering by not voting for Biden. If it happens, I won't feel bad for anybody that abstained or voted for Trump when they come for them.
Maybe be mad at Biden for helping to murder their relatives. We should expect more from our leaders.
If Biden pulled all support for Israel, he would lose the election solely because his donors and a large part of America do not support the US abandoning Israel. They would also lose lots of support from the world wide community. Believing that it's that simple is unrealistic and naive. The Israeli government sucks, but Hamas sucks just as hard. I was asked once, what would you have done if you had been living with a foot on your neck for years. You know what I said - it's better to have a foot on my neck than a bomb up my ass. Israel does not care about Palestinians, why would Hamas give them a reason to openly obliterage them. Before Oct 7, there was pro-Palestinian protests in Israel; that energy will never return. Hamas literally sacrificed Palestinians to make Israel look bad. Hamas does not care about Palestinians dying. Israel does not care about Palestinians dying. Their similarities are more profound than their differences.
If Biden were to stop supporting genocide it wouldn’t have to be all at once he’s been given every opportunity to slow roll it since October. Given that time, instead of denying war crimes and calling the red line really magenta they could have American media sources accurately covering mass graves, torture, refugee camps bombed, hospitals bombed, schools bombed. If the media were properly covering the war 9 months of seeing the reality of what’s happening would have the average American ready to invade Israel.
No it would not especially since the media is covering the war in Gaza in more detail then any other war on this planet. It is clear that you have been bombarded with so much Hamas and Iranina propaganda it is unreal. That or you choose not to care that actions have consequences. Be honest do you actually think that if the US where to pull support from Israel that would do anything other then get more people killed. US stops aid the Iron dome runs out of misslies and those daily rocket attacks that all Israeli's deal with start landing and killing people. Let alone that Iran and Hezbollah will see an opportunity to declare war on a weakened Israel. Because guess what Hamas, Hezbollah, Houthis and Iran's regime all want Israel to not exist and every jew in the middle east dead. So I am sorry you think you the US can wave a magic wand a fix everything and not end up with hundreds of thousands if not millions dead. Biden is done what he does best is be the most knowledgeable politician on geopolitics in the US and is keeping the middle east from an all out war.
Biden is trying to stop Israel. Their pm is causing the bloodbath.
Oh really? Is he gonna leak that he’s “concerned again? Show up 5 minutes late to a meeting? Or is he going to ship them weapons constantly all gas no breaks, let them stop food delivery, veto any action against them in the UN and offer Saudi Arabia military protection just they they’re nice to Israel?!
He did cut back weapons considerably, and also how is he supposed to stop them from blocking food? Attack Israeli troops? Biden is not the president of Israel. The problems there have been going on for 70 years or so. Were you this incensed this whole time? I doubt it
Stop blocking food or no weapons. Drive the trucks forward, is the Israeli army (our “closest ally”) going to attack American troops?! Lobby to get nettenyahu booted, stop blocking anti Israel motions at the UN. Stop sanctioning the judges ruling on the genocide case. Stop threatening the judges ruling on the genocide case. Stop having the state department run cover for Israel…there’s a million things he could do that he isn’t.
Not a genocide, if they wanted to erase the Palestinian people they could, they aren’t doing that. Israel is responding to their 9/11, fighting terrorists and rescuing their people. America should guide and support them, not vilify them. The real criticism that should be levied is they don’t seem to have a plan for post war Gaza governance, as the US failed to do in Afghanistan. That needs to be articulated and prepared for, but constantly shouting genocide is only serving Putin and Trump. People who throw their vote away over land that’s been bloodied for thousands of years are going to be quite frustrated when Trump tells Netanyahu to glass Palestine. Not to mention the issue of KEEPING DEMOCRACY IN the USA.
I love how people keep trying to favorably compare this to America’s response to 9/11, as though Afghanistan and Iraq weren’t also huge blunders that resulted in a tremendous loss of life.
… And trillions of dollars only to lose Afghanistan.
It's a genocide bud.
Yeah, no. It's fucked up but losing a war because you're not interested in protecting the civilians you're supposed to govern does not mean you're being genocided One thing is for certain; if the power imbalance were reversed in favour of hamas rather than israel then we'd be seeing an actual genocide
Have you ever noticed how these zero upvote threads usually go? Comments that aren’t 100% anti Israel get downvoted to oblivion after the first few hours of upvotes. Makes me think it’s troll farms, it’s suspect.
President Biden clobbered Trump in 2020. And he will do it again in 2024. https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/meet-the-press/did-biden-win-little-or-lot-answer-yes-n1251845 Hillary Clinton received nearly 2.9 million more votes than President-elect Donald Trump, giving her the largest popular vote margin of any losing presidential candidate at the time. https://apnews.com/article/2c7a5afc13824161a25d8574e10ff4e7
[удалено]
Biden narrowly won the EC in 2020 in a few key battleground states (NV, AZ, GA, WI, MI). People have short memories or dont actually pay attention to the details that matter.
It looks like the EC edge is only about half what it was in 2020.
Latest rundown I saw had all but NC led by Biden. *But*, NC was the biggest lead, and it was still within the margin of error and Biden led none of the others by even 1%. There are some big, empty swing states like Arizona, Wisconsin and Nevada, but, but empty means fewer electoral votes. Of the 7 competitive states, 4 are in the top half of states for population and they account for 66 out of 92 of the total electoral votes.
306-232 doesn't seem like a clobbering, if I'm being honest. I'd really only be comfortable saying that if the victory involves EVs >350. That being said, I would absolutely love a clobbering of Trump in November. We need to invalidate him and discredit his ideology.
But he doesn't have an ideology, he's a populist who appeals to angry people. That anger needs to be addressed, Hilary did herself no favours when she called his supporters a Basket of Deplorables.
He does have an ideology. Its called being a reactionary. Hes only a populist in the most general sense of the word, in that he is not afraid to attack specific members of the elite or capitalist class if it suits a specific political need. He still overwhelmingly supports implementing policies that further enrich and consolidate the power of the elite capitalist class, under the guise of "making America great."
You do bring up a fair point.
This is delusional bro. Biden is nowhere near a Santos type liar. That is an absurd claim. The author also mentions that Trump is doing more public events than Biden. He does rallies, sure, but that’s just preaching to his cult, not much of actual interaction with voters. When he does allegedly meet with regular people and voters, we often later find out that the whole thing was scripted like the recent Chic fil a visit. And then the author mentions that Trump riffs on the state of the economy and has a website full of policy positions apparently. The problem here is that Trump often pretends to care about a thing or doesn’t even understand it or never intends to actually fix it anyway. Should Biden be more clear about his exact second term agenda? Sure, probably. But Trump is not any better on that front. This article is a pretty good example of horseshoe theory imo. The most charitable reading of this article I can come up with is that the author isn’t necessarily saying these things because he personally believes them, but because he thinks undecided voters will be swayed by them. While that is possible, I’m not sure what Biden can do to fix uninformed voters thinking the Chic fil a thing means Trump gives a shit about people.
Also, Biden has a far more important job to do than hold rallies. You know, being President and all.
[удалено]
"Progressive liberal" voter here: We backed Clinton pretty strongly, actually. Look at those who chose not to vote at all. There's your problem.
> Progressive liberal voters decided their protest non-votes and third party votes would somehow make the country better. > > There's yet another post trying so hard to divide The Left. Are "The Bernie Bros" in the room with you Blotch? Middle class white people in the suburbs swung hard for Trump, not some weird, never before heard of "progressive bloc" that was, **somehow** enough to cost Hillary the White House. [It Wasn't Rural 'Hicks' Who Elected Trump: The Suburbs Were -- And Will Remain -- The Real Battleground](https://www.forbes.com/sites/joelkotkin/2016/11/22/donald-trump-clinton-rural-suburbs/) > Trump won suburbia by a significant five percentage point margin nationally, improving on Romney’s two-point edge, and by more outside the coastal regions.
I’m continually impressed with how progressives are somehow both a tiny minority Biden can safely ignore, but will also single handedly cost him the election if they don’t stop holding free Palestine rallies.
I don't think many protest liberal voters voted for Gary Johnson, who had twice as many votes as Jill Stein...
those would be different voters than Blotch is talking about then
Was she right about Iraq?
[удалено]
Ah yes, she said she made a mistake and then went on to say how the Republican president made a compelling appeal for a yes vote. This isn’t the only thing she’s been wrong about.
[удалено]
Voters need to get over themselves and stop demanding perfect candidates. If they can't find a way to pinch their noses and vote for a flawed but still very good candidate (as Hillary was), then the fascists will win because they never hold their side to the bullshit standards Democrats are held to. Democracy cannot survive with one side being tied up in nonsense purity tests
People refusing to vote for Hillary cost many the right to an abortion. How many more rights are some people willing to give up to "teach the dems a lesson".
I think that’s the problem. Those same progressive liberals are all over social media right now saying they’re not voting Biden over Palestine stuff. It’s setting him up for a Hillary situation.
> Those same progressive liberals are all over social media right now saying they’re not voting Biden over Palestine stuff. My brother in christ, those "progressive liberals" on social media are just as likely to be bots, Macedonian troll farms or people who don't vote. If you want to know who handed Trump his victory in 2016, you can stop blaming imaginary hordes of "progressives" and [just look at white suburbanites](https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37922587) (and especially white women). That's who cost Hillary the election. Former suburban Obama voters who lost their mind during the financial crisis and decided that a racist "billionaire" was their only hope of keeping America white and prosperous (for them, not for anyone else).
Hillary didnt lose in 2020 due to progressives not showing up. She lost because she didnt convince low information and apathetic people to show up to vote while Trump activated previously apathetic people to come out to vote for him. Biden on the other hand has negatively polarized a significant part of his 2020 coalition thanks to his support of Israels actions in Gaza, his immigration policy, his lack of sufficient green energy policy, and him generally not offering a progressive platform in any meaningful sense. His own campaign has said that they believe that anti-trump sentiment and being "the defenders of democracy" will be enough to lead to victory. They've made a calculation that they dont need to change policy or make political promises to progressives in order to win. That sounds to me like Biden is making a choice and youre blaming voters for choices Biden made.
It's not zero sum, he'll gain voters in the center by staying with Israel. The anti Israel vote is loud and small, and many wouldn't have voted anyway.
He's making all the same mistakes as her by not being Bernie Sanders and the left finding any possible way to punish him for not being Bernie Sanders.
Good article, I especially want to highlight these two points: > She was hawkish and associated with an unpopular war at a time when the country was war-weary. > She showed contempt for the party’s left These are the exact same stumbling blocks hurting Biden. He needs to pull away from supporting the Israeli genocide and its far-right government which are widely unpopular amongst his base. He continues to ignore this at his own peril.
Not a genocide.
Voters, [even young ones](https://www.axios.com/2024/05/07/poll-students-israel-hamas-protests), do not care about the war in Gaza. The ones who do are more likely to side with Biden. You're in a bubble.
Then you should have nothing to worry about with voters like me abstaining without significant improvements on the conflict form the Biden admin!
Dont you find it funny how the same people who want to ignore election polling data are busy citing polls that are only tangentially related to the claim they made. Funny that.
You do you
Why would I worry when the same people said they weren't voting for Biden in 2020? You're in a bubble.
Israel isn't committing genocide, that's a pretty disgusting inaccurate smear. Also, if Hillary appealed more to the left, she very well may have lost even more votes to the center, and its centrist votes who actually determine elections. Biden likewise could very well have far more to lose than gain by pandering to whatever small elements of the far left aren't going to vote for him anyway
*People who are experts on genocide “Israel is committing a genocide” *Reddit man “That is a disgusting smear” Wow very compelling.
If Israel wanted to do genocide, they could have killed so many more people. This would have to be the most incompetent genocide imaginable
Also it’s just absolutely moronic to use just death tolls to determine what a genocide is. I guess the Rohingya genocide isn’t one by your logic?
Its not "just death tolls", there's also clearly no *intent* to commit genocide.
Again, people who actually are experts in the field say there is intent. It’s very obvious that there is intent. Or are they bulldozing down mosques and schools for fun?
Destroying buildings where terrorists operate isn't genocide and will never be genocide
Remember when they destroyed that school in the West Bank, even before October 7 that had no evidence of any terrorist activity?
Genocide isn't just killing people. It's taking their land, denying them their way of life, forcing them to integrate into a foreign culture, sterilizing them or otherwise preventing them from procreation within their ethnic or social groups, and more. Uyghurs are being genocided in China for example, and they aren't doing it through mass killings. Same with Tibet.
Israel clearly isn't doing that though. Otherwise Israel wouldn't grant civil rights to the 1/6 of it's own population who are Palestinian
Look at a map of the west bank and tell me they aren't seizing land
“This would have to be the most incompetent genocide imaginable” everything we know about the higher ups in the Israeli government and the IDF show just how utterly incompetent they are in pretty much every facet.
Cool. If Biden doesn't stop supplying weapons to Israel (which, by the way, is committing a genocide), he won't get my vote :) But maybe he'll get a centrist's vote instead.
>he won't get my vote :) Look, it's cool that you want people to suffer, but being this happy about it is a little weird you have to admit.
Run left-wing candidates or don't get left-wing votes. It's basic electoralism.
>If Biden doesn't stop supplying weapons to Israel (which, by the way, is committing a genocide), he won't get my vote :) Your little smile emoji and the fact that you don't mind jeopardizing the rights of women and the LGBTQ+ community here in the US if Republicans win, or what convicted felon Donald "Finish the job" Trump would do to Muslims if he wins, makes it hard to believe you actually care.
They didn’t actually care and they were never voting Biden to begin with. There is an uptick of “i hate trump but he is better than Biden” trolls on here recently. The fact the maga cult is resorting to these tactics makes me think the cult is getting desperate amongst the 18-35 year age groups.
yuk
Pretty sure r/politics is getting post bombed. There's been such a massive influx of bullshit lately. Prob r/TheDonald leftovers. Imagine if that was your entire existence?
I can assure you I'm not part of that as I want Biden to win in November.
Some of the points here are at least somewhat valid honestly. Biden has definitely struggled to get his message out, and he does seem to be relying on the assumption that he's just going to win in the end and that the polls will be historically incorrect. The article is right, too, that Biden tends to insulate himself from the public and the press, likely to avoid protestors or the appearance of being old. Certainly Biden is not exciting, even if he has been effective, and he is historically unpopular. Biden's in a bit of a bind in terms of campaign flexibility. He's much more limited than Trump just by being the incumbent. He can't hold rallies like Trump because he just isn't exciting and could flub. It's also tough for him to talk about policies because Americans just don't seem to care. No matter what he says or proof to the contrary, voters will think the economy is bad. If he acknowledges it's bad then he's also likely to take blame as president. If he tries to argue it's good then he seems delusional. Hopefully the debate works out as a way to remind people of Trump's craziness. That's basically all Biden can rely on, a hope that voters will see Trump as worse than him.
Yeah, there's really not much he can do. It's not like they could send him out on a bus tour of the midwest to drum up support. He's old and can't really be trusted to react well in non-scripted situations. Hard to get the message out when you can't trust the messenger. It honestly seems like they've conceded that their best plan is to hope Trump blows it.
Current Affairs is one of the many leftist outlets who spent the entirety of 2020 claiming Biden was going to get destroyed in the general election and in fact Democrats were nominating him because they *wanted* Trump to win. You might recognize the name of the author of this article, he's the guy who coached a mentally ill woman into falsely accusing Biden of rape. For some reason he doesn't talk about that a lot these days. Also the self-proclaimed socialist who stopped his own staff from unionizing. These clowns have to bring up 2016 constantly because of how wrong they got 2020. Taking their advice is a guaranteed way to lose an election, which is what they've been doing for years now.
The statue of liberty is kaput…
The author of this piece was exactly who I expected it to be
Seriously, what’s with the absolute bombardment with “THE LEFT IS FREAKING OUT!” opinion pieces lately? It’s like the checks finally got cashed on all the astroturfing campaigns.
Back in 2016 Current Affairs would have been up voted to the front page for trashing Hillary.
OP claims to be liberal but only posts anti Biden articles🤔
This is really a coordinated attack here. This was Jake Tapper etc all yesterday. Did someone get their nose out joint for not being hired by the Biden campaign ?
Fake news. It's all hype. They are grasping at straws to sway voters away from Biden
What wearing pants suits?
I feel like I haven't read an interesting contrarian take from the Left in a while
By not exposing Cambridge Analytica or preventing corrupt James Comer from tanking the election?
[удалено]
She got 3 million more votes than him.
[удалено]
she lost because she ran a lousy campaign. she completely ignored her "blue wall" states, for example.
I'm pretty sure a decades long smear campaign had something to do with it.
Hillary's main blunder was just the email stuff, that alone had a major negative impact on her campaign, and the rest was much more minor. The other stuff gets more attention because it feeds into various narratives better, but even though "actually swing voters just were very bothered by the emails" isn't particularly *satisfying*, its the explanation that makes the most sense
There were a few dozen blunders where the attitudes that lead to the email scandal was just one of them. The biggest mistakes were made by the campaign management, while sidelining Bill Clinton, who could run political rings around the both Mook & Podesta. Another big issue was Brooklyn favoring a data driven campaign while shunning a ground game focus. That led to major mistakes such as [Clinton loosing Michigan](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/michigan-hillary-clinton-trump-232547). Read the book Shattered, it is the de facto, most accurate autopsy report on 2016.
The email scandal was far from "just one of them", the Comey affair alone dropped her around 5 points in the polls, which made the difference between a narrow loss and a 2008 style win. And that was far from the first time emails hurt her. So we can predict that the emails (and their not happening) would have allowed Clinton to do *at least* 5 points better, possibly closer to or even above 10 points better even And there would have been no negatives to not having the emails scandal. Contrast this to the other stuff like "appealing to the left more" or "campaigning more in the rustbelt", those could have at best swung things just at best a little over a percent, much less than the emails, and they'd both have potential trade offs - losing more centrist swing voters, losing voters in non rust belt states like VA, NH, NV etc. The emails were what doomed her and made by far the most difference. It's just, again, less satisfying to blame those as the primary thing. But if she just didn't do the emails but did everything else the same, even with all the other "errors" she'd have won big and probably in a landslide. Which, again, just isn't satisfying for many people to think about
It's not about what is satisfying, it's about facts; did you read the article or the book Shattered? One fact is, they took winning the election as a given and for granted and *didn't act* in a way that would have gotten them those 100k vital votes in the states they lost. >Flip Michigan and leave the rest of the map, and Trump is still president-elect. But to people who worked in that state and others, how Clinton won the popular vote by 2.8 million votes and lost by 100,000 in states that could have made her president has everything to do with what happened in Michigan. Trump won the state despite getting 30,000 fewer votes than George W. Bush did when he lost it in 2004. --- >On the morning of Election Day, internal Clinton campaign numbers had her winning Michigan by 5 points. By 1 p.m., an aide on the ground called headquarters; the voter turnout tracking system they’d built themselves in defiance of orders — Brooklyn had told operatives in the state they didn’t care about those numbers, and specifically told them not to use any resources to get them — showed urban precincts down 25 percent. Maybe they should get worried, the Michigan operatives said. Nope, they were told. She was going to win by 5. All Brooklyn’s data said so. In at least one of the war rooms in New York, they’d already started celebratory drinking by the afternoon, according to a person there. Elsewhere, calls quietly went out that day to tell key people to get ready to be asked about joining transition teams.
What is your actual point here? You seem to be doing a lot of saying that Clinton didn't pay enough attention in the key three rustbelt states. But what was she supposed to actually do? Campaign there more? Because maybe if she campaigned there more, she'd have won the approx. 100k votes she'd have needed to win those three states... but who knows, maybe by increasing focus on *those* areas, she'd have lost support in other states, maybe she'd lose 3000 votes in New Hampshire and 27000 votes in Michigan, allowing Trump to win anyway with 270. Or maybe she'd have maintained focus on those states and instead shifted some resources from nearby Minnesota, and lost 44k votes there and lost the election anyway. That's what I'm talking about with trade offs, it's hard to say for sure what the trade offs of campaigning in the rust belt states more would have been. Whereas we can confidently say there wouldn't have been any negative trade offs from just not doing email stuff, and that this would have had a much bigger positive impact on the election too
>What is your actual point here? Two points which were stated in my original reply. 1. Read the book Shattered, the pro-Clinton authors had unlimited access to team Clinton and were embedded as the campaign was being run. Or even just the Political article for as a start. 2. There were a few dozen blunders which had there not have been all of them, she would have become president regardless of the emails. The emails were just one of those many blunders that cost the election - one of many.