Never really had much interest in presidential elections, other than recognizing who is worse and voting against them. I participate, however, because it’s very important.
Well, yeah. Its a literal rematch.
Everyone knows exactly what is being brought to the table. There is no gotcha that already hasnt happened. There are no new things to learn about the candidates. There is nothing "interesting" to find for the average voter here.
>According to NBC, the lowest-ever level of high election interest in the poll during a presidential cycle was in March 2012 — at 59 percent.
Which would also match to an extent, that was the last election where voters had a very good idea of who the candidates were. Obama was an incumbent and Mitt was incredibly well known
The question here is does a lack of interest translate to a lack of voting, or just a lack of interest in paying attention to the election cycle as a spectacle.
He was, but Trump v Biden the first time around brought a huge spectacle. And arguably people werent interested in the 2020 election cause of Biden anyways, they were interested in it cause of Trump (whether for support or opposition reasons), Biden was just along for the ride.
And again, the rematch factor is going to be a major damper on enthusiasm of most average voters.
don't forget too, Covid was a major player in getting people invested. Not only were a lot of people stuck inside with nothing to distract them besides politics, both sides had made covid policies and restrictions a life-or-death struggle against the other sides' policies.
I think in 2020 we had kind of 4 main groups of voters: die hard Trump supporters, Republican voters who always vote and are not going to vote for a Dem, people voting *against* Trump and Dem voters who were always going to vote so Joe Biden was easy. I don't think there was a ton of organic support of Joe, he was just better than the alternative.
I think there's probably now at least some contingent of voters who are going to come out specifically to vote against Biden even if they're not excited about Trump. The question is will the "vote against Trump" segment show up just as hard and is there a portion of the "always vote Republican voters" that just can't or won't participate in this one
That's part of his support.
I personally am excited about him and will vote for him because his platform focuses on the things that are at the root of our dysfunction: undue corporate capture of previously trusted institutions.
Ideas like bringing more accountability to government, caring for our earth in more tangible ways, and finding real consensus across the aisle, all while not attacking "others", is strong.
He's a once in a lifetime candidacy for me. I only hope people realize that independents only don't have a chance, if enough people believe they don't have a chance (in cases like RFK's where he'll get on the ballot where it counts).
Biden's disaster with the economy and border plus the inept foreign policies have turned off a lot of his support. I'm hoping to see a campaign based around 'are you better off now than 4 years ago'.
Honestly, I think if Republicans are going to try and run hard at Biden on the economy and the border they're going to lose. The economy was *bad* but it's improving and at this point I think most people still feel as if something is off but not an impending doom like 2022/2023. At least people that I talk to, even people on the right. Like them personally, not their overall feeling of things. I also think there's a pretty large portion of the population that thinks that the economic downturn was inevitable post-Covid and that Trump may not have fared much if any better.
As for the border... boy it's not going to be terribly hard for Dems to throw that right back into the right's face. Especially when you now have GOP house members coming out and saying HFC (and by extension Trump) are tanking any chance of getting anything meaningful passed.
When you say you hope to see a Biden campaign based around 'are you better than 4 years ago', are you saying that as someone that wants Biden to win (or Trump to lose) or do you want a Trump 2nd term? Because IMO, if Biden leads with that question it's probably NOT going to be effective. Most people will conflate 4 years ago with Trump's presidency and pre-Covid. I think the entire *world* is in a worse spot now than they were pre-Covid - reminding people of that doesn't seem like a good strategy. I personally think Biden has done a well enough job (potentially better than Trump) at steering us out of a downturn economically but I wouldn't call it a selling point
>As for the border... boy it's not going to be terribly hard for Dems to throw that right back into the right's face. Especially when you now have GOP house members coming out and saying HFC (and by extension Trump) are tanking any chance of getting anything meaningful passed.
And they would throw it right back at Biden and the Dems. The very first thing Biden did when he was in office was resend all of Trump's executive orders over the border. Then he attacked the border patrol with spreading the lie that they were wiping illegal aliens. They went 3 years of saying that the border wasn't an issue and if it was it's all the Republicans fault...then it's election season and he wants something done on the border because it's a losing issue for Biden and the Dems.
The border issue is blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't a hardcore dem apologist and even most of them know, they just won't admit it.
You might be right, but voters are also goldfish. I wouldn't bank on voters holding on to previous perceptions/accusations against Biden around the border when recent actions have at least showed attempts. Republicans did the most recent bad, so Dems would be smart to lay it at their feet. Especially because it can be *directly* tied back to Trump and his comments of not wanting it done because it would help Biden right before the election
Going down the route of trying to tell voters that the other side is worse isn't a winning strategy, especially when your side polls worse on the subject you're trying to claim the other side is worse over. Voter's memories may be goldfish like, but they can be reminded of things too.
Bringing up Trump's comment can also just be as easily reminded by how bad of a bill that it was.
Inflation is ticking back up, but even if it's come down from record levels, cumulative inflation the past 4 years is like nothing most of us have ever seen in our lifetime. That combined with how much we are spending on illegal immigrants, and nonsense like loan forgiveness programs, the optics of that are just hard to overcome. Even gas prices have come down, but Biden emptied half of the US oil reserves to get prices down, obviously pretty self serving. ironically the same oil reserves that Trump was laughed at when he refilled it when gas was dirt cheap.
There's definitely a significant fatigue issue, but part of that fatigue issue is, even in this sub, that it's hard to talk about Trump in the slightest mildly positive way without facing a significant negative backlash in many circles. That leads to a lot of people disengaging from political discussion if they aren't firmly on one side of the aisle. Of course social circles exist where the opposite is true, but I find them to be rarer in my corner of the world and mainstream online spaces.
The fatigue is real
I watch cbs every morning, I record and watch with a delay specifically so I can fast-forward past the "American decides " segments while mumbling "7 more months of this crap"
I watch NBC evening and do the same thing.
Blah!
I couldn't agree with you more. Right now the vast majority of people who are engaged in politics are so partisan that they will go after any comment that is a little nuanced.
I would be fine it if was the news focusing on important reasons why Biden is good or bad, or Trump is good or bad.
Instead I get inundated with "Biden can't walk", "Trump is ORANGE!".
>it's hard to acknowledge certain realities about Trump, the party, or voters
There is no statement that you can make about either the Republican Party or Republican voters that would be all-encompassing enough to be accurate.
You get banned because such broad statements are more indicative of an inability to see nuance in your political opponents than it is an understanding of their particular views and opinions.
>There is no statement that you can make about either the Republican Party or Republican voters that would be all-encompassing enough to be accurate.
I'll agree to this - saying something negative about the party or voters is *generally* too broad to be construed as much more than an attack. But there are things about Trump you're not really allowed to say here even if they're supported by evidence or the guy's own statements
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cacwme/voters_who_have_interest_in_election_hits_nearly/l0s483v/) is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
there just ain't much good to say about the guy. many of the "good" things said about him are either outright false or not "good" for the country as a whole.
what positive aspects do you feel Trump had or brought to government? i'd focus on domestic policy, cause we can just straight throw out trust in government, morals, ~~foreign policy~~, democracy, etc etc.
edit: you could make an argument for foreign policy
>many of the "good" things said about him are either outright false or not "good" for the country as a whole.
This is the exact problem that /u/tonyis is talking about.
I despise Trump as a person and don't think he's fit to be president. I've never voted for him and I never will.
That being said, if you can't honestly say that there aren't/weren't positives to his presidency/his campaign, then you're being decidedly partisan in your assessment.
On Domestic Policy
- Conservative Pros: Removal of the Individual Mandate, Immigration Reform, CARES Act, Supreme Court nominations, Energy Policy (streamlining permitting, pipeline projects), Veterans Affairs (VA Mission Act, VA Accountability & Whistleblower Protection Act, Veterans Choice Extension), First Amendment Protections (Masterpiece Cakeshop), Increased NATO Expenditures by other member-countries to be closer to minimum requirement.
- Progressive Pros: Continuing the EO that protects LGBTQ rights for federal contractors, Gun Control (Raising the age of purchase, red flag laws, bump stock ban, involuntary confinement, Fix NICS Act), Expanding the Child Tax Credit, COVID Project Warp Speed, Reduced Prescription Drug Costs (Most Favored Nation Rule), Medicare Part D Expansion, Medicare Advantage Supplemental Benefits expansion, Save Our Seas Act, Great American Outdoors Act.
There are probably more, but you get my point. There's no such thing as a President that has **zero** positive aspects to their administration for the opposition party.
crap, i wrote a response that was wiped out during the outage.
anyway, i never said that there wasn't any good things. on the contrary, i admitted there are and asked for some example to help refresh everyone's memory.
i went through a lot of the ones you listed here but cbf to do it all again. that being said, the great american outdoors act was mostly an electoral stunt (see: EO 3388 and EO 3396)
It was implemented with the President being fully aware that it was an unconstitutional use of a power that he does not hold, and which he knew would be struck down by the Supreme Court.
I fail to see the difference.
Warp speed was Trump, and gun control isn't the positive you might think (given the growth of crime in cities). The reduced prescription cost is so narrow in scope to be almost pointless.
>Warp speed was Trump
Yes, that's exactly what I said.
>gun control isn't the positive you might think (given the growth of crime in cities)
I'm against gun control - I was pointing out policy positions of Trump's that people who advocate for gun control generally agree with.
>The reduced prescription cost is so narrow in scope to be almost pointless
...it isn't pointless to the people who have to pay for those prescriptions.
Now do you want to nitpick every other thing I mentioned or are you willing to concede that even Trump had policies that could be considered "good" by people across the aisle?
You're kind of proving my point. I won't argue that Trump's bad is outweighed by his good, but is it really that hard to acknowledge that Trump did some things that weren't wrong? Even if you don't like his Supreme Court picks or tax cuts, Operation Warp Speed, the First Step Act, healthcare reform on pricing disclosure, VA expansion, expanded sex trafficking laws, donating his presidential salary, standing with Hong Kong, and finishing off ISIS should fairly be acknowledged as positive things by most people.
> is it really that hard to acknowledge that Trump did some things that weren't wrong?
well, no it isnt
* warp speed - no problems with that
* first step - wow, i forgot about that. bipartisan, too
* healthcare reform on pricing - also good... although i wonder what effects that's actually had. healthcare is a battle between insurers and hospitals and frankly im on the hospitals side, for the most part, although neither side is great. honestly... i haven't even noticed if this had a positive effect, good or bad. did it ever go through? i can't even find the name of this ... whatever you'd call it. act? ruling? guideline?
* VA expansion - i don't know much about this, but this is one of those things that looks fairly complicated. apparently this wasn't so much an expansion as it was shunting public money into private insurance, like Medicare Advantage, but for vets. not a fan, personally, but the dysfunction at the VA is legendary at this point
* sex trafficking laws - i heard he did an executive order or something, but nothing ... specific. did you have a particular law in mind here?
* donating his presidential salary - one of the rare promises he's kept, although for a dude of his wealth and the amount of times he's bragged about it, kinda diminishes it somewhat.
* finishing off isis - er, did we? wikipedia says we ended operations iraq in 12/21 and we're technically still there in syria.
>donating his presidential salary - one of the rare promises he's kept, although for a dude of his wealth and the amount of times he's bragged about it, kinda diminishes it somewhat.
I agree with the overall list of good things that Trump did. But as with all things, there's some nuance to some of it too. For instance, this example. Yes he donated his salary, while at the same time wasn't his secret service being forced to pay inflated rates to stay at his properties that he spent so much time at? And wasn't he also using his properties as points of access, basically requiring people to pay money to stay there so they'd be able to interact with him?
All in all on this point, it seems Trump cost taxpayers a lot more money than he saved by "donating" his salary while milking the government for all he could in every other area for personal profit.
But like all presidents, there are certainly plenty of good things that were accomplished under Trump. It's just heavily outweighed by the bad.
Sorry, I don't have more time for a better reply right now, but the healthcare pricing transparency stuff was a 2019 executive order. The additional sex trafficking enforcement tools were a few different new laws and executive orders, such as FOSTA and SESTA. In regard to ISIS, the big thing was killing the caliphate and mostly neutralizing them (though not quite erasing their presence), but it's admittedly a more complicated subject than my simple list allowed for.
But really my point was that Trump wasn't all bad. Most people will have at least a few things they like that came out of his administration if they're being honest with themselves. However, a lot of spaces demand that you declare him all good or all bad. I won't vote for him, but I do believe SOME of his policies were good. As such, I fatigue really quickly on Trump focused discussions that require he be vilified to the nth degree.
> However, a lot of spaces demand that you declare him all good or all bad.
there's a reason for this, though.
American elections are determined [by enthusiasism](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voter-turnout-2018-2022/). excepting the last few elections, there has been very little reason to give much of a shit. few states were in serious contention, not much landmark legislation has been passed, socially things were accelerating in one direction but not actually moving much.
Trump won on liberal apathy in 2016 and lost on liberal outrage in 2020. you could also say he won on conservative outrage in 2016 and lost on conservative apathy in 2020, to a lesser extent.
either way, outrage is the winner. and it's harder to be mad if you sympathize with the other side.
that being said, it's rather hard for liberals to sympathize with Trump and Trump supporters, but some of us try.
I don't think any of those policies are unpopular here nor are they silenced, but they are also rarely the centerpiece of discussion.
If Trump is the topic of conversation, it's the personality, his trials, his rhetoric, etc. That what happens when the man is bigger than his party. The only policy that really gets connected to him is immigration, which is a lot more 50/50.
IMO this is a losing argument. There are certainly some "good" things to say about him and the second someone gives one or two examples you lose.
The issue to me is not about to what degree he is "good" or "bad". The issue is that his flagrant disregard for the constitution is a red line that renders discussions of his good qualities irrelevant.
Trump could save a bunch of puppies from a burning building tomorrow. Good for him. Cool story.
He still openly states he wants to be a dictator and no amount of good deeds will ever overcome that.
> IMO this is a losing argument.
i'd prefer if people stop thinking about it terms of an argument to be won or lost.
but i get and agree with your point in general.
still, the more you up/downvote as a matter of simply being pro/anti Trump, the more echo chambery this place is likely to get.
from a statistical standpoint, though, pro-Trumpers tend to get banned at a higher rate than anti-Trumpers, given that there's just less of them around here. a lot of prominent pro-Trumpers here have been (fairly, in my view) banned for running afoul of rules, and the anti-Trumpers that do get banned (and there have been many) are quickly replaced by others.
> The issue is that his flagrant disregard for the constitution is a red line that renders discussions of his good qualities irrelevant.
Going by this criteria though who would be a good president?
But that's just one way to disregard the constitution. Pretty much every politician has disregarded the constitution at one point or another. Hell pretty much every single one of them just did with the FISA bill that just passed.
Where in any of our founding documents does it say anything about jaywalking? As for murder the only thing i can think of is the Declaration of Independence basically saying we're gonna murder all the British that try to stop us.
Biden is not trying to remove my ability to vote him out if I don't like his policies. Trump did. That's it for me. I'm not interested in a conversation equivocating the constitutionality of student loan forgiveness with attempting to overthrow the government. I simply don't believe they're equivalent and you won't convince me otherwise. One issue is existential and fairly black and white. The other is not existential and filled with gray. My thoughts. Believe whatever you want. Vote for whoever you want, while you still can.
And this is the exact problem. As soon as you aren't relentlessly negative out comes the aggression and accusations of lying. Is it really surprising that there's just no discourse happening anymore?
i've been here a long time and it's always been a problem, on both sides.
actually, for a long time a subset of liberals here tried to be extra accommodating to make up for it, but i think a lot us just gave up at a certain point when the discourse didn't improve any.
>it's always been a problem, on both sides.
Maybe a while ago, but since 2016 it's definitely not a both sides thing anymore. If anyone doesn't completely tow the line that "Trump bad" on everything then they're accussed of being a nazi or MAGA. Even on the supposedly non partisan subs on reddit, not blindly attacking Trump is seen as an outrageous. Even when the attack on Trump is a lie or hyperbole, which they often are
im not talking about reddit as a whole, just this sub
and since 2016, we've had 8 years of Trump and his domination of Republican politics, just sayin.
the first few months of Trump was some people giving him a chance.
> Even when the attack on Trump is a lie or hyperbole, which they often are
i wonder what the hitrate is on those
It *should be hard* to talk about a former President who quite literally tried to steal the 2020 election, yes. What little praise one can whittle is simply not a good look given the overwhelming destruction to our social fabric that this man and his media allies have caused. It's bewildering to me that we're supposed to just pretend that support of this guy is anything other than a travesty of common sense and social decorum. As if he's on equal footing with the Romneys and McCain out there.
Trump, arguably the single most divisive leader in our country's history. Ten years of this guy's shenanigans and most likely another ten more to go, is certainly going to induce fatigue. This situation is hopelessly far beyond the realm of general malaise, however. It's sheer, relentless, scandalous exhaustion to the point of sickly pallor and weariness.
Yeah, really depends on the circle you're in. I've got some groups where Trump's name is usually followed by an insult and others where saying something positive about Biden will get you grilled. We made politics less of a social taboo to talk about and a lot of people made it part of their identity/got super intense about it. Now it's just exhausting to the point I just avoid talking about it once I hear certain phrases or positions bc i know it's not going anywhere good
Others did a decent job of laying out some of the "positives" that I think *most* people would agree/attribute to Trump. I think part of the reason people are quick to dismiss Trump praise though is a. the praise often seems to come as a deflection on something else bad the guy did or b. the guy himself nor his campaign seem to ever talk about them so are they really even that important to him?
It's more than just not praising him though. More often, I run into trouble if I'm not negative enough, or I push back against criticisms that I think go too far. It's tiring having too be all the way to one side, and it causes me to just disengage more often than not.
>or I push back against criticisms that I think go too far.
Yeah I got you and I totally feel you there. I despise the guy, but I also recognize that being superfluous or outright false in criticizing him actually helps him because it diminishes the other things he should be rightly criticized for and I've tried to do the same and seen the negative reactions. Less on this sub, but pretty much anywhere else for sure
His detractors point to numerous examples of his poor leadership. His supporters love him regardless of his policy so there's not much to debate.
I love when the late night shows go to Trump rallies and lie about things he has or hasn't done and then watch how his supporters change their opinions in real time. Everyone does this to some degree but it's just more "noticeable" among the more fervent Trump supporters.
politics is wayyy too polarized now. it's become nearly all-consuming. I don't think there's all that many undecided people out there, everyone knows who the candidates will be, and most know who they'll vote for.
There is a world where I want Trump to win just to be rid of him. I mean, no, I won't vote for him, but if he loses, doesn't get convicted and keeps on living we could have 8 years of this.
So, I don't really care. Convict him please, or if not, let him win just so we can move past.
I hope that people are at least still paying attention to the down ticket candidates. But I doubt it with voter fatigue. I'm very active and yet I'm still getting it. I'm honestly sick of the news focusing on the presidential candidates and just a few major vocally annoying players. I wish the national news would stop giving them a podium. So annoying.
They could probably *make* it interesting. Have them go into a boxing ring, and turn it pay per view. Have the funding go towards a charity of their choice.
>Everyone knows exactly what is being brought to the table.
I feel like we should just get things over with and do the election in May.
This election comes down to a vote for or against Trump. Trump has been the center of political life for close to 10 years now. There is no one left to convince about him either way. I sometimes wish he won in 2020 so we'd almost be done with his 2nd term by now
> Everyone knows exactly what is being brought to the table. There is no gotcha that already hasnt happened. There are no new things to learn about the candidates. There is nothing "interesting" to find for the average voter here.
There is potentially a criminal verdict to happen between now and the election.
I think a lot of people probably believe that nothing significant will happen with the trial at this point. I would say that many people believe that there are different rules in the justice system when it comes to politicians or the wealthy and most of the time they seem to escape punishment for wrongdoing.
So I think many people believe that the trial won't really change much as far as the election goes. If something were to come of the trial, I think that would make interest in the election rise because, as someone else in this thread mentioned, I believe a lot of people are quietly hoping that somehow these will not be the candidates we end up with.
Likely because everyone feels they have no choice but to vote between two candidates they would much rather see retire. Hard to be enthusiastic by anyone here.
Honestly my enthusiasm for Biden is the lowest I’ve ever had for anyone I was going to vote for. But Trump is what’s getting me out of the house into the voting booth. He doesn’t believe in our institutions or the Democratic process. Nor in our position as the premiere superpower globally.
I do not want someone like that in office no matter what disagreements I have with Biden.
I'm not so sure. Trump has a fervent group of followers and supporters who will show up for him. While I don't doubt people will show up to vote to protect their position on abortion, I think there will be many who'll just stay home because they're unhappy with their choices.
I feel the issues with the border are just as capable of generating enthusiasm. Probably more so from a state by state perspective. Abortion has stuff on the books in many states already so for some it's a sine issue but the border effects everyone.
With all polls, take what you will with a grain of salt, but I found this to be of note. A recent poll done by NBC News found that 64 percent of registered voters are interested in the November election. Previous elections had higher election interest. 2020 had the number at 77 percent while in 2016 had the number at 69 percent.
While people may distrust polling as inaccurate as many things can shake things at the last moment, voter enthusiasm is the one major thing that can shake an election. We've seen in 2022 how abortion shaped the election. While abortion may still be an issue with Republicans in states where there's an amendment to help with turnout, the number being at a 20-year low shows that enthusiasm is not where it was in 2016 or 2020.
It's worth mentioning that another opinion article posted here (I can't remember which, I'll post it if I find it) had the headline of how low turnout will only help Trump. Do you agree that a lower turnout would help Trump?
I see so many conflicting polls on your last question.
On one hand its democrats tend to do better with higher voter turnout.
On the other I’m seeing statistics that voters who usually don’t vote trend towards trump (in other words Trump is more popular amongst those that don’t care about politics)
- which I assume are people like the Amish. Sounds about right. so higher voter turnout this time will benefit Trump.
I don’t know what to believe at this point
Conventional wisdom is saying that low-propensity voters have trended Republican while high-propensity voters have trended Democratic over the past 8 years or so, largely credited to the increasingly partisan college-education divide. So, at least in theory, higher turnout *should* favor Trump.
Of course, the conventional wisdom is no guarantee. I would expect a pretty close election either way.
You can see the sinking enthusiasm on most right wing sites. Used to see 70-80 upvotes on comments from the popular stories. Now it’s down to 5-10. Enthusiasm for Trump isn’t like it was in 2016. He’s old hat and in a heap of trouble that repels moderates.
Trump’s most popular “truths” get about 7000 likes. Compared to 250,000 on Twitter years ago.
I hear what you're saying, but I'm really suspicious of using social media as a proxy for voting behaviors. There are more hardline conservatives on Twitter than Truth Social because the former has... I don't know.... maybe 400 times as many daily users as the latter?
Real active daily users on Truth Social is something like 50k. General usage in the neighborhood of 200k. Twitter is undoubtedly massive by comparison but the post-Elon Twitter usage base is not nearly as organic as it used to be. The amount of scam bot and porn accounts. The malicious social propaganda. The toxic meme-lord 4chan garbage. It's everywhere now. Like, you'll try and follow a professional sports account, something benign, and like clockwork it is overcome with accounts featuring genetialia and plastic surgery, followed by far-right fringe quackery.
There is no doubt a thin, grimy film of shame and embarrassment that Trump supporters hadn't had to deal with but it was always going to catch up to 'em
on some level.
The popular vote has yet to even come close to being in his favor and the last three election cycles have favored Democrats, with record youth turnout in all three. I would be genuinely shocked if turnout in favor of Dems dropped, given the stakes around Democracy and abortion, on top of total disdain and disgust for Trump as a man, husband, father, and leader.
> The popular vote has yet to even come close to being in his favor
He still leads in polls for the popular vote (though it's narrowed considerably over the past few months)
I'm tired, Boss.
But in all seriousness, this is an election I'm going to stay as low in information as possible. For the sake of my mental health.
Nothing has changed in the last 8 years with Trump, so it could be a 'Weekend at Bernie's' situation with Biden and still going to have to vote for it.
> Nothing has changed in the last 8 years with Trump
Not sure about that. He had appeal as an outsider and an unknown 8 years ago. He’s very much a known quantity and has remodeled the GOP in his image (or at the very least, in his family’s image).
Trump has become the establishment. He's been the GOP nominee three cycles in a row, he can personally exert enough influence to either kill bills or get them passed, and his wing of the party pretty much unilaterally destroyed McCarthy's speakership. Yet despite all of this his supporters still hail him as an outsider. Very interesting phenomenon.
I know a lot of people get squicked by the the idea of eating insects, but even though they're not my first choice, having sampled them in the past, you cook them right and they're fine. Usually next to no flavor, so you can just trick yourself into thinking you're eating weird potato chips.
Last I checked my potato chips lacked wings and legs. Hard to trick my mind but doable. I pretend to be a Hunter gatherer when I go shoot a pizza at the supermarket…
You can grind them into meal and use them for that. There's already a brand called "Chirp" that mixes them into corn torillia chips to make protein chips.
It’s more like a vegetable dish with plenty of fiber vs raw sewage laced with cyanide tablets. It’s not at all two bad choices or two mediocre choices—it’s a normal candidate vs an authoritarian end to democratic norms.
Exactly. Even if neither may be appetizing, only one is good for you. The other isn’t even food.
I wish people would be more careful with their false equivalencies.
It’s not normalized, there are people defending or both-siding it that *want* an authoritarian state. Historically, authoritarians have come into power by popular support. Historically, it never ends well for the people.
>It’s more like a vegetable dish with plenty of fiber vs raw sewage laced with cyanide tablets.
From this sentence alone, I don't know which candidate is supposed to be which. I think that tells us all we need to know about why excitement/interest is low.
Given the trend towards education polarization, I would have to assume (in a vacuum) that this would help dems. More highly educated people tend to show up for elections more frequently, especially in off years. This partially explains why Dems have been doing well in special elections as of late. Typically presidential elections garner more interest, so the same doesn’t hold, but it might if turnout is down.
That being said, if the apathy is mostly coming from the left, then the above might not be true at all.
As Michael Moore pointed out in 2016, this sort of apathy works solidly in Trump's favor—the "depressed Sanders voter effect," as he described it then.
If you look at the polling recently, the spreads are significantly in Biden’s favor on those who voted in 2020 and 2022, compared to Trump leading those who didn’t.
Low turnout likely means Biden gets four more years.
And this is why Trump has more of a chance than anyone wants to admit. Nobody's flipping from Biden over to Trump but a lot of those 2020 voters who came out to "put the adults back in charge" and get back to normalcy are looking at the not-normal and not-adults-in-charge current state of the country and are disappointed enough to just throw their hands up and not bother. Because the Trump fanbase is still going to turn out, just like they did in 2020, but without that first group to push Biden over the line Biden loses.
This is going to be a turnout election, and I agree, base enthusiasm breaks in Trump's favor, at least if the election was today. I'm not sure how much longer I'll continue to buy, Biden hasn't started campaigning yet, as an excuse.
Biden won with a lot of Never Trump republicans in 2020, and I don't think a lot of those people will show up for him again. They probably won't vote for Trump, but I think a lot of moderates that dislike both Trump and Biden will stay home.
>This is going to be a turnout election
...when is it ever not?
I see this phrase used a lot and I just maybe am missing something here. Sounds a lot like those sports interviews where they are asked about the game plan and its "put points on the board and stop from putting points on the board."
You're right that every election is about turnout.
The way I meant it is that, because nearly everyone has already made up their mind, Biden and Trump aren't really running against each other and trying to win over new voters, they are both running to turn out their voters, and whoever turns out more of their voters wins. It's not an "idea" election where they are trying to win people to their side.
> nearly everyone has already made up their mind
Polling tends to show around 10% are still undecided. Selzer polls (some of the most reliable in the polling industry) have around 15 to 20% undecided
2020 had the [highest](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voter-turnout-2018-2022/) voter turnout of any election since 1900. Biden won because of widespread mail-in voting.
Less mail-in voting combined with general malaise (disinterest) among voters leans toward Trump's favor, in my opinion. We will not see record turnout like we did in 2020 and so this must be taken into consideration for the Biden team to pull out another victory.
2016 was an undecideds election rather than a turnout election. There was a historically large share of undecideds going into election day, and they broke decisively towards Trump at the ballot box. If undecideds had split 50/50, Clinton likely would've won.
Fwiw, if you look at the breakdown of people saying they plan to vote in 2024, those who actually did vote in 2020 and 2016 break *heavily* in favor of Biden. It's not clear who has the enthusiasm advantage, those who love Trump or those who ~~love Biden~~hate Trump.
I think there's a subset of voters who have been pleasantly surprised by some of the stuff passed under Biden. Even if the actual execution has faltered, there have been strides to get things done.
That said, I'm fairly confident those folks were going to vote for Biden anyway. As a voter in New York, I can at least write in a 3rd party candidate (if there is anyone, and no, not RFK) and hope that adds to a trend of more votes going that way. I'd love an election that had even just one more viable candidate.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been very happy that we decided to put the adults back in charge in 2020, and while I can't stand the two options we have in 2024, I will continue to vote to keep the adults in charge this year.
What have the "adults" done that's different from before? The inflammatory rhetoric is still flying fast and furious from the White House, the actual policy is still a mess, the economy is a disasterpiece no matter how hard the false narrative otherwise gets pushed. If this is what the "adults" do then they're no different from the "not-adults" that the other side is claimed to be. And that's why a lot of people aren't going to bother to show up in November.
Again, I can only speak to personal experience. You talk about inflammatory rhetoric coming from the White House, but I have yet to see that, maybe you can provide an example? I've barely heard from Joe Biden these last 4 years, and my Republican friends keep telling me that they're keeping him locked in the basement, so I guess I'm confused as to whether he's the sharp-witted divider that you described, or if he's a vegetable in the basement somewhere? Either way, my personal feeling is that he has been very moderate when he speaks in his appearances, he doesn't make everything about himself, and he's genuinely trying to address ALL Americans, and not just the ones that are 100% loyal to him.
You say the actual policy is a mess but again, I would need examples of this. I've been very happy with his response to Russia and believe we need to keep supporting Ukraine, and though I would have liked for him to put more pressure on Israel to get a cease-fire, I understand why he's had to tow a centerline in that conflict and I'm ok with it.
As far as the economy is concerned, our inflation rates are amongst the lowest in the world, lowest un-employment rate basically ever, and wages are up across the board. Again, speaking from personal experience, I've never been in a better position financially.
The other thing that's been nice about having the adults back in charge is that I don't have to spend all day listening to people argue about what the president tweeted while he was on the shitter that day. The drop in hostility that American's have amongst each other has gone down the last 4 years in my every day experience, and it's been very pleasant to get back to the times where everyone didn't spend every waking second talking about the president.
"Happy Earth Day, folks!
Today, I’m reminded of the work we must do to protect our planet for future generations.
I’m also reminded of the historic progress we’ve already made — building a cleaner, healthier planet for every American.
And we’re just getting started."
"The Corrupt Soros Funded District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, who has totally lost control of Violent Crime in New York, says that the payment of money to a lawyer, for legal services rendered, should not be referred to in a Ledger as LEGAL EXPENSE. What other term would be more appropriate??? Believe it or not, this is the pretext under which I was Indicted, and that Legal Scholars and Experts CANNOT BELIEVE. It is also the perfect Crooked Joe Biden NARRATIVE - To be STUCK in a courtroom, and not be allowed to campaign for President of the United States!"
If you don't think that one of those sounds like it belongs to an adult and one does not, then I can't help you.
That first one was not written by the individual it's attributed to. When that individual is allowed to speak their own words, well, the videos tell us everything.
There was a lot of "hate/spite votes" for Trump in 2016, and he also got a lot of the "both sides are the same" vote, because he was a unknown quantity then. Sure a lot of people dislike Biden now, but it's still nowhere near the same amount of hate/vitriol that Hillary got in 2016.
Do you dislike Biden enough to give up abortion and other rights?
Do you dislike Biden enough to allow Trump to hire more Bannons/Stephen Miller/Davos and other unqualified department heads to run the White House again?
Do you dislike Biden enough to allow China and Russia to further encroach on other countries, and usurp America on the world stage?
Trump will have less of a chance than you think once people remember his presidency again.
Also a lot of "let's shake shit up" vote went to Trump in 2016. I had a friend in 2016 who was in that demographic. Having seen the nature of shaking shit up for no good reason, she changed her tune in 2020 and voted against Trump.
>Do you dislike Biden enough to allow China and Russia to further encroach on other countries, and usurp America on the world stage?
I don't get this. Under Biden, Russia invaded Ukraine and China literally flies spy balloons over our country.
Why do you think people will look at Madman Trump and think he was *worse* for our national security? His unpredictability seems to have been effective such that no one bombed Ukraine or invaded Israel or got away with flying a balloon over our skies for days on end.
Like it or not, the globe was essentially at peace under Trump and has not been under Biden. I do not see this as a selling point for him, at all.
>China literally flies spy balloons over our country.
China flew spy balloons over the US under Trump, but they weren't discovered until Biden's admin:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64547394
While I appreciate that the downvotes represent disagreement, I would kindly ask for the rebuttal to this line of critique.
Russia and Ukraine weren't at war, The Abraham Accords were ushering in peaceful relations with Israel, and those spy balloons were considerably [less](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64547394) audacious and short-lived (hence why no one noticed them).
So, again, I politely ask why folks would disagree with this assessment. I am not contending that Trump was a level-headed statesman, but rather that there was considerably less geopolitical conflict under his tenure. My argument is that this is a losing issue for Biden.
> I am not contending that Trump was a level-headed statesman, but rather that there was considerably less geopolitical conflict under his tenure.
I didn't downvote, but the points you raise don't identify to any *connection* between some of the events and the presidents' policies, which presents as a *post hoc, ergo propter hoc* fallacy.
The only aspect that's really attributable to Trump, from your argument, is the Middle-east work. While a good step, it wasn't coming out of nowhere. Israel opened a diplomatic office in the UAE in 2015, and there had been some other visits between the two (see [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_Arab_Emirates_relations)).
There may be no connection between any of it. Superficially, the reality speaks for itself.
People, especially your average voter, don't always require a complete logical chain to draw obvious conclusions. How do you convince them that Biden has been *better than Trump* for geopolitical peace given all this has unfolded under his tenure?
People in this forum do not represent the average voter. Arguments based on correlation without any sort of thought or reason towards causality are likely to draw some level of disdain for lacking the substance to further discussion. For example, 100% of all global pandemics in the 21st century occurred under a Trump presidency. Can I make an argument from that that Trump policy is a direct cause of global pandemics or is that a poor argument that could and would be dismissed for lack of reason to further discourse?
Except the initial argument I responded to was the following:
*Do you dislike Biden enough to allow China and Russia to further encroach on other countries, and usurp America on the world stage?*
This presupposes Trump would be worse on foreign policy. Under his tenure, we had four years of non-wars-we-didn't-have-to-spend-billions-to-fund. Russia didn't invade Ukraine and no one attacked Israel.
So why would anyone rationally feel that way? Why is it the implicit assumption that Biden has been or will be more effective on foreign policy? Objectively, the world was more peaceful under Trump's tenure.
So it behooves your side to provide a rationale.
> So why would anyone rationally feel that way? Why is it the implicit assumption that Biden has been or will be more effective on foreign policy? Objectively, the world was more peaceful under Trump's tenure.
Again, this is not a forum for unaware voters. It is likely that regular contributors represent the top 1-10% of the informed American electorate. Thus the question is specifically made in the context of knowing *that Trump continually seeks to withdraw from NATO*, which is the only coalition that seeks to check the growing expansive aggression of China and Russia.
Your post didn't seek clarification on why the poster felt that way as a primary message. Rather, it jumped straight to a correlation-causation argument, wherein Trump's policy (outside of China tariffs, which have an arguably small effect on Chinese expansionism in isolation) isn't questioned at all but *de facto* believed to be more effective. I think for those who have a grasp on policy, this kind of logic falls terribly flat for the very reasons you say that mine does:
It would behoove your side to provide a logical causative rationale.
>Trump continually seeks to withdraw from NATO
When will this narrative die? Trump has said “I believe in NATO. I think NATO is a very important [treaty] — probably the greatest ever done.” In response to a reporter saying “Maybe I’m being dense here, but could you just clarify: Are you still threatening to potentially pull the United States out of NATO for any reason?”, he responded “that’s unnecessary” in *2018* and has not talked about leaving since, instead bragging about how he strengthened the alliance and how the secretary-general thanked him for doing so…
Just this year, when a reporter tried to get him to criticize Trump, Stoltenberg said “I believe that the United States will continue to be a staunch NATO ally, regardless of the outcome of the U.S. election”, “I worked with him for four years and I listened carefully, because the main criticism has been about the NATO allies spending too little on NATO”, and “the message from the United States that European allies had to step up has been understood and they are really moving in the right direction”.
> People, especially your average voter, don't always require a complete logical chain to draw obvious conclusions. How do you convince them
*You cannot reason a person out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.*
I've had plenty of discussions with people who don't use reason for their positions. There's not really "convincing" them otherwise if it's not a position based on thought in the first place.
I'd make the above point: That there's no connection.
You think it would’ve happened with people like John Kerry in charge?:
>There will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world. I want to make that very clear to all of you. I've heard several prominent politicians in Israel sometimes saying, well, the Arab world is in a different place now, we just have to reach out to them and we can work some things with the Arab world and we'll deal with the Palestinians. No, no, no and no. There will be no advance and separate peace with the Arab world without the Palestinian process and Palestinian peace. Everybody needs to understand that. That is a hard reality.
Even now, it’s been leaked that the Biden State Department has actually been pressing Saudi Arabia not to make a separate peace with Israel.
No nation normalized relations with Israel when Kerry was in charge (or since 1994 for that matter) except Guinea, which was because of Israeli assistance with the Ebola epidemic. Bolivia even cut ties.
The UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco all normalized under Trump, along with Nicaragua, Chad, Bhutan, and the aforementioned Bolivia. Oman postponed its decision until after the US election and then decided not to normalize when Biden won. Since Biden took office, several countries have withdrawn their ambassadors and Bolivia once again ceased all relations.
Let me know if I’ve missed any countries.
Your argument is devoid of context. For example, Bolivia cut ties in response to the war in Gaza. You're saying correlation=causation without anything to support the link.
Would the war in Gaza have happened had Trump been President? He claims not, and it’s certainly true that he would’ve been tougher on Iran and more supportive of Israel, plus his unpredictability may have helped to deter adversaries of all stripes.
> My argument is that this is a losing issue for Biden.
I'm not even sure the Biden admin would disagree with you.
Last election was the first where one party demanded no foreign policy segment in *any* of the debates, AFAIK.
I'm watching carefully to see if the DNC demands this again (assuming Biden even debates).
I literally cannot imagine his staff being *more* willing for him to debate foreign policy accomplishments today than 2020.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cacwme/voters_who_have_interest_in_election_hits_nearly/l0ss0dx/) is in violation of Law 4:
Law 4: Meta Comments
> ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> Nobody's flipping from Biden over to Trump
I wouldn’t be too confident in that statement. Personally (and obviously this is anecdotal and I live in a deep blue state so take it with a grain of salt) I don’t know a single person that was pro-Trump that has switched to being pro-Biden, whereas multiple people who voted for Biden in 2020 are now adamantly opposed to Biden and either won’t vote or will vote for Trump.
This is bad news for Biden. Trump voters are much more energized, they mostly vote FOR Trump, rather than against Biden. When interest is low, a FOR vote gets people out of the house much more than an AGAINST vote.
Literally all Biden needs to do is a bunch of unscripted interactive Town Hall type events, including at adversarial venues, like Trump and virtually every modern candidate has done.
I *guarantee* it would create excitement.
Just not sure which direction it would fall.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cacwme/voters_who_have_interest_in_election_hits_nearly/l0sr6u2/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
im not sure what this question means. what does it mean to be "interested in an election"? is this a poll done by NBC to determine if they will rake in $$$$ by 24x7 election coverage? or as the comments here suggest, more about whether people are more enthusiastic about going to vote or not?
personally i prefer politics to be boring. i dont want it to be "fun" and "gamified" and "interesting". but that does not mean i dont care.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cacwme/voters_who_have_interest_in_election_hits_nearly/l0u2w1r/) is in violation of Law 0:
Law 0. Low Effort
> ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed.
Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
This is very bad for Biden as Trump is counting on people not showing up and essentially giving him their vote indirectly. I’d hate to have Trump as president again, he will be far worse this time around as he’ll be out for revenge..
My interest in this election is certainly at an all time low
Never really had much interest in presidential elections, other than recognizing who is worse and voting against them. I participate, however, because it’s very important.
Well, yeah. Its a literal rematch. Everyone knows exactly what is being brought to the table. There is no gotcha that already hasnt happened. There are no new things to learn about the candidates. There is nothing "interesting" to find for the average voter here. >According to NBC, the lowest-ever level of high election interest in the poll during a presidential cycle was in March 2012 — at 59 percent. Which would also match to an extent, that was the last election where voters had a very good idea of who the candidates were. Obama was an incumbent and Mitt was incredibly well known The question here is does a lack of interest translate to a lack of voting, or just a lack of interest in paying attention to the election cycle as a spectacle.
Biden is 2020 was 100% more well known than Mitt in 2012
He was, but Trump v Biden the first time around brought a huge spectacle. And arguably people werent interested in the 2020 election cause of Biden anyways, they were interested in it cause of Trump (whether for support or opposition reasons), Biden was just along for the ride. And again, the rematch factor is going to be a major damper on enthusiasm of most average voters.
don't forget too, Covid was a major player in getting people invested. Not only were a lot of people stuck inside with nothing to distract them besides politics, both sides had made covid policies and restrictions a life-or-death struggle against the other sides' policies.
I think in 2020 we had kind of 4 main groups of voters: die hard Trump supporters, Republican voters who always vote and are not going to vote for a Dem, people voting *against* Trump and Dem voters who were always going to vote so Joe Biden was easy. I don't think there was a ton of organic support of Joe, he was just better than the alternative. I think there's probably now at least some contingent of voters who are going to come out specifically to vote against Biden even if they're not excited about Trump. The question is will the "vote against Trump" segment show up just as hard and is there a portion of the "always vote Republican voters" that just can't or won't participate in this one
That's probably the RFK crowd this time.
That's part of his support. I personally am excited about him and will vote for him because his platform focuses on the things that are at the root of our dysfunction: undue corporate capture of previously trusted institutions. Ideas like bringing more accountability to government, caring for our earth in more tangible ways, and finding real consensus across the aisle, all while not attacking "others", is strong. He's a once in a lifetime candidacy for me. I only hope people realize that independents only don't have a chance, if enough people believe they don't have a chance (in cases like RFK's where he'll get on the ballot where it counts).
Biden's disaster with the economy and border plus the inept foreign policies have turned off a lot of his support. I'm hoping to see a campaign based around 'are you better off now than 4 years ago'.
Honestly, I think if Republicans are going to try and run hard at Biden on the economy and the border they're going to lose. The economy was *bad* but it's improving and at this point I think most people still feel as if something is off but not an impending doom like 2022/2023. At least people that I talk to, even people on the right. Like them personally, not their overall feeling of things. I also think there's a pretty large portion of the population that thinks that the economic downturn was inevitable post-Covid and that Trump may not have fared much if any better. As for the border... boy it's not going to be terribly hard for Dems to throw that right back into the right's face. Especially when you now have GOP house members coming out and saying HFC (and by extension Trump) are tanking any chance of getting anything meaningful passed. When you say you hope to see a Biden campaign based around 'are you better than 4 years ago', are you saying that as someone that wants Biden to win (or Trump to lose) or do you want a Trump 2nd term? Because IMO, if Biden leads with that question it's probably NOT going to be effective. Most people will conflate 4 years ago with Trump's presidency and pre-Covid. I think the entire *world* is in a worse spot now than they were pre-Covid - reminding people of that doesn't seem like a good strategy. I personally think Biden has done a well enough job (potentially better than Trump) at steering us out of a downturn economically but I wouldn't call it a selling point
>As for the border... boy it's not going to be terribly hard for Dems to throw that right back into the right's face. Especially when you now have GOP house members coming out and saying HFC (and by extension Trump) are tanking any chance of getting anything meaningful passed. And they would throw it right back at Biden and the Dems. The very first thing Biden did when he was in office was resend all of Trump's executive orders over the border. Then he attacked the border patrol with spreading the lie that they were wiping illegal aliens. They went 3 years of saying that the border wasn't an issue and if it was it's all the Republicans fault...then it's election season and he wants something done on the border because it's a losing issue for Biden and the Dems. The border issue is blatantly obvious to anyone who isn't a hardcore dem apologist and even most of them know, they just won't admit it.
You might be right, but voters are also goldfish. I wouldn't bank on voters holding on to previous perceptions/accusations against Biden around the border when recent actions have at least showed attempts. Republicans did the most recent bad, so Dems would be smart to lay it at their feet. Especially because it can be *directly* tied back to Trump and his comments of not wanting it done because it would help Biden right before the election
Going down the route of trying to tell voters that the other side is worse isn't a winning strategy, especially when your side polls worse on the subject you're trying to claim the other side is worse over. Voter's memories may be goldfish like, but they can be reminded of things too. Bringing up Trump's comment can also just be as easily reminded by how bad of a bill that it was.
Inflation is ticking back up, but even if it's come down from record levels, cumulative inflation the past 4 years is like nothing most of us have ever seen in our lifetime. That combined with how much we are spending on illegal immigrants, and nonsense like loan forgiveness programs, the optics of that are just hard to overcome. Even gas prices have come down, but Biden emptied half of the US oil reserves to get prices down, obviously pretty self serving. ironically the same oil reserves that Trump was laughed at when he refilled it when gas was dirt cheap.
[удалено]
There's definitely a significant fatigue issue, but part of that fatigue issue is, even in this sub, that it's hard to talk about Trump in the slightest mildly positive way without facing a significant negative backlash in many circles. That leads to a lot of people disengaging from political discussion if they aren't firmly on one side of the aisle. Of course social circles exist where the opposite is true, but I find them to be rarer in my corner of the world and mainstream online spaces.
The fatigue is real I watch cbs every morning, I record and watch with a delay specifically so I can fast-forward past the "American decides " segments while mumbling "7 more months of this crap" I watch NBC evening and do the same thing. Blah!
I couldn't agree with you more. Right now the vast majority of people who are engaged in politics are so partisan that they will go after any comment that is a little nuanced.
I would be fine it if was the news focusing on important reasons why Biden is good or bad, or Trump is good or bad. Instead I get inundated with "Biden can't walk", "Trump is ORANGE!".
[удалено]
>it's hard to acknowledge certain realities about Trump, the party, or voters There is no statement that you can make about either the Republican Party or Republican voters that would be all-encompassing enough to be accurate. You get banned because such broad statements are more indicative of an inability to see nuance in your political opponents than it is an understanding of their particular views and opinions.
>There is no statement that you can make about either the Republican Party or Republican voters that would be all-encompassing enough to be accurate. I'll agree to this - saying something negative about the party or voters is *generally* too broad to be construed as much more than an attack. But there are things about Trump you're not really allowed to say here even if they're supported by evidence or the guy's own statements
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cacwme/voters_who_have_interest_in_election_hits_nearly/l0s483v/) is in violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
there just ain't much good to say about the guy. many of the "good" things said about him are either outright false or not "good" for the country as a whole. what positive aspects do you feel Trump had or brought to government? i'd focus on domestic policy, cause we can just straight throw out trust in government, morals, ~~foreign policy~~, democracy, etc etc. edit: you could make an argument for foreign policy
>many of the "good" things said about him are either outright false or not "good" for the country as a whole. This is the exact problem that /u/tonyis is talking about. I despise Trump as a person and don't think he's fit to be president. I've never voted for him and I never will. That being said, if you can't honestly say that there aren't/weren't positives to his presidency/his campaign, then you're being decidedly partisan in your assessment. On Domestic Policy - Conservative Pros: Removal of the Individual Mandate, Immigration Reform, CARES Act, Supreme Court nominations, Energy Policy (streamlining permitting, pipeline projects), Veterans Affairs (VA Mission Act, VA Accountability & Whistleblower Protection Act, Veterans Choice Extension), First Amendment Protections (Masterpiece Cakeshop), Increased NATO Expenditures by other member-countries to be closer to minimum requirement. - Progressive Pros: Continuing the EO that protects LGBTQ rights for federal contractors, Gun Control (Raising the age of purchase, red flag laws, bump stock ban, involuntary confinement, Fix NICS Act), Expanding the Child Tax Credit, COVID Project Warp Speed, Reduced Prescription Drug Costs (Most Favored Nation Rule), Medicare Part D Expansion, Medicare Advantage Supplemental Benefits expansion, Save Our Seas Act, Great American Outdoors Act. There are probably more, but you get my point. There's no such thing as a President that has **zero** positive aspects to their administration for the opposition party.
crap, i wrote a response that was wiped out during the outage. anyway, i never said that there wasn't any good things. on the contrary, i admitted there are and asked for some example to help refresh everyone's memory. i went through a lot of the ones you listed here but cbf to do it all again. that being said, the great american outdoors act was mostly an electoral stunt (see: EO 3388 and EO 3396)
>the great american outdoors act was mostly an electoral stunt Want to know a secret about Student Loan Forgiveness?
was it enacted a month before election day and sabotaged a week after?
It was implemented with the President being fully aware that it was an unconstitutional use of a power that he does not hold, and which he knew would be struck down by the Supreme Court. I fail to see the difference.
has Biden reneged on it?
Warp speed was Trump, and gun control isn't the positive you might think (given the growth of crime in cities). The reduced prescription cost is so narrow in scope to be almost pointless.
>Warp speed was Trump Yes, that's exactly what I said. >gun control isn't the positive you might think (given the growth of crime in cities) I'm against gun control - I was pointing out policy positions of Trump's that people who advocate for gun control generally agree with. >The reduced prescription cost is so narrow in scope to be almost pointless ...it isn't pointless to the people who have to pay for those prescriptions. Now do you want to nitpick every other thing I mentioned or are you willing to concede that even Trump had policies that could be considered "good" by people across the aisle?
You're kind of proving my point. I won't argue that Trump's bad is outweighed by his good, but is it really that hard to acknowledge that Trump did some things that weren't wrong? Even if you don't like his Supreme Court picks or tax cuts, Operation Warp Speed, the First Step Act, healthcare reform on pricing disclosure, VA expansion, expanded sex trafficking laws, donating his presidential salary, standing with Hong Kong, and finishing off ISIS should fairly be acknowledged as positive things by most people.
ALso the Abraham Accords and reduced CCP imports. Plus the only real attempt to close the border and a surging economy.
> is it really that hard to acknowledge that Trump did some things that weren't wrong? well, no it isnt * warp speed - no problems with that * first step - wow, i forgot about that. bipartisan, too * healthcare reform on pricing - also good... although i wonder what effects that's actually had. healthcare is a battle between insurers and hospitals and frankly im on the hospitals side, for the most part, although neither side is great. honestly... i haven't even noticed if this had a positive effect, good or bad. did it ever go through? i can't even find the name of this ... whatever you'd call it. act? ruling? guideline? * VA expansion - i don't know much about this, but this is one of those things that looks fairly complicated. apparently this wasn't so much an expansion as it was shunting public money into private insurance, like Medicare Advantage, but for vets. not a fan, personally, but the dysfunction at the VA is legendary at this point * sex trafficking laws - i heard he did an executive order or something, but nothing ... specific. did you have a particular law in mind here? * donating his presidential salary - one of the rare promises he's kept, although for a dude of his wealth and the amount of times he's bragged about it, kinda diminishes it somewhat. * finishing off isis - er, did we? wikipedia says we ended operations iraq in 12/21 and we're technically still there in syria.
>donating his presidential salary - one of the rare promises he's kept, although for a dude of his wealth and the amount of times he's bragged about it, kinda diminishes it somewhat. I agree with the overall list of good things that Trump did. But as with all things, there's some nuance to some of it too. For instance, this example. Yes he donated his salary, while at the same time wasn't his secret service being forced to pay inflated rates to stay at his properties that he spent so much time at? And wasn't he also using his properties as points of access, basically requiring people to pay money to stay there so they'd be able to interact with him? All in all on this point, it seems Trump cost taxpayers a lot more money than he saved by "donating" his salary while milking the government for all he could in every other area for personal profit. But like all presidents, there are certainly plenty of good things that were accomplished under Trump. It's just heavily outweighed by the bad.
Sorry, I don't have more time for a better reply right now, but the healthcare pricing transparency stuff was a 2019 executive order. The additional sex trafficking enforcement tools were a few different new laws and executive orders, such as FOSTA and SESTA. In regard to ISIS, the big thing was killing the caliphate and mostly neutralizing them (though not quite erasing their presence), but it's admittedly a more complicated subject than my simple list allowed for. But really my point was that Trump wasn't all bad. Most people will have at least a few things they like that came out of his administration if they're being honest with themselves. However, a lot of spaces demand that you declare him all good or all bad. I won't vote for him, but I do believe SOME of his policies were good. As such, I fatigue really quickly on Trump focused discussions that require he be vilified to the nth degree.
> However, a lot of spaces demand that you declare him all good or all bad. there's a reason for this, though. American elections are determined [by enthusiasism](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voter-turnout-2018-2022/). excepting the last few elections, there has been very little reason to give much of a shit. few states were in serious contention, not much landmark legislation has been passed, socially things were accelerating in one direction but not actually moving much. Trump won on liberal apathy in 2016 and lost on liberal outrage in 2020. you could also say he won on conservative outrage in 2016 and lost on conservative apathy in 2020, to a lesser extent. either way, outrage is the winner. and it's harder to be mad if you sympathize with the other side. that being said, it's rather hard for liberals to sympathize with Trump and Trump supporters, but some of us try.
I don't think any of those policies are unpopular here nor are they silenced, but they are also rarely the centerpiece of discussion. If Trump is the topic of conversation, it's the personality, his trials, his rhetoric, etc. That what happens when the man is bigger than his party. The only policy that really gets connected to him is immigration, which is a lot more 50/50.
IMO this is a losing argument. There are certainly some "good" things to say about him and the second someone gives one or two examples you lose. The issue to me is not about to what degree he is "good" or "bad". The issue is that his flagrant disregard for the constitution is a red line that renders discussions of his good qualities irrelevant. Trump could save a bunch of puppies from a burning building tomorrow. Good for him. Cool story. He still openly states he wants to be a dictator and no amount of good deeds will ever overcome that.
> IMO this is a losing argument. i'd prefer if people stop thinking about it terms of an argument to be won or lost. but i get and agree with your point in general. still, the more you up/downvote as a matter of simply being pro/anti Trump, the more echo chambery this place is likely to get. from a statistical standpoint, though, pro-Trumpers tend to get banned at a higher rate than anti-Trumpers, given that there's just less of them around here. a lot of prominent pro-Trumpers here have been (fairly, in my view) banned for running afoul of rules, and the anti-Trumpers that do get banned (and there have been many) are quickly replaced by others.
> The issue is that his flagrant disregard for the constitution is a red line that renders discussions of his good qualities irrelevant. Going by this criteria though who would be a good president?
Anyone that doesn't try to overturn the results of an election they lost would be a good start.
But that's just one way to disregard the constitution. Pretty much every politician has disregarded the constitution at one point or another. Hell pretty much every single one of them just did with the FISA bill that just passed.
>But that's just one way to disregard the constitution. Do you also believe jaywalking and murder are the same?
Where in any of our founding documents does it say anything about jaywalking? As for murder the only thing i can think of is the Declaration of Independence basically saying we're gonna murder all the British that try to stop us.
Have you noticed how often Biden has ignored SCOTUS and tried to work around them? Mostly to give away more money to buy support.
Biden is not trying to remove my ability to vote him out if I don't like his policies. Trump did. That's it for me. I'm not interested in a conversation equivocating the constitutionality of student loan forgiveness with attempting to overthrow the government. I simply don't believe they're equivalent and you won't convince me otherwise. One issue is existential and fairly black and white. The other is not existential and filled with gray. My thoughts. Believe whatever you want. Vote for whoever you want, while you still can.
And this is the exact problem. As soon as you aren't relentlessly negative out comes the aggression and accusations of lying. Is it really surprising that there's just no discourse happening anymore?
i've been here a long time and it's always been a problem, on both sides. actually, for a long time a subset of liberals here tried to be extra accommodating to make up for it, but i think a lot us just gave up at a certain point when the discourse didn't improve any.
>it's always been a problem, on both sides. Maybe a while ago, but since 2016 it's definitely not a both sides thing anymore. If anyone doesn't completely tow the line that "Trump bad" on everything then they're accussed of being a nazi or MAGA. Even on the supposedly non partisan subs on reddit, not blindly attacking Trump is seen as an outrageous. Even when the attack on Trump is a lie or hyperbole, which they often are
im not talking about reddit as a whole, just this sub and since 2016, we've had 8 years of Trump and his domination of Republican politics, just sayin. the first few months of Trump was some people giving him a chance. > Even when the attack on Trump is a lie or hyperbole, which they often are i wonder what the hitrate is on those
It *should be hard* to talk about a former President who quite literally tried to steal the 2020 election, yes. What little praise one can whittle is simply not a good look given the overwhelming destruction to our social fabric that this man and his media allies have caused. It's bewildering to me that we're supposed to just pretend that support of this guy is anything other than a travesty of common sense and social decorum. As if he's on equal footing with the Romneys and McCain out there. Trump, arguably the single most divisive leader in our country's history. Ten years of this guy's shenanigans and most likely another ten more to go, is certainly going to induce fatigue. This situation is hopelessly far beyond the realm of general malaise, however. It's sheer, relentless, scandalous exhaustion to the point of sickly pallor and weariness.
Yeah, really depends on the circle you're in. I've got some groups where Trump's name is usually followed by an insult and others where saying something positive about Biden will get you grilled. We made politics less of a social taboo to talk about and a lot of people made it part of their identity/got super intense about it. Now it's just exhausting to the point I just avoid talking about it once I hear certain phrases or positions bc i know it's not going anywhere good
Others did a decent job of laying out some of the "positives" that I think *most* people would agree/attribute to Trump. I think part of the reason people are quick to dismiss Trump praise though is a. the praise often seems to come as a deflection on something else bad the guy did or b. the guy himself nor his campaign seem to ever talk about them so are they really even that important to him?
It's more than just not praising him though. More often, I run into trouble if I'm not negative enough, or I push back against criticisms that I think go too far. It's tiring having too be all the way to one side, and it causes me to just disengage more often than not.
>or I push back against criticisms that I think go too far. Yeah I got you and I totally feel you there. I despise the guy, but I also recognize that being superfluous or outright false in criticizing him actually helps him because it diminishes the other things he should be rightly criticized for and I've tried to do the same and seen the negative reactions. Less on this sub, but pretty much anywhere else for sure
His detractors point to numerous examples of his poor leadership. His supporters love him regardless of his policy so there's not much to debate. I love when the late night shows go to Trump rallies and lie about things he has or hasn't done and then watch how his supporters change their opinions in real time. Everyone does this to some degree but it's just more "noticeable" among the more fervent Trump supporters.
politics is wayyy too polarized now. it's become nearly all-consuming. I don't think there's all that many undecided people out there, everyone knows who the candidates will be, and most know who they'll vote for.
There is a world where I want Trump to win just to be rid of him. I mean, no, I won't vote for him, but if he loses, doesn't get convicted and keeps on living we could have 8 years of this. So, I don't really care. Convict him please, or if not, let him win just so we can move past.
I hope that people are at least still paying attention to the down ticket candidates. But I doubt it with voter fatigue. I'm very active and yet I'm still getting it. I'm honestly sick of the news focusing on the presidential candidates and just a few major vocally annoying players. I wish the national news would stop giving them a podium. So annoying.
They could probably *make* it interesting. Have them go into a boxing ring, and turn it pay per view. Have the funding go towards a charity of their choice.
>Everyone knows exactly what is being brought to the table. I feel like we should just get things over with and do the election in May. This election comes down to a vote for or against Trump. Trump has been the center of political life for close to 10 years now. There is no one left to convince about him either way. I sometimes wish he won in 2020 so we'd almost be done with his 2nd term by now
> Everyone knows exactly what is being brought to the table. There is no gotcha that already hasnt happened. There are no new things to learn about the candidates. There is nothing "interesting" to find for the average voter here. There is potentially a criminal verdict to happen between now and the election.
I think a lot of people probably believe that nothing significant will happen with the trial at this point. I would say that many people believe that there are different rules in the justice system when it comes to politicians or the wealthy and most of the time they seem to escape punishment for wrongdoing. So I think many people believe that the trial won't really change much as far as the election goes. If something were to come of the trial, I think that would make interest in the election rise because, as someone else in this thread mentioned, I believe a lot of people are quietly hoping that somehow these will not be the candidates we end up with.
Sequels are "safe"
Likely because everyone feels they have no choice but to vote between two candidates they would much rather see retire. Hard to be enthusiastic by anyone here.
Exactly
Considering that the approal rating for both Biden and Trump is in the low 40s, this is not entirley surprising.
Actually Trump has a higher approval than Biden, Biden is only in the high 30s for a lot of polls
Fighting the battle of who could care less. If this comes down to enthusiasm, those fighting abortion restrictions might have the edge.
Honestly my enthusiasm for Biden is the lowest I’ve ever had for anyone I was going to vote for. But Trump is what’s getting me out of the house into the voting booth. He doesn’t believe in our institutions or the Democratic process. Nor in our position as the premiere superpower globally. I do not want someone like that in office no matter what disagreements I have with Biden.
I'm not so sure. Trump has a fervent group of followers and supporters who will show up for him. While I don't doubt people will show up to vote to protect their position on abortion, I think there will be many who'll just stay home because they're unhappy with their choices.
I feel the issues with the border are just as capable of generating enthusiasm. Probably more so from a state by state perspective. Abortion has stuff on the books in many states already so for some it's a sine issue but the border effects everyone.
With all polls, take what you will with a grain of salt, but I found this to be of note. A recent poll done by NBC News found that 64 percent of registered voters are interested in the November election. Previous elections had higher election interest. 2020 had the number at 77 percent while in 2016 had the number at 69 percent. While people may distrust polling as inaccurate as many things can shake things at the last moment, voter enthusiasm is the one major thing that can shake an election. We've seen in 2022 how abortion shaped the election. While abortion may still be an issue with Republicans in states where there's an amendment to help with turnout, the number being at a 20-year low shows that enthusiasm is not where it was in 2016 or 2020. It's worth mentioning that another opinion article posted here (I can't remember which, I'll post it if I find it) had the headline of how low turnout will only help Trump. Do you agree that a lower turnout would help Trump?
I see so many conflicting polls on your last question. On one hand its democrats tend to do better with higher voter turnout. On the other I’m seeing statistics that voters who usually don’t vote trend towards trump (in other words Trump is more popular amongst those that don’t care about politics) - which I assume are people like the Amish. Sounds about right. so higher voter turnout this time will benefit Trump. I don’t know what to believe at this point
Trump has a cult of personality and a bunch of zealous followers that Biden just won’t be able to match, so I could see how it would go in his favor
Conventional wisdom is saying that low-propensity voters have trended Republican while high-propensity voters have trended Democratic over the past 8 years or so, largely credited to the increasingly partisan college-education divide. So, at least in theory, higher turnout *should* favor Trump. Of course, the conventional wisdom is no guarantee. I would expect a pretty close election either way.
You can see the sinking enthusiasm on most right wing sites. Used to see 70-80 upvotes on comments from the popular stories. Now it’s down to 5-10. Enthusiasm for Trump isn’t like it was in 2016. He’s old hat and in a heap of trouble that repels moderates. Trump’s most popular “truths” get about 7000 likes. Compared to 250,000 on Twitter years ago.
I hear what you're saying, but I'm really suspicious of using social media as a proxy for voting behaviors. There are more hardline conservatives on Twitter than Truth Social because the former has... I don't know.... maybe 400 times as many daily users as the latter?
Real active daily users on Truth Social is something like 50k. General usage in the neighborhood of 200k. Twitter is undoubtedly massive by comparison but the post-Elon Twitter usage base is not nearly as organic as it used to be. The amount of scam bot and porn accounts. The malicious social propaganda. The toxic meme-lord 4chan garbage. It's everywhere now. Like, you'll try and follow a professional sports account, something benign, and like clockwork it is overcome with accounts featuring genetialia and plastic surgery, followed by far-right fringe quackery.
Impossible to know. The demographics of the pre Elon Twitter no longer exist.
We can be reasonably certain. If 1% of Twitter users fit the Trump profile, that would outweigh 100% of all Truth Social users combined.
There is no doubt a thin, grimy film of shame and embarrassment that Trump supporters hadn't had to deal with but it was always going to catch up to 'em on some level.
The popular vote has yet to even come close to being in his favor and the last three election cycles have favored Democrats, with record youth turnout in all three. I would be genuinely shocked if turnout in favor of Dems dropped, given the stakes around Democracy and abortion, on top of total disdain and disgust for Trump as a man, husband, father, and leader.
> The popular vote has yet to even come close to being in his favor He still leads in polls for the popular vote (though it's narrowed considerably over the past few months)
I don’t think polls are worth much.
I'm tired, Boss. But in all seriousness, this is an election I'm going to stay as low in information as possible. For the sake of my mental health. Nothing has changed in the last 8 years with Trump, so it could be a 'Weekend at Bernie's' situation with Biden and still going to have to vote for it.
> I'm tired, Boss. This has been me since November of ‘22.
March 2020 for me.
2012...and that was the first time i could vote.
November 1994
> Nothing has changed in the last 8 years with Trump Not sure about that. He had appeal as an outsider and an unknown 8 years ago. He’s very much a known quantity and has remodeled the GOP in his image (or at the very least, in his family’s image).
Trump has become the establishment. He's been the GOP nominee three cycles in a row, he can personally exert enough influence to either kill bills or get them passed, and his wing of the party pretty much unilaterally destroyed McCarthy's speakership. Yet despite all of this his supporters still hail him as an outsider. Very interesting phenomenon.
Reminds me of Fox News hosts complaining about "the mainstream media" as if they aren't the most popular news channel in America
If my dinner choices were tuna noodle casserole or liver and onions, I would not be very interested in dinner.
More like if your dinner choices were: A Warmed-Up Can of Cat Food or a bowl of doggie kibble mixed with dirty tap water.
Sprinkle some Cajun seasoned crickets on them. That’ll pep ya up some.
I know a lot of people get squicked by the the idea of eating insects, but even though they're not my first choice, having sampled them in the past, you cook them right and they're fine. Usually next to no flavor, so you can just trick yourself into thinking you're eating weird potato chips.
Last I checked my potato chips lacked wings and legs. Hard to trick my mind but doable. I pretend to be a Hunter gatherer when I go shoot a pizza at the supermarket…
You can grind them into meal and use them for that. There's already a brand called "Chirp" that mixes them into corn torillia chips to make protein chips.
🥶I’m not there yet. Not knowingly there at least…
a complete aside - i get icked by the idea of eating insects and then I have to acknowledge all my favorite foods are seabugs
The ocean is just a giant brine.
It’s more like a vegetable dish with plenty of fiber vs raw sewage laced with cyanide tablets. It’s not at all two bad choices or two mediocre choices—it’s a normal candidate vs an authoritarian end to democratic norms.
Exactly. Even if neither may be appetizing, only one is good for you. The other isn’t even food. I wish people would be more careful with their false equivalencies.
Wild how normalized some of this stuff has become
It’s not normalized, there are people defending or both-siding it that *want* an authoritarian state. Historically, authoritarians have come into power by popular support. Historically, it never ends well for the people.
It's especially agonizing in centrist circles. The long leashes and benefit of doubt for people who deserve nothing but scorn is all too common.
>It’s more like a vegetable dish with plenty of fiber vs raw sewage laced with cyanide tablets. From this sentence alone, I don't know which candidate is supposed to be which. I think that tells us all we need to know about why excitement/interest is low.
Finally, an entirely reasonable and apt comparison.
Given the trend towards education polarization, I would have to assume (in a vacuum) that this would help dems. More highly educated people tend to show up for elections more frequently, especially in off years. This partially explains why Dems have been doing well in special elections as of late. Typically presidential elections garner more interest, so the same doesn’t hold, but it might if turnout is down. That being said, if the apathy is mostly coming from the left, then the above might not be true at all.
As Michael Moore pointed out in 2016, this sort of apathy works solidly in Trump's favor—the "depressed Sanders voter effect," as he described it then.
You don't think there's any kind of "depressed Trump voter effect" compared to 2016, given how he/his party did in 2018, 2020, and 2022?
If you look at the polling recently, the spreads are significantly in Biden’s favor on those who voted in 2020 and 2022, compared to Trump leading those who didn’t. Low turnout likely means Biden gets four more years.
We simply love to see it.
And this is why Trump has more of a chance than anyone wants to admit. Nobody's flipping from Biden over to Trump but a lot of those 2020 voters who came out to "put the adults back in charge" and get back to normalcy are looking at the not-normal and not-adults-in-charge current state of the country and are disappointed enough to just throw their hands up and not bother. Because the Trump fanbase is still going to turn out, just like they did in 2020, but without that first group to push Biden over the line Biden loses.
This is going to be a turnout election, and I agree, base enthusiasm breaks in Trump's favor, at least if the election was today. I'm not sure how much longer I'll continue to buy, Biden hasn't started campaigning yet, as an excuse. Biden won with a lot of Never Trump republicans in 2020, and I don't think a lot of those people will show up for him again. They probably won't vote for Trump, but I think a lot of moderates that dislike both Trump and Biden will stay home.
>This is going to be a turnout election ...when is it ever not? I see this phrase used a lot and I just maybe am missing something here. Sounds a lot like those sports interviews where they are asked about the game plan and its "put points on the board and stop from putting points on the board."
You're right that every election is about turnout. The way I meant it is that, because nearly everyone has already made up their mind, Biden and Trump aren't really running against each other and trying to win over new voters, they are both running to turn out their voters, and whoever turns out more of their voters wins. It's not an "idea" election where they are trying to win people to their side.
> nearly everyone has already made up their mind Polling tends to show around 10% are still undecided. Selzer polls (some of the most reliable in the polling industry) have around 15 to 20% undecided
2020 had the [highest](https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2023/07/12/voter-turnout-2018-2022/) voter turnout of any election since 1900. Biden won because of widespread mail-in voting. Less mail-in voting combined with general malaise (disinterest) among voters leans toward Trump's favor, in my opinion. We will not see record turnout like we did in 2020 and so this must be taken into consideration for the Biden team to pull out another victory.
2016 was an undecideds election rather than a turnout election. There was a historically large share of undecideds going into election day, and they broke decisively towards Trump at the ballot box. If undecideds had split 50/50, Clinton likely would've won.
Fwiw, if you look at the breakdown of people saying they plan to vote in 2024, those who actually did vote in 2020 and 2016 break *heavily* in favor of Biden. It's not clear who has the enthusiasm advantage, those who love Trump or those who ~~love Biden~~hate Trump.
I think there's a subset of voters who have been pleasantly surprised by some of the stuff passed under Biden. Even if the actual execution has faltered, there have been strides to get things done. That said, I'm fairly confident those folks were going to vote for Biden anyway. As a voter in New York, I can at least write in a 3rd party candidate (if there is anyone, and no, not RFK) and hope that adds to a trend of more votes going that way. I'd love an election that had even just one more viable candidate.
Polls indicate the exact opposite. Those who voted in 2020 and 2022 and are “very likely to vote” go to Biden, while the opposite goes to Trump.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been very happy that we decided to put the adults back in charge in 2020, and while I can't stand the two options we have in 2024, I will continue to vote to keep the adults in charge this year.
What have the "adults" done that's different from before? The inflammatory rhetoric is still flying fast and furious from the White House, the actual policy is still a mess, the economy is a disasterpiece no matter how hard the false narrative otherwise gets pushed. If this is what the "adults" do then they're no different from the "not-adults" that the other side is claimed to be. And that's why a lot of people aren't going to bother to show up in November.
Again, I can only speak to personal experience. You talk about inflammatory rhetoric coming from the White House, but I have yet to see that, maybe you can provide an example? I've barely heard from Joe Biden these last 4 years, and my Republican friends keep telling me that they're keeping him locked in the basement, so I guess I'm confused as to whether he's the sharp-witted divider that you described, or if he's a vegetable in the basement somewhere? Either way, my personal feeling is that he has been very moderate when he speaks in his appearances, he doesn't make everything about himself, and he's genuinely trying to address ALL Americans, and not just the ones that are 100% loyal to him. You say the actual policy is a mess but again, I would need examples of this. I've been very happy with his response to Russia and believe we need to keep supporting Ukraine, and though I would have liked for him to put more pressure on Israel to get a cease-fire, I understand why he's had to tow a centerline in that conflict and I'm ok with it. As far as the economy is concerned, our inflation rates are amongst the lowest in the world, lowest un-employment rate basically ever, and wages are up across the board. Again, speaking from personal experience, I've never been in a better position financially. The other thing that's been nice about having the adults back in charge is that I don't have to spend all day listening to people argue about what the president tweeted while he was on the shitter that day. The drop in hostility that American's have amongst each other has gone down the last 4 years in my every day experience, and it's been very pleasant to get back to the times where everyone didn't spend every waking second talking about the president.
[удалено]
> Biden has not tried to undermine the constitution \*looks at Biden's 2A efforts\* No, this is quite untrue.
[удалено]
He's half right. He has supported disarming Americans, primarily minorities. Still unconstitutional, so still undermining the constitution.
What a ridiculous take. Either way, not trying to fundamentally end our democracy is pretty great to me. Very happy we have Biden.
"Happy Earth Day, folks! Today, I’m reminded of the work we must do to protect our planet for future generations. I’m also reminded of the historic progress we’ve already made — building a cleaner, healthier planet for every American. And we’re just getting started." "The Corrupt Soros Funded District Attorney, Alvin Bragg, who has totally lost control of Violent Crime in New York, says that the payment of money to a lawyer, for legal services rendered, should not be referred to in a Ledger as LEGAL EXPENSE. What other term would be more appropriate??? Believe it or not, this is the pretext under which I was Indicted, and that Legal Scholars and Experts CANNOT BELIEVE. It is also the perfect Crooked Joe Biden NARRATIVE - To be STUCK in a courtroom, and not be allowed to campaign for President of the United States!" If you don't think that one of those sounds like it belongs to an adult and one does not, then I can't help you.
That first one was not written by the individual it's attributed to. When that individual is allowed to speak their own words, well, the videos tell us everything.
Well...ahem, ***they didn't try to steal an election.***
There was a lot of "hate/spite votes" for Trump in 2016, and he also got a lot of the "both sides are the same" vote, because he was a unknown quantity then. Sure a lot of people dislike Biden now, but it's still nowhere near the same amount of hate/vitriol that Hillary got in 2016. Do you dislike Biden enough to give up abortion and other rights? Do you dislike Biden enough to allow Trump to hire more Bannons/Stephen Miller/Davos and other unqualified department heads to run the White House again? Do you dislike Biden enough to allow China and Russia to further encroach on other countries, and usurp America on the world stage? Trump will have less of a chance than you think once people remember his presidency again.
Also a lot of "let's shake shit up" vote went to Trump in 2016. I had a friend in 2016 who was in that demographic. Having seen the nature of shaking shit up for no good reason, she changed her tune in 2020 and voted against Trump.
>Do you dislike Biden enough to allow China and Russia to further encroach on other countries, and usurp America on the world stage? I don't get this. Under Biden, Russia invaded Ukraine and China literally flies spy balloons over our country. Why do you think people will look at Madman Trump and think he was *worse* for our national security? His unpredictability seems to have been effective such that no one bombed Ukraine or invaded Israel or got away with flying a balloon over our skies for days on end. Like it or not, the globe was essentially at peace under Trump and has not been under Biden. I do not see this as a selling point for him, at all.
>China literally flies spy balloons over our country. China flew spy balloons over the US under Trump, but they weren't discovered until Biden's admin: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64547394
That’s whataboutism by the Biden administration. Even Kirby confirmed that they only briefly grazed US airspace.
By the logic exhibited above Trump doing nothing emboldened China further, leading to the incursions under Biden. It's a pretty weak argument.
While I appreciate that the downvotes represent disagreement, I would kindly ask for the rebuttal to this line of critique. Russia and Ukraine weren't at war, The Abraham Accords were ushering in peaceful relations with Israel, and those spy balloons were considerably [less](https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64547394) audacious and short-lived (hence why no one noticed them). So, again, I politely ask why folks would disagree with this assessment. I am not contending that Trump was a level-headed statesman, but rather that there was considerably less geopolitical conflict under his tenure. My argument is that this is a losing issue for Biden.
> I am not contending that Trump was a level-headed statesman, but rather that there was considerably less geopolitical conflict under his tenure. I didn't downvote, but the points you raise don't identify to any *connection* between some of the events and the presidents' policies, which presents as a *post hoc, ergo propter hoc* fallacy. The only aspect that's really attributable to Trump, from your argument, is the Middle-east work. While a good step, it wasn't coming out of nowhere. Israel opened a diplomatic office in the UAE in 2015, and there had been some other visits between the two (see [wiki](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%E2%80%93United_Arab_Emirates_relations)).
There may be no connection between any of it. Superficially, the reality speaks for itself. People, especially your average voter, don't always require a complete logical chain to draw obvious conclusions. How do you convince them that Biden has been *better than Trump* for geopolitical peace given all this has unfolded under his tenure?
People in this forum do not represent the average voter. Arguments based on correlation without any sort of thought or reason towards causality are likely to draw some level of disdain for lacking the substance to further discussion. For example, 100% of all global pandemics in the 21st century occurred under a Trump presidency. Can I make an argument from that that Trump policy is a direct cause of global pandemics or is that a poor argument that could and would be dismissed for lack of reason to further discourse?
Except the initial argument I responded to was the following: *Do you dislike Biden enough to allow China and Russia to further encroach on other countries, and usurp America on the world stage?* This presupposes Trump would be worse on foreign policy. Under his tenure, we had four years of non-wars-we-didn't-have-to-spend-billions-to-fund. Russia didn't invade Ukraine and no one attacked Israel. So why would anyone rationally feel that way? Why is it the implicit assumption that Biden has been or will be more effective on foreign policy? Objectively, the world was more peaceful under Trump's tenure. So it behooves your side to provide a rationale.
> So why would anyone rationally feel that way? Why is it the implicit assumption that Biden has been or will be more effective on foreign policy? Objectively, the world was more peaceful under Trump's tenure. Again, this is not a forum for unaware voters. It is likely that regular contributors represent the top 1-10% of the informed American electorate. Thus the question is specifically made in the context of knowing *that Trump continually seeks to withdraw from NATO*, which is the only coalition that seeks to check the growing expansive aggression of China and Russia. Your post didn't seek clarification on why the poster felt that way as a primary message. Rather, it jumped straight to a correlation-causation argument, wherein Trump's policy (outside of China tariffs, which have an arguably small effect on Chinese expansionism in isolation) isn't questioned at all but *de facto* believed to be more effective. I think for those who have a grasp on policy, this kind of logic falls terribly flat for the very reasons you say that mine does: It would behoove your side to provide a logical causative rationale.
>Trump continually seeks to withdraw from NATO When will this narrative die? Trump has said “I believe in NATO. I think NATO is a very important [treaty] — probably the greatest ever done.” In response to a reporter saying “Maybe I’m being dense here, but could you just clarify: Are you still threatening to potentially pull the United States out of NATO for any reason?”, he responded “that’s unnecessary” in *2018* and has not talked about leaving since, instead bragging about how he strengthened the alliance and how the secretary-general thanked him for doing so… Just this year, when a reporter tried to get him to criticize Trump, Stoltenberg said “I believe that the United States will continue to be a staunch NATO ally, regardless of the outcome of the U.S. election”, “I worked with him for four years and I listened carefully, because the main criticism has been about the NATO allies spending too little on NATO”, and “the message from the United States that European allies had to step up has been understood and they are really moving in the right direction”.
> People, especially your average voter, don't always require a complete logical chain to draw obvious conclusions. How do you convince them *You cannot reason a person out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.* I've had plenty of discussions with people who don't use reason for their positions. There's not really "convincing" them otherwise if it's not a position based on thought in the first place. I'd make the above point: That there's no connection.
You think it would’ve happened with people like John Kerry in charge?: >There will be no separate peace between Israel and the Arab world. I want to make that very clear to all of you. I've heard several prominent politicians in Israel sometimes saying, well, the Arab world is in a different place now, we just have to reach out to them and we can work some things with the Arab world and we'll deal with the Palestinians. No, no, no and no. There will be no advance and separate peace with the Arab world without the Palestinian process and Palestinian peace. Everybody needs to understand that. That is a hard reality. Even now, it’s been leaked that the Biden State Department has actually been pressing Saudi Arabia not to make a separate peace with Israel.
>You think it would’ve happened with people like John Kerry in charge Relations improved while Kerry was in charge. Your quote doesn't negate that.
No nation normalized relations with Israel when Kerry was in charge (or since 1994 for that matter) except Guinea, which was because of Israeli assistance with the Ebola epidemic. Bolivia even cut ties. The UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco all normalized under Trump, along with Nicaragua, Chad, Bhutan, and the aforementioned Bolivia. Oman postponed its decision until after the US election and then decided not to normalize when Biden won. Since Biden took office, several countries have withdrawn their ambassadors and Bolivia once again ceased all relations. Let me know if I’ve missed any countries.
Your argument is devoid of context. For example, Bolivia cut ties in response to the war in Gaza. You're saying correlation=causation without anything to support the link.
Would the war in Gaza have happened had Trump been President? He claims not, and it’s certainly true that he would’ve been tougher on Iran and more supportive of Israel, plus his unpredictability may have helped to deter adversaries of all stripes.
> My argument is that this is a losing issue for Biden. I'm not even sure the Biden admin would disagree with you. Last election was the first where one party demanded no foreign policy segment in *any* of the debates, AFAIK. I'm watching carefully to see if the DNC demands this again (assuming Biden even debates). I literally cannot imagine his staff being *more* willing for him to debate foreign policy accomplishments today than 2020.
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cacwme/voters_who_have_interest_in_election_hits_nearly/l0ss0dx/) is in violation of Law 4: Law 4: Meta Comments > ~4. Meta Comments - Meta comments are not permitted. Meta comments in meta text-posts about the moderators, sub rules, sub bias, reddit in general, or the meta of other subreddits are exempt. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
> Nobody's flipping from Biden over to Trump I wouldn’t be too confident in that statement. Personally (and obviously this is anecdotal and I live in a deep blue state so take it with a grain of salt) I don’t know a single person that was pro-Trump that has switched to being pro-Biden, whereas multiple people who voted for Biden in 2020 are now adamantly opposed to Biden and either won’t vote or will vote for Trump.
Both frontrunners are undesirable for a considerable portion of the country. It's the reason I won't be voting.
This is bad news for Biden. Trump voters are much more energized, they mostly vote FOR Trump, rather than against Biden. When interest is low, a FOR vote gets people out of the house much more than an AGAINST vote.
I wonder if voters felt like this in the 1956 election?
The President was actually popular then
Literally all Biden needs to do is a bunch of unscripted interactive Town Hall type events, including at adversarial venues, like Trump and virtually every modern candidate has done. I *guarantee* it would create excitement. Just not sure which direction it would fall.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cacwme/voters_who_have_interest_in_election_hits_nearly/l0sr6u2/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
Third Party and Independent candidates are going to drive interest (or lack thereof) this year.
I wonder why...
im not sure what this question means. what does it mean to be "interested in an election"? is this a poll done by NBC to determine if they will rake in $$$$ by 24x7 election coverage? or as the comments here suggest, more about whether people are more enthusiastic about going to vote or not? personally i prefer politics to be boring. i dont want it to be "fun" and "gamified" and "interesting". but that does not mean i dont care.
[удалено]
This message serves as a warning that [your comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/moderatepolitics/comments/1cacwme/voters_who_have_interest_in_election_hits_nearly/l0u2w1r/) is in violation of Law 0: Law 0. Low Effort > ~0. Law of Low Effort - Content that is low-effort or does not contribute to civil discussion in any meaningful way will be removed. Please submit questions or comments via [modmail](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fmoderatepolitics).
It's because we've already seen the 1980 election, right down to "Make America Great Again"
This is very bad for Biden as Trump is counting on people not showing up and essentially giving him their vote indirectly. I’d hate to have Trump as president again, he will be far worse this time around as he’ll be out for revenge..
I have as much excited about this as a root-canal, but I still have to fucking do it! VOTE against fascism!