There seems to be an enormous difference between most folks out in the world who are incredibly enthused about the next couple months and ready to dig in on the one hand, and on the other the Very Online woe industry that would rather focus on how terribly unjust it is that all the doom and gloom predictions seem to be dissolving at lightning speed.
When you’re invested in predicting disaster, sometimes all you see is disaster.
There aren’t major creditable polls saying that more Americans approve of Biden than disapprove of him (and his administration) this year. Literally every presidential approval poll tracked by ABC News this year (about 300 of them!) has Biden with a higher disapproval percentage than approval percentage. Some of his policies poll high, but in totality, Americans disapprove of the Biden Administration (but I wouldn’t be surprised if some polls in the next few weeks have approval/disapproval parity with his “retirement” announcement).
Wallace Shawn must have really appreciated that role (among other reasons) because of the costuming. In every other. role he’s in a frumpy tweed jacket and tie.
Sure, just ignore what I said about polls and the media. That always results in a productive conversation.
Enough said right there.
Pretty much every president in the modern era has lower approval than disapproval after their first hundred days. T**** was notorious for it. Obama had a few spikes in approval but also lagged behind disapproval for much of his presidency. Shrub’s popularity went down consistently his whole administration, making impact at the end at 24%.
Go back much further than that and we start getting to the days when the fairness doctrine was still in effect and journalists actually did some journalism.
Along with every other valid point that’s been made in good faith by the commentariat.
Not to mention that in an election where one of two is going to win, what matters is not whether one polls at less than 50% and falling; it’s instead whether they’re nevertheless more popular than the other one.
Haven’t kept up with the thread, just popping in to share the New York Times’ version of this, which casts Kamala as the least likely person to beat Trump out of every conceivable credible candidate
That one’s been discussed over in the Fucking New York Times thread, Rob.
It would be fun for one of the NYT editorial board to have that chart brought up by an interviewer or panelist. Where did you get your data for the chart? What were your data collection and analysis methods? Oh, you pulled it out of your ass? Are you a board-certified proctologist?
Incorrect, it was entirely 45’s fault. I do the grocery shopping in my household, I absolutely noticed the grocery bill doubling in April 2020. 45 did nothing to slow it down, his Fed kept the rate at 0.00%. Once giant corporations figured out 45 wasn’t going to suggest raising the Fed rate (because he’s too stupid to understand what it means), they went all in on greedflation. I hate that Biden’s fed raised the prime rate to 5% because it made my current ride more expensive, but it has done the job. People couldn’t afford to buy big-ticket items, so giant corporations got the memo that their price gouging times were done.
I’m absolutely hoping June’s numbers signals the Fed to start easing back. It has to be coupled with a statement from the FTC, though - “we’re watching you, giant corporations, you know who you are 
.”
@beschizza: Dammit, Rob, Whitmer is not leaving her current governorship. Awesome that the general US thinks she’s presidential material, but I think she needs to be a senator first, she can have Peters’ seat when her governorship is over. Then she and AOC can run, with AOC as the presidential candidate. 
I didn’t reply to this earlier, but it has been gnawing at my brain all day. What prompted the claim that campaigning has been an historic weak spot for Harris? She won her first election, for San Francisco District Attorney, in a three way race where she was the least known name in the race. And she won that against the incumbent who had demoted her for having the gall to disagree with him publicly about a political issue. Then she won reelection four years later. Three years after that, she won the election for California Attorney General in a close election. Four years later, she cruised to reelection. Two years later, she easily won election to the US Senate. The only election she’s lost was the one for the 2020 Democratic nomination for President, and she dropped out before the primaries. And then won election as Vice President. So where the hell is the evidence for any weakness in campaigning?
It does matter a lot which democrats the increased voter turnout includes, though. Increasing voter turnout among democrats in Vermont or Massachusetts won’t accomplish anything, whereas increased turnout among democrats in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania will.
Given that, we need to consider whether the populations of not-turning-out-by-default democrats in those states have the same distribution of views, and get excited by the same things. They don’t. And motivating the ones that do lean further left in swing states risks pushing less left-leaning voters to Trump. Plus, each swing voter that switches sides has twice as much impact on the result as a progressive democrat deciding whether to vote at all.
So, can exciting the base more increase voter turnout for the democrats, by at least twice as many people as the swing voters it pushes towards Trump, minus any republicans who wouldn’t have bothered turning out to vote against a less progressive democrat? Sometimes, sure. But consistently?
Dude, there are so many things wrong with this. Not least is the idea that somehow, energizing progressive, younger voters is a bad thing. Additionally, whether your vote will swing the presidential election is not the biggest issue. We need to sweep the fascists out of every office they hold. We need to crush them under a blue wave of historic proportions. Showing up to vote for down-ballot candidates is vital to reclaiming our country. Showing up to vote in every damn town, county, state to generate that mandate, to show them that they are a tiny minority, and to drive them back into their holes. I do not care one tiny damn about scaring, offending or otherwise discomforting the fucking fascists because they are fascists. “Which Democrats show up?” No, no, take that nonsense elsewhere.
Thanks, doc. I want to add
These people do not exist. There are no left-leaning people who will vote for Trump. A willingness to vote for Trump, under any circumstances, negates the possibility the person was left-leaning.
I am sick to death of this “oh no! Don’t scare away the swing voters!” Swing voters don’t exist in big numbers any more. Our politics have become too divided and the right too fascist.
But Democrats do, regularly, leave millions of votes on the table by failing to engage all those kids who’ve come of age since 2020. I don’t remember who posted the numbers, but it was a lot. And millions more POC who have had so little hope so long and so many barriers to voting. Fuck the swing voters.
Figured this belongs in this thread too.
Now, now… there’s no need to air that dirty French laundry.
Yeah, I can see where a discussion like a Scrum retrospective could be helpful. Air out what went right what didn’t go as good, and then move into planning. We have an exciting candidate to get behind now, so air out the room and look ahead with new energy.
Oh. Hm… yeah, that works as well for an in depth analysis, if we were going to write a book about it. And oh boy, there are going to be some real barn-burners out there. I predict even Aaron Sorkin will be working on a screenplay as a way to atone for his Mitt Romney clickbait.
Anyways.
Apropos clickbait, it now seems the actual Biden Betrayers were not that many. It’s more like that situation we all know, when a good friend is in over their head, you agonize about intervening, and you just know you’re going to get accused of backstabbing. But they’re your friend, you need to be the one to tell them it’s a bad idea.
But the editors are demanding stories, so the reporters and pundits have to train their spotlights on anyone who stirs up drama, making the microscopic seem monstrous. And the speed which the “someone other than Harris” group evaporated makes me think the premise that Harris was not what they wanted, well, wrong.
This topic made me register. The discussion is typical left-wing handwringing.
The talking point about Biden‘s age indeed was a bullshit story. At the same time, after the debate, it was the story. It was the one insult he would not be able to diffuse. For all intents and purposes, in one week Trump was shot at, stood up and called for a fight while an already seen as frail Biden was at home sick. You can’t come back from this, and in a very close and extremely meaningful election that is a giant anchor weighing you down. You can say that’s got nothing to do with who would be the better president, but it’s still the world we live in.
You can also say you don’t trust polls, but in the world we live in people still use them as guidelines. It’s not like there are „real polls“ out there only used by a select few. They are messy, and yet they are still a real yardstick to go by because what else do you want to go by?
And don’t come here saying Biden quitting was undemocratic. Thats bullshit because the primary was already undemocratic. You can’t claim votes are being disregarded because people never had a true vote anyway, it was a coronation with no true competition. If there has been a real primary, then either Joe Biden would have prevailed and one bad debate with trump wouldn’t have mattered, or he would have been defeated already because he was too frail. But now the first real look at Biden‘s campaign was the debate with trump, and all the signs as to his mental acuity came true.
As for AOC, I believe two things: 1) she was afraid of someone other than Kamala being put on the ticket, ie another white dude with a white VP instead of a minority woman at least as VP and 2) as someone on the far left of the party, it was especially important for her standing to not be seen as someone stabbing the leadership in the back because she is probably in danger of losing party support for being too progressive anyway.
As it stands, I think the outcome is the best possible one. You think Biden did a great job and had a good team - Kamala can continue that. You think he was too old, especially for another four years of probably very tough times? Kamala is better suited for that. You want that sexist, racist criminal ass of Trump to be provoked? Better put a minority woman DA against him 
