US Poll....who are you voting for?

[Omy]

Just curious to see how the poll turns out. I'm hoping the comments stay friendly.

[Chris Pascale]

Earlier, I mistakenly thought I saw Dean Phillips well ahead in the NH Primary, and was excited to think there'll be someone under their natural life expectancy in the General Election.

It'll be interesting to see the debates, if there'll be any.

[ATtiny85]

Likely third party. It will quite the interesting election. In some ways I’d like to see Trump win just because of all the excitement it will cause. Super plus if it comes down to some hanging chads, that would really cause some exciting days.

I do wish Biden was “better”, whatever that might mean. It’s been a decent couple of years, but goodness does his age come through at times, and that it a bit concerning looking forward. Trump of course is also up there, but his danger just comes from his trumpiness, not his age.

[blue_green_sparks]

Biden, mostly because I have health insurance today, but my vote will not actually count in the national numbers as usual.

[RetiredAt63]

In some ways I’d like to see Trump win just because of all the excitement it will cause.

Oh God please no.  Multi-vehicle highway accidents are also "exciting". A moose charging a car is exciting.

This message is from a Canadian who watched his first term.  It was (expletives deleted) insulting being called a security risk just because he wanted to slap on some tariffs.

[midweststache]

Obviously the presidential elections are meaningful, but I'm more interested in they types of leaders a President surrounds themselves with. I appreciate:

1) The skillset and knowledge of Biden's cabinet and,
2) the fact that members of his cabinet don't randomly get fired or resign from their postings in general frustration or in embarrassment (e.g. Mulvaney, Cho, Devos, etc. - not that I thought any were particularly good at their job, but the point stands).

Longevity and stability matter in these kinds of leadership posts, even if the "national profile" isn't as high as someone like the President.

Of course, it doesn't hurt that I am much more left-leaning than Biden himself, so I'm certainly more inclined to vote for him, but I think looking at the way a president's leadership team responds to the president is telling, and this is an election where voters can see a meaningful comparison of that between presumptive nominees.

[GuitarStv]

Polling so far seems to show a slight but clear lead for Trump.

[Fru-Gal]

Biden has done more for US rail than any president since the 1970s! Rail and public transport are how we solve the climate crisis AND they are simply better, more enjoyable ways to travel.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/biden-administration-passenger-rail-investment/

President Biden on Friday is announcing $8.2 billion in new funding for 10 passenger rail projects nationwide, representing the largest federal investment in passenger rail transportation since Amtrak was created in 1971. 

https://hsr.ca.gov/2023/12/05/news-release-high-speed-rail-authority-to-receive-record-3-1-billion-from-biden-administration/

In the single strongest show of federal support to date, the US Department of Transportation has awarded the California High-Speed Rail Authority (Authority) nearly $3.1 billion in grant funding for continued progress on the country’s first electrified 220-mph high-speed rail system.

[iris lily]

Earlier, I mistakenly thought I saw Dean Phillips well ahead in the NH Primary, and was excited to think there'll be someone under their natural life expectancy in the General Election.

It'll be interesting to see the debates, if there'll be any.

I heard him speak on the radio. He seems like a normal human being. He’s not at the age where he becomes comatose quickly. I would vote for him were he on the Democratic ticket.

[Fru-Gal]

Imagine being so successful as president that the only argument against you is your age…

…while your only popular opponent is an insurrectionist and convicted criminal OF THE SAME AGE! Who is responsible for thousands over 1000 people going to prison between his cabinet and followers!

This is why I hate the media horse race reporting.

[iris lily]

Likely third party. It will quite the interesting election….

I’m not saying you are wrong, I’ve been a third-party voter the last couple of elections. But this time around I’m voting for Biden specifically to keep Donald Trump out of the White House.

I’m furious with the Democrats that they cannot put up a candidate that is at least reasonably acceptable to me. Joe Biden 20 years ago IN THIS ELECTION sure, I would’ve gladly voted for him to keep Trump out of the White House.

I confessed to my brother, a life long Republican, that I planned to vote for Biden for the reason stated above.

I WAS SHOCKED when he said he, too, woukd be voting for Biden to make Trump go away. Shocked.

[Fru-Gal]

Polling so far seems to show a slight but clear lead for Trump.

Polling at this point is meaningless.

Of course he could win, not saying he couldn’t.

[dividendman]

It's clear that this forum is much more left wing/Democratic than the electorate... so it won't really tell us anything useful.

[sixwings]

Polling so far seems to show a slight but clear lead for Trump.

Polling at this point is meaningless.

Of course he could win, not saying he couldn’t.

Agreed, right now there's been way more focus on Trump and republicans due to the primary which has allowed them to hammer away at bad things  they see about Biden. All republican candidates were terrified of actually going after Trump too. Biden is just getting the campaign started now, which is already really early for a gen election, and I think we'll start to see a big shift in that going forward. Biden has accomplishments and a vision/ideas that are appealing to people, Bidens campaign will be hitting him on all the awful stuff he did, all the stuff he didn't do, and generally his terrible record as president. I expect Dem focused PACs will also start hammering Trump on things like his legal troubles (Biden can't comment on them or else it'll look more political), his connections to Epstein, his fraud, etc. Trump has also refused to debate or really get in front of the public to talk about his goals (because he doesn't have any and even if he did he's so incoherent he can't actually articulate it), which is fine for conservative morons in the primary but not a general election. Trump has been very insulated from any criticism and sheltered from having to articulate why he would be a good president, which has allowed him to just talk crap about Biden with no retaliation, that's about to massively change.

Then you start to factor in that the GOP is broke in many states and in complete disarray with no ability for a good GOTV effort, Trump is sucking up all the individual donations for himself/his legal problems, while the Dems are flush with cash and organizing strong GOTV efforts in key campaign states, and it starts to look bleak for the GOP. Like look at michigan, the republican party there is completely broke and in complete disarray. Trump has to win Michigan to win the election and the state party is wrecked beyond repair. State parties are incredibly important for GOTV and GOTV is what wins elections.

[maizefolk]

I had high hopes for Dean as well. Trump would do far worse against a "generic" democrat than against Biden (or Harris). Dean was a reasonable, generic, democrat. Exactly the sort of person a rational party, whose members mostly argue another Trump victory is an existential threat to the future of our country, should want as their nominee in this situation.

In the end I will probably vote for Biden anyway. But the primary results in New Hampshire last night (the democratic primary more so than the republican one) have me convinced that we're on track for another four years with Trump in office. It feels very much like a rerun of 2016 with the democratic party leadership again more focused on who "deserves" to be the nominee rather than focusing on how to maximize the odds of winning the election.

[sixwings]

This is insane to me, Biden has been a good president, the US economy is doing really well, better than any other developed nation, inflation is down, there's been real tangible investments in infrastructure and manufacturing, he's accomplished a lot. He's been a much better president than Bush/Obama/Trump. There's a very good argument that he's been the best president of our lifetime/last 30 years. But people want a generic democrat who has no record and hasn't accomplished anything at a national level because Biden is... old? What in the actual F?

[sixwings]

It's clear that this forum is much more left wing/Democratic than the electorate... so it won't really tell us anything useful.

As a life-long capitalist & successful US stock investor, I have to wonder what makes the following two points “left wing” (assuming you were reacting to them, if not no worries)?

1. Incumbent made massive infrastructure investment including for long-distance and high speed rail
2. Challenger incited an insurrection and his followers and cabinet have gone to prison at an unprecedented level for a president

Also FYI many on the forum and even posting in this thread are not even in the US.

I live in Canada but have dual US/Can citz and vote :)

[maizefolk]

This is insane to me, Biden has been a good president, the US economy is doing really well, better than any other developed nation, inflation is down, there's been real tangible investments in infrastructure and manufacturing, he's accomplished a lot. He's been a much better president than Bush/Obama/Trump. There's a very good argument that he's been the best president of our lifetime/last 30 years. But people want a generic democrat who has no record and hasn't accomplished anything at a national level because Biden is... old? What in the actual F?

It is insane to me we're more focused on what is fair than on what wins elections. Hillary Clinton talked a lot about how impressive her record and accomplishments were too. Didn't people talk about her being the "most qualified candidate ever for the presidency" or something, fundamentally misunderstanding that the election isn't a job interview but a popularity contest?

I won't argue with you that Biden hasn't been a good president. He has. But he is also a deeply, deeply unpopular president. Currently he's at net -17% approval with only 39% of voters approving of the job he's done as president. Since the end of his first year, Biden has been consistently less popular than Obama was at any time in his eight years as president.

Is that his fault? In large part no. Inflation is down. Prices are rising more slowly each month than they have in the recent past. But if you ask most voters they'll tell you inflation is still high because they -- incorrectly -- think inflation coming down means prices returning to where they were before the pandemic.

GDP growth and job numbers look great, but many voters will tell you the economy is bad. A lot of retail and restaurant experiences are worse, in part because the hot job's market makes it harder for stores and restaurants to keep enough employees. High interest rates suck. People got used to not paying their student loans and spending that money in other ways, even though it was always intended to be a temporary pause, and having to restart those payments is putting a lot of people's budgets.

None of those are things Biden did wrong, but he gets the blame for them anyway. That's part of the cost of being an incumbent when voters are unhappy about the state of their world.

[dividendman]

It's clear that this forum is much more left wing/Democratic than the electorate... so it won't really tell us anything useful.

As a life-long capitalist & successful US stock investor, I have to wonder what makes the following two points “left wing” (assuming you were reacting to them, if not no worries)?

1. Incumbent made massive infrastructure investment including for long-distance and high speed rail
2. Challenger incited an insurrection and his followers and cabinet have gone to prison at an unprecedented level for a president

Also FYI many on the forum and even posting in this thread are not even in the US.

Yeah I wasn't reacting to anything specific. I'm just using "left wing" because others do. I don't think the vast majority of the Democratic party is "left wing" when compared to the left wing parties in other countries. As I like to say, the US left is the right of center in every other democracy.

[Cranky]

Biden is not my ideal candidate, and I am in fact quite left wing, but it’s hard to think of a worse president than Trump.

[Log]

Echoing Fru-Gal and sixwings above. I look at Biden or hear him speak and think, “DAMN, he’s old,” and I worry whether he’s capable of doing the job. Then I pick up some news here and there about the accomplishments of his administration, and I’m very enthusiastic to keep a good thing going. He hired good people, and evidently he manages them well. He has arguably been the best president of my life. I will be voting for Biden not begrudgingly like I did in 2020, but enthusiastically.

[jrhampt]

Echoing Fru-Gal and sixwings above. I look at Biden or hear him speak and think, “DAMN, he’s old,” and I worry whether he’s capable of doing the job. Then I pick up some news here and there about the accomplishments of his administration, and I’m very enthusiastic to keep a good thing going. He hired good people, and evidently he manages them well. He has arguably been the best president of my life. I will be voting for Biden not begrudgingly like I did in 2020, but enthusiastically.

Same.  Very happy to vote for Biden this time.  Also agree that we're talking about him vs another candidate who is BASICALLY THE SAME AGE and completely incoherent 100% of the time.  So if age is a disqualifier for you, don't vote for that guy either. Biden is the incumbent with an incumbent's advantage.  It is pure fantasy to expect the incumbent to step aside for someone else especially when he has a successful track record of accomplishments to point to, and even more fantasy to expect that some other magical democratic candidate who is not the incumbent will have some advantage over the incumbent.  There were LOADS of democratic candidates back in the 2020 primary, and Biden beat all of them.  They had their shot.  Why would this time be any different?  Is there any particular D candidate for whom people would vote over both Biden and Trump?  I seriously, seriously doubt it.

[Omy]

Michelle Obama would crush it. But she has enough sense to stay out of politics.

[jrhampt]

Michelle Obama has never held elected office. HRC did including the highest levels of elected office and appointments for a presidential candidate ever. I really dislike this idea at local and national politics that people who have never served a day in their life as a civil servant should be elected. Hate it in my town, hate it nationally.

Same, Michelle Obama is a fantasy that gets trotted out.  Will never happen.  And if it did happen (which it won't), there are any number of reasons people would find not to vote for her if the fantasy candidate ran in reality.

[GuitarStv]

I really dislike this idea at local and national politics that people who have never served a day in their life as a civil servant should be elected. Hate it in my town, hate it nationally.

But that's exactly what you want isn't it?

Like, if you're hiring a heart surgeon you definitely want a guy who has never been to medical school or been involved in medicine.  If you're hiring an engineer to build a bridge you want a guy who has never calculated stress on trusses.  If you're hiring a pilot you want a guy who has never flown a plane.  It's totally logical to look for someone with no experience doing the job you're hiring them for, right?  :P

[Dicey]

I can't stop crying long enough to answer this poll.

I am reminded of a conversation I had with my cousin's husband (who regularly appears on those Sunday morning shows - not the churchy ones and was editor of a well-known publication). It was October of 2016. I expressed my concern about a certain candidate. He replied, " They haven't won a single poll. It's a joke."

[GilesMM]

It's clear that this forum is much more left wing/Democratic than the electorate... so it won't really tell us anything useful.

That's because the forum is mostly Canadians.

[GuitarStv]

It's clear that this forum is much more left wing/Democratic than the electorate... so it won't really tell us anything useful.

That's because the forum is mostly Canadians.

We identify as America Lite.

[dividendman]

It's clear that this forum is much more left wing/Democratic than the electorate... so it won't really tell us anything useful.

That's because the forum is mostly Canadians.

Shouldn't the Canadians pick "Not voting" in the poll?

[RetiredAt63]

I really dislike this idea at local and national politics that people who have never served a day in their life as a civil servant should be elected. Hate it in my town, hate it nationally.

But that's exactly what you want isn't it?

Like, if you're hiring a heart surgeon you definitely want a guy who has never been to medical school or been involved in medicine.  If you're hiring an engineer to build a bridge you want a guy who has never calculated stress on trusses.  If you're hiring a pilot you want a guy who has never flown a plane.  It's totally logical to look for someone with no experience doing the job you're hiring them for, right?  :P

Maybe if they had some doctors and engineers and so on they wouldn't enact some of the la-la legislation they do.  (I'm thinking abortion legislation that ignores medical reality, but I am sure others could come up with examples in other areas).

[RetiredAt63]

It's clear that this forum is much more left wing/Democratic than the electorate... so it won't really tell us anything useful.

That's because the forum is mostly Canadians.

We identify as America Lite.

I thought we were America's Hat?  Or the apartment above the meth lab?

We do identify ourselves, though. 

[maizefolk]

Like, if you're hiring a heart surgeon you definitely want a guy who has never been to medical school or been involved in medicine.  If you're hiring an engineer to build a bridge you want a guy who has never calculated stress on trusses.  If you're hiring a pilot you want a guy who has never flown a plane.  It's totally logical to look for someone with no experience doing the job you're hiring them for, right?  :P

But that's the point. We're not hiring anyone. We're picking who we put forward into a weird, skewed, messy popularity contest as the alternative to a person who, from what I'm hearing a lot of people say, would destroy the country if they win.

If I'm on a reality TV show where a bunch of strangers vote on whether I'm going to get heart surgery from either a person of my choice or a person I know wants to kill me, I'm not going to focus on picking the most qualified heart surgeon, I'm going to focus on picking the person I think has the best odds of being picked by the crowd over the guy I know wants to kill me.

Biden is the incumbent with an incumbent's advantage.  It is pure fantasy to expect the incumbent to step aside for someone else especially when he has a successful track record of accomplishments to point to, and even more fantasy to expect that some other magical democratic candidate who is not the incumbent will have some advantage over the incumbent.  There were LOADS of democratic candidates back in the 2020 primary, and Biden beat all of them.  They had their shot.  Why would this time be any different?  Is there any particular D candidate for whom people would vote over both Biden and Trump?  I seriously, seriously doubt it.

Lyndon B. Johnson was also an incumbent president, also with a largely successful domestic track record, also headed into reelection, also with an approval rating below 40%. Unlike Biden, Johnson hadn't pledged to serve only a single term.

Johnson changed his mind and dropped out of the race for reelection. If Bobby Kennedy hadn't been assassinated, Johnson's decision might have saved that election for the democratic party. But at least it gave them a chance.

[SmashYourSmartPhone]

Imagine being so successful as president that the only argument against you is your age…

Nonsense.  There are a lot of arguments against him.  You won't find many of those people posting in threads like this, but to pretend it's "Just his age" is nonsense.  It's things like "His increasingly regular inability to pronounce words and act like he knows where he is and what he's doing" that concern people on that front.  It's not one-off flubs, it's a consistent pattern of "a professional politician no longer being able to read the teleprompter," and "wandering around like he's lost on stage until someone gets him."  Hard to excuse the pattern there as "someone fit for office."

Among many other issues one can have with his administration.

…while your only popular opponent is an insurrectionist and convicted criminal OF THE SAME AGE! Who is responsible for thousands over 1000 people going to prison between his cabinet and followers!

Would be nice to vote for someone not pushing 80, yup.

It's clear that this forum is much more left wing/Democratic than the electorate... so it won't really tell us anything useful.

More and more conservatives are simply opting out of the internet, it seems.  Or staying in quieter corners.  Though I'm certain there are plenty of Trump voters on this forum, who simply have the sense to not participate in these threads.

Trump has proven twice that he cannot win the popularity contest, all he can do is game and/or defraud the electoral college.

And the fundamental problem here is that elections are not won by popular vote, they're won by the electoral college.  "Gaming the electoral college," as you call it, is also known as "winning the election the way it's designed."  I'm aware it's unpopular, but the popular vote and $7 will buy you a cup of coffee.

[Fru-Gal]

And the fundamental problem here is that elections are not won by popular vote, they're won by the electoral college.  "Gaming the electoral college," as you call it, is also known as "winning the election the way it's designed."  I'm aware it's unpopular, but the popular vote and $7 will buy you a cup of coffee.

I think we agree on how US elections work, and I’m not against how the system was designed since it has a utility in giving low-population states a voice. But I’m sure you’re aware that defrauding the electoral college is the RICO case against Trump. Gaming it, sure, I’ll agree that any successful candidate only need win the electoral college. Can you throw me a bone and concede that Trump has not won the popular vote in either of the two previous elections?

In many ways Trump has tested our system and proven, thus far, the weak executive theory to be functional. Many CEOs are counting on this system to continue to insulate the US from any negatives Trump might bring to office, while presumably giving them another tax and lobbying windfall. For the rest of us, allowing him in for a third attempt at circumventing executive norms seems foolhardy and extremely dangerous. Should the keeper of the nuke codes, who loves beautiful phone calls, have a well-documented alliance with Putin?

Ultimately we need to expand the two-party system in a meaningful way and expand the Supreme Court. Both those actions would stop the electorate from being held hostage by both Republicans and Democrats.

[StarBright]

I had high hopes for Dean as well. Trump would do far worse against a "generic" democrat than against Biden (or Harris). Dean was a reasonable, generic, democrat. Exactly the sort of person a rational party, whose members mostly argue another Trump victory is an existential threat to the future of our country, should want as their nominee in this situation.

In the end I will probably vote for Biden anyway. But the primary results in New Hampshire last night (the democratic primary more so than the republican one) have me convinced that we're on track for another four years with Trump in office. It feels very much like a rerun of 2016 with the democratic party leadership again more focused on who "deserves" to be the nominee rather than focusing on how to maximize the odds of winning the election.

FWIW, I don't think the bolded is quite right. There is no generic Democrat out there who came close to polling well against Trump in the early research. There were obviously some tentative feelers out there for Whitmer and Newsome in the beginning, but as soon as Trump solidified his lead both quickly got quiet.

I think if Trump had not run the Party would have tried for a younger Dem, but Biden is the only one who has come close to Trump in every poll - precisely because he is a known quantity. 

[bacchi]

Ultimately we need to expand the two-party system in a meaningful way and expand the Supreme Court. Both those actions would stop the electorate from being held hostage by both Republicans and Democrats.

Two words: Ranked voting.

It allows people to vote for whom they want without feeling like they're throwing away their vote in favor of the unwanted candidate.

[Psychstache]

I had high hopes for Dean as well. Trump would do far worse against a "generic" democrat than against Biden (or Harris). Dean was a reasonable, generic, democrat. Exactly the sort of person a rational party, whose members mostly argue another Trump victory is an existential threat to the future of our country, should want as their nominee in this situation.

In the end I will probably vote for Biden anyway. But the primary results in New Hampshire last night (the democratic primary more so than the republican one) have me convinced that we're on track for another four years with Trump in office. It feels very much like a rerun of 2016 with the democratic party leadership again more focused on who "deserves" to be the nominee rather than focusing on how to maximize the odds of winning the election.

FWIW, I don't think the bolded is quite right. There is no generic Democrat out there who came close to polling well against Trump in the early research. There were obviously some tentative feelers out there for Whitmer and Newsome in the beginning, but as soon as Trump solidified his lead both quickly got quiet.

I think if Trump had not run the Party would have tried for a younger Dem, but Biden is the only one who has come close to Trump in every poll - precisely because he is a known quantity.

The other problem is there is no such thing as a generic candidate in reality. This same kind of stuff came out in 2012, where "generic republican" was polling better than Obama as an incumbent. But the second you apply a real person with a real name and real baggage, the calculus changes. Suddenly there is a record to defend, comments from their past, past votes, and policy positions that are more extreme or milquetoast than the ones held by "generic candidate of my party".

[reeshau]

It's things like "His increasingly regular inability to pronounce words and act like he knows where he is and what he's doing" that concern people on that front.  It's not one-off flubs, it's a consistent pattern of "a professional politician no longer being able to read the teleprompter,"

You do understand that he has had a life-long stutter, don't you?  I personally find it amazing how he speaks in public so much, with that extra factor to deal with.

[SmashYourSmartPhone]

I think we agree on how US elections work, and I’m not against how the system was designed since it has a utility in giving low-population states a voice. But I’m sure you’re aware that defrauding the electoral college is the RICO case against Trump. Gaming it, sure, I’ll agree that any successful candidate only need win the electoral college. Can you throw me a bone and concede that Trump has not won the popular vote in either of the two previous elections?

Was the popular vote result ever in question?  I can't say I've paid a ton of attention, though "legal cases against Trump" seem to be more a case of "throw spaghetti at the wall and see if anything sticks" than anything sane, given the "creativity" in some of the cases against him.

The powers that be are obviously horrified by the thought that Trump might win again, and are outdoing one another in "legal absurdities to try and prevent that."  Unfortunately, he's rather antifragile in those ways, and the more the system seems stacked against him through absurdities, the more support he's likely to find.

Should the keeper of the nuke codes, who loves beautiful phone calls, have a well-documented alliance with Putin?

Define "alliance"?  Four years of trying to find a smoking gun about Russian collusion came up largely empty.  And when it comes down to it, given a choice between proxy wars against Russia that we have going on now, or politicians talking among themselves, I'd rather have the second.  Nothing good is going to come of the Ukraine meat grinder, just hundreds of thousands of deaths and draining weapons stocks the west seems to have forgotten how to build in large quantities, while Russia has geared up a solid supply chain for their military.

I personally find it amazing how he speaks in public so much, with that extra factor to deal with.

Ok, and the reason for his wandering aimlessly on stage?  The... rather grade-school level cheat sheets handed to him about where he sits, how he behaves during meetings, etc?

I'm sure everything can be excused away by suitably motivated reasoning, but the straightforward and reasonable explanation is also "he's getting old, and is showing signs of [reduced mental acuity, cognitive decline, whatever you want to call it]."

Believe me, I'd far rather have a choice between some 50 year olds.  But that doesn't seem to be in the cards, so I fully expect a retirement center grade comedy election season again.

[PeteD01]

...

I can't say I've paid a ton of attention, though "legal cases against Trump" seem to be more a case of "throw spaghetti at the wall and see if anything sticks" than anything sane, given the "creativity" in some of the cases against him.

...

Not paying attention and still having an opinion about whatever one has not paid attention to pretty much summarizes what intentional ignorance is all about.

[jrhampt]

Biden is the incumbent with an incumbent's advantage.  It is pure fantasy to expect the incumbent to step aside for someone else especially when he has a successful track record of accomplishments to point to, and even more fantasy to expect that some other magical democratic candidate who is not the incumbent will have some advantage over the incumbent.  There were LOADS of democratic candidates back in the 2020 primary, and Biden beat all of them.  They had their shot.  Why would this time be any different?  Is there any particular D candidate for whom people would vote over both Biden and Trump?  I seriously, seriously doubt it.

Lyndon B. Johnson was also an incumbent president, also with a largely successful domestic track record, also headed into reelection, also with an approval rating below 40%. Unlike Biden, Johnson hadn't pledged to serve only a single term.

Johnson changed his mind and dropped out of the race for reelection. If Bobby Kennedy hadn't been assassinated, Johnson's decision might have saved that election for the democratic party. But at least it gave them a chance.

Ok…relevance?  If…might have…= fantasy.  There is no alternative democratic candidate.  None.  People had better get used to the reality, which is that we have a Biden/Trump rematch.  There is no viable democratic alternative to Biden just like there is no republican alternatives to Trump.  It was nice to think for a while that Nikki Haley might win NH, but that was a fantasy. 

[maizefolk]

Biden is the incumbent with an incumbent's advantage.  It is pure fantasy to expect the incumbent to step aside for someone else especially when he has a successful track record of accomplishments to point to, and even more fantasy to expect that some other magical democratic candidate who is not the incumbent will have some advantage over the incumbent.  There were LOADS of democratic candidates back in the 2020 primary, and Biden beat all of them.  They had their shot.  Why would this time be any different?  Is there any particular D candidate for whom people would vote over both Biden and Trump?  I seriously, seriously doubt it.

Lyndon B. Johnson was also an incumbent president, also with a largely successful domestic track record, also headed into reelection, also with an approval rating below 40%. Unlike Biden, Johnson hadn't pledged to serve only a single term.

Johnson changed his mind and dropped out of the race for reelection. If Bobby Kennedy hadn't been assassinated, Johnson's decision might have saved that election for the democratic party. But at least it gave them a chance.

Ok…relevance?  If…might have…= fantasy.  There is no alternative democratic candidate.  None.  People had better get used to the reality, which is that we have a Biden/Trump rematch.  There is no viable democratic alternative to Biden just like there is no republican alternatives to Trump.  It was nice to think for a while that Nikki Haley might win NH, but that was a fantasy. 

Nothing fantastical about it. An incumbent president in the past, with less reason than Biden not to run (because Biden pledged not to), have been willing to step down for the good of their party and their country. Actually happened. Johnson was willing, perhaps with pressure from the people around him who was what was coming, I don't know, to put the good of the country first.

It's also worth mentioning that if Biden were to take Johnson's route on Johnson's timeline, it would come as a surprise announcement about two months from now at the end of March in the year of the election.

Not that I expect that to happen. But it's important to find reasons for hope that aren't fantasies but falls within the range of true possibility.

I'll vote for Biden if he's the guy on the ballot in November. But I'll do so with zero hope he's going to win.

[BlueMR2]

Ok…relevance?  If…might have…= fantasy.  There is no alternative democratic candidate.  None.  People had better get used to the reality, which is that we have a Biden/Trump rematch.  There is no viable democratic alternative to Biden just like there is no republican alternatives to Trump.  It was nice to think for a while that Nikki Haley might win NH, but that was a fantasy.

Yep.  We continue a long track record here of the 2 worst possible candidates ending up being the ones we have to choose between.  Sigh.  I can't rule out Trump entirely, but with how little support he has in the middle this time around I anticipate a Biden win.  I won't get into all the things that are so terribly wrong with both of them...  :D

[Telecaster]

We identify as America Lite.

That's cool.  Just don't try to use our bathrooms. 

[MoseyingAlong]

..... I really dislike this idea at local and national politics that people who have never served a day in their life as a civil servant should be elected. Hate it in my town, hate it nationally.

I would like candidates to have a mix of experience. While I see the value of experience as a lower-level civil servant, I also think experience in business subject to the all the rules and regulations is important. By business, I don't just mean a megacorp; it could be a classroom teacher, front-line medical provider, non-profit, entrepreneur, etc. I don't think someone whose whole career has been politics is really in touch with what most people have to deal with.
While not a fan of term-limits for philosophical reasons, I think pushing people to have another experience besides politics would be great for our country. i.e. you work for a while, experience the current system, then serve for a certain number of years and then go back to your community and job.

[Captain FIRE]

And the fundamental problem here is that elections are not won by popular vote, they're won by the electoral college.  "Gaming the electoral college," as you call it, is also known as "winning the election the way it's designed."  I'm aware it's unpopular, but the popular vote and $7 will buy you a cup of coffee.

I think we agree on how US elections work, and I’m not against how the system was designed since it has a utility in giving low-population states a voice. But I’m sure you’re aware that defrauding the electoral college is the RICO case against Trump. Gaming it, sure, I’ll agree that any successful candidate only need win the electoral college. Can you throw me a bone and concede that Trump has not won the popular vote in either of the two previous elections?

Yeah, so I disagree with the "utility" in giving rural states a weighted vote over urban states. The electoral college made sense when horses where the main transportation method. In today's digital/global world, to say they are outdated is understated. Why is my vote less than someone else's? The weighting has gotten far out of hand from what it was 200 years ago too. Unfortunately, it doesn't benefit one party to ensure everyone's vote counts, whether that's the electoral college, extended hours, enough voting locations in populous areas, etc.

[GuitarStv]

We identify as America Lite.

That's cool.  Just don't try to use our bathrooms.

What is the deal with America and it's interest in who goes to which bathroom???  :P

[ATtiny85]

And the fundamental problem here is that elections are not won by popular vote, they're won by the electoral college.  "Gaming the electoral college," as you call it, is also known as "winning the election the way it's designed."  I'm aware it's unpopular, but the popular vote and $7 will buy you a cup of coffee.

I think we agree on how US elections work, and I’m not against how the system was designed since it has a utility in giving low-population states a voice. But I’m sure you’re aware that defrauding the electoral college is the RICO case against Trump. Gaming it, sure, I’ll agree that any successful candidate only need win the electoral college. Can you throw me a bone and concede that Trump has not won the popular vote in either of the two previous elections?

Yeah, so I disagree with the "utility" in giving rural states a weighted vote over urban states. The electoral college made sense when horses where the main transportation method. In today's digital/global world, to say they are outdated is understated. Why is my vote less than someone else's? The weighting has gotten far out of hand from what it was 200 years ago too. Unfortunately, it doesn't benefit one party to ensure everyone's vote counts, whether that's the electoral college, extended hours, enough voting locations in populous areas, etc.

What's your stance on the very existence of states? What is the utility of having states (especially a bunch!) period? I vaguely recall some thread where super states were discussed or something after (likely) 2016. The electoral college system comes up every election, especially when a candidate looses the popular vote by a good margin but is elected.

It would take quite a bit of Constitution rework to make things "better" and a good bit of mayhem to even settle on the top 100 definitions of "better." Of course, some folks think if Trump wins it will end the US, so there would be a chance to start over. Other folks think if Trump loses there will be a coup, so there would be a chance to start over. So maybe we better start drafting a better constitution now, since we might need it later this year.

[Fru-Gal]

I don't think someone whose whole career has been politics is really in touch with what most people have to deal with.

This is how representative democracy works. Professional politicians (the career path often starts in law, but plenty start in other fields) do the work of gathering requirements from their constituents and passing laws.

The alternative you’re suggesting is direct democracy or anarchy (I believe the actual definition of anarchy is in fact very intensive direct democracy — ironically, learned that by going to a local Occupy meeting led by a couple of scary international revolutionary alcoholics). Anyway it sounds like so much freaking work. Personally I like to contribute with sweat and donations and by being an informed voter, not by being a politician or representative myself.

I am no expert but it seems like representative democracy pervades much of our society. Like, this is how we organize corporate boards and HOAs and school boards and PTAs and churches and temples. And these governing bodies at every level are composed of useless nitwits and busybodies and power brokers and very very very rarely someone who actually gets shit done.

[simonsez]

And the fundamental problem here is that elections are not won by popular vote, they're won by the electoral college.  "Gaming the electoral college," as you call it, is also known as "winning the election the way it's designed."  I'm aware it's unpopular, but the popular vote and $7 will buy you a cup of coffee.

I think we agree on how US elections work, and I’m not against how the system was designed since it has a utility in giving low-population states a voice. But I’m sure you’re aware that defrauding the electoral college is the RICO case against Trump. Gaming it, sure, I’ll agree that any successful candidate only need win the electoral college. Can you throw me a bone and concede that Trump has not won the popular vote in either of the two previous elections?

Yeah, so I disagree with the "utility" in giving rural states a weighted vote over urban states. The electoral college made sense when horses where the main transportation method. In today's digital/global world, to say they are outdated is understated. Why is my vote less than someone else's? The weighting has gotten far out of hand from what it was 200 years ago too. Unfortunately, it doesn't benefit one party to ensure everyone's vote counts, whether that's the electoral college, extended hours, enough voting locations in populous areas, etc.

When it comes to voting, especially for federal elections, I agree with you.  If we can't have representation based on population at least somewhat evenly, then we should do away with the system.  I also don't like how it essentially discourages voting since so many states are firmly blue or red that voting for one or the other will not change anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College#/media/File:US_2020_Census_State_Population_Per_Electoral_Vote.png

That's just absurd and even ignores the omnipresent gerrymandering.  Don't get me started on faithless electors and the states that still count their vote as valid!  What a joke!

When it comes to infrastructure, big ag, and how we fundamentally develop and design our economy and society - I do think the rural areas should be heard (not necessarily more so than urban people on a per capita basis, just everyone is aware of various backgrounds at least to some degree without ridiculous media bias).  E.g. People in "efficient" concrete jungles can't be plugged into a digital world all the time just demanding cheaper goods (especially food!) to be trucked into where they are (at faster and faster rates) while topsoil is being stripped away at unsustainable rates.  Cities are amazing but we just can't forget that cities cannot exist without rural areas.  So many externalities unaccounted for since everything is basically short-term politics focused on profits today at the expense of tomorrow.  And likewise, rural areas shouldn't have disproportionate representation in elections.