e; I wrote a better headline than the ABC editors decided to and excerpted a bit more
According to the poll, conducted using Ipsos’ Knowledge Panel, 86% of Americans think Biden, 81, is too old to serve another term as president. That figure includes 59% of Americans who think both he and former President Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, are too old and 27% who think only Biden is too old.
Sixty-two percent of Americans think Trump, who is 77, is too old to serve as president. There is a large difference in how partisans view their respective nominees – 73% of Democrats think Biden is too old to serve but only 35% of Republicans think Trump is too old to serve. Ninety-one percent of independents think Biden is too old to serve, and 71% say the same about Trump.
Concerns about both candidates’ ages have increased since September when an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 74% of Americans thought Biden – the oldest commander in chief in U.S. history – was too old to serve another term as president, and 49% said the same about Trump.
Part that drew my eye,
The poll also comes days after the Senate failed to advance a bipartisan foreign aid bill with major new border provisions.
Americans find there is blame to go around on Congress’ failure to pass legislation intended to decrease the number of illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border – with about the same number blaming the Republicans in Congress (53%), the Democrats (51%) and Biden (49%). Fewer, 39%, blame Trump.
More Americans trust that Trump would do a better job of handling immigration and the situation at the border than Biden – 44%-26% – according to the poll.
So that bipartisan border bill stunt was terrible policy, and it doesn’t seem to have done anything for the Democratic party politically
Can we please stop trying to compromise with fascists now?
We have a minimum age to become president, 35, so if that doesn’t qualify as “age discrimination” then a maximum age limit shouldn’t either.
65 should be the max, you get 30 years to try for the presidency then you’re forced to retire.
And honestly that should be the maximum age for any elected official, not just the president.In America age discrimination is only illegal once you’re 40 years old…
If you’re 39 and 11 months, you can be denied a senior position for being too young, even if you have 20 years experience
Because old people write our laws, and they don’t see a problem with telling a middle aged adult that they’re too young.
If only one out of two groups have protection, it’s not equaly opportunity, it’s legislated discrimination.
It’s insane because republicans constantly complain about valid equal opportunity, but never mention the one that’s actually discriminatory.
It’s especially insane when we have to pretend like an 81 year old magically is immune to scientifically proven medical facts
It is age discrimination but it’s legal because it’s built-in to the Constitution. Not joking, the “founders” decided that there was a such thing as too young but not too old.
I think the founders made a lot of decisions based on the assumption that voters would vote in their own interests. This would preclude, for example, voting for insurrectionists, criminals, or corrupt power brokers.
People back then had an average lifespan of 39-56. A 70 year-old in 1780 would be exceptional.
Not really. The lifespan includes GIGANTIC numbers of babies dying at birth–that brings down the average in a big way. Poor people also had it harder. If you were a rich person? 80 wasn’t a big deal.
Those lifespan ranges account for the infant mortality and are based of someone who lived past 15. 39 for men and 56 for women.
Doubt. In 1890*, if you made it to 20, it was a 50/50 chance of making it to 65 and about a 1 in 3 chance of making it to 75. 1 in 3 is hardly exceptional. Just slightly better than average. You need to go to 85 to the top 10% and mid-90s to get top 1%, which is what I’d start to think of as exceptional. Most of the difference between 1780 and 1890 was liking decrease in mortality in the 0-25 yo range, so I wouldn’t expect there to be much difference for 1780 data starting with 20yos.
*https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/lifetables/life1890-1910.pdf using the table on page 127
Why 65? It seems like many people nowadays are totally coherent at that age. I don’t even think of 65 as old as this point. I can’t think of any other occupation that’s forced to retire then.
If nothing else, a maximum age would give younger generations a better chance to have some power. We’ve been ruled by boomers for far too long.
Research shows that the majority of people have some level of cognitive impairment by 70. Just because you may not notice it in some people doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Because you want a person for president who’s seasoned through and through, but not so damned season he won’t try something new.
Retirement age. They can go do their speaking engagements, book deals, and paint Scottish terriers until they die but they should not hold public office and make decisions that matter to future generations.
I think it’s because by the end of the second term they’d be 72-73.
I literally don’t care if they Weekend at Bernies Biden, I will vote for him happily if the alternative is Trump.
Biden could drop out and they could nominate a literal piece of driftwood covered in seagull shit, and I would vote for the driftwood if it were between that and Trump.
This might be the enlightened libertarian in me talking now, but I believe said driftwood would also be superior to Biden.
Driftwood probably wouldn’t form the best cabinet though
I feel like I should give you money for this comment
You can always give money to the platform that made it possible - https://join-lemmy.org/donate
That seems like a good idea, but it hurts my ethical bones to give money to such blatant leftists.
I mean this is not just subtle dogwhistling: https://github.com/nutomic, https://github.com/dessalines
And again, as much as I appreciate honesty, I don’t think I can support this with my money.
e: gave $20 to lemmy.world
Where’s the donate link for Lemmy world? I was actually looking for that, but hitting the donate button on their homepage took me to that link in already posted.
The best surprises come from unexpected places.
Which illustrates the missing piece of this conversation: When are we going to talk about the people who voted for him in the 2020 primaries? When are we going to state, repeatedly, voting for Biden in the 2020 primaries was a selfish and foolish thing to do?
Well, first thing i would do is insult them. Then I’d tell them who they were supposed to vote for.
When are we going to state, repeatedly, voting for Biden in the 2020 primaries was a selfish and foolish thing to do?
Ah i see you already covered my main tactic. Now onto the spicy stuff: who’s the candidate they’re supposed to vote for? Or is it only important to vote for not-Biden? I’m curious who else would have crushed Trump in the election. Bernie?
Rather than attempt to defend my approach since you clearly disapprove of it help me understand what your plan is. The DNC primaries continue to produce shit candidates. How does that change?
I’m not claiming my plan is above judgement and your critique is certainly fair. But without an alternative to compare against those concerns are moot.
The DNC primaries continue to produce shit candidates. How does that change?
The Dem candidate is the representative for everyone who isn’t an insane far-right theocratic fascist. You aren’t going to convince anyone that they did anything wrong in 2020. People who don’t like Biden today aren’t the ones who voted for him in the primaries. We all voted for him anyway in the general because we don’t like flushing our ballots down the toilet.
We will always have shit candidates until the general election uses an intelligent voting system such as score or STAR.
I’m not seeing anything in your comment about an alternative plan to change the outcome. Do you have a plan for changing the general election to use the voting system to use score or STAR?
Again, I’m okay with the critique of my approach but if you don’t have one of your own then as you said “we will always have shit candidates”.
Then again, we can be certain that Biden won Trump. It’s possible that somebody else would have, too, but we cannot be certain. What is utterly dumb in 2024 was not so much in 2020, in my opinion.
Then again, we can be certain that Biden won Trump.
There’s an argument to be made he defeated Trump because there were leftists and progressives who were willing to give him a chance. Do you feel confident he can count on those votes for a second time?
Also.
Pretty much
Yup. Gladly and without a doubt or second thought.
I’ll vote for someone other than Biden when there’s someone else to vote for.
deleted by creator
Which won’t happen unless we call out the people who voted for him in the 2020 primaries. They made a selfish and foolish decision.
It actually won’t happen until there’s real grassroots support and people working locally to get people elected. Lots of people just come out once every 4 years and wonder why nothing is changing.
Why are you avoiding a conversation about the people who voted for Biden in the 2020 primaries?
Because I’m interested in NOW and next year not choices that were made 4 years ago. Why are you obsessed with it? Every post you make in this thread is “what about the 2020 primaries!?”
You play the card you’re dealt and you keep moving forward and pushing for what you want. It’s something the “left” (what passes for it) could learn from the right.
Fine. When is the appropriate time to have this conversation?
4 years ago.
People told me we could push Biden to the left and that he had the best chance of defeating Trump.
Also they told me that wasn’t the right time either. Were they wrong?
You’re not voting for only Trump or Biden. What you’re also voting for is the people they bring in as admin.
Who cares? We shouldn’t have the choices on the ballot being both choices that the majority of Americans don’t want
While you’re right that the options are shit, I’m just pointing out that the background people will be more different than the presidents themselves.
Yeah, this admin ranges all the way from corporate toady Pete Buttigieg to Lina Khan, who has been kicking ass and taking names at the FTC
Anything with eyes would say they are old. Yes, a 2-party system is broken in the modern world. Still Biden/ Harris as president is better then Putin’s cuddle buddy.
Yes, a 2-party system is broken in the modern world.
I would love to have a 2-party system. But we have closer to a constellation of one party systems. Red States and Blue States, with a smattering of battlegrounds.
Between Winner-Take-All districts and the Electoral College, there’s very little incentive to participate in an election in a municipality or state that’s overwhelmingly one team or the other. And even when you do participate, you’re limited to… what? People blowing up your phone and email with donation requests? A few months of block walking for a local candidate who you get to meet maybe twice and who barely knows your name? Running around bothering your friends a week before voting day not to sleep through this one? Getting drunk at a campaign event on election night, only to be dropped like a bad habit in the morning?
The parties themselves aren’t really political entities. They’re more like boosters for professional athletics teams or celebrity tours that you’re expected to cheer for but never really interact with. They don’t do anything outside of an election season. They don’t provide any kind of constituent service or artery to the leadership themselves.
This consumerist politics is genuinely very different from the kind of organizing and activism that takes place throughout the rest of the democratic world. If it feels like Biden and Trump are just kinda being foisted on us by a cartel of party insiders, there’s a good reason for it.
I was under the impression that even in other countries, activism is generally separate from the political parties and it’s more like activist groups putting pressure on candidates and organizing for them if they are more favorable, and sometimes getting something in return.
I’ve seen exceptions, but I gather they are rare (and we can already see some change as the party is under pressure to become more “normal” and “competitive”).
I was under the impression that even in other countries, activism is generally separate from the political parties
You can see activist political movements operating in real time, in Pakistan and India right now. The Pakistani Tehreek-e-Insaf has been openly contesting the soft coup imposed by the state security services against former Prime Minister Imran Khan. And the India National Congress has been a big part of the outright mass mobilization of northern Indian farmers shutting down highways and blockading exports over the current President’s plan to privatize the agricultural sector.
And a president isn’t just the presidency, it also sets tons of agency heads and tons of judicial appointments including potential Supreme Court nominations. It’s a major mistake to think of a presidential vote as a vote for one person, it’s for tons of incredibly important positions that the president decides.
Even if that’s true, wouldn’t a younger person be better equipped to appoint and oversee those positions?
It is true, that’s not up to debate, it’s just how the government works. Yes a younger person would be better but the point is that the effects reach much further than the single candidate.
It is true, that’s not up to debate
Is it though? If it weren’t up for debate then saying the people who voted for Joe Biden in the 2020 primaries were selfish and foolish wouldn’t be controversial. If a younger person would be better equipped to be president then there’s no excuse to vote in the primaries for someone who shouldn’t be driving, nevermind leading a country.
Maybe you were referring to a different part of my comment when you said “even if that’s true”. I’m referring to where I said that the president gets to appoint tons of other positions, that’s objectively true.
I agree that there are better candidates than Biden and that they would have better appointments. My point is just that the stakes are really really high, much higher than just the difference between the presidential candidates, it’s multiplied by the tons of positions they have control over. I just want people to think about those super high stakes when it comes to their motivation to get out and vote.
Yes, but that conversation gets too close to having a conversation about the people who voted for Biden in the 2020 primaries. And we can’t have a conversation about that because the rational conclusion would be: it was selfish and foolish to vote for Joe Biden in the 2020 primaries.
You don’t have to pick any of the 2.
Go away RFK jr., no one is buying you as a candidate. Fucking lurking around here!
cornel west is running too
and jill stein
A multi party system needs to start at local levels and build upward. People that actually know what they are doing. Not crazy people with Republican views except for one extreme left thing.
calling Cornel West crazy is really showing your colors. implying he or Stein are almost identical to Republicans is just incorrect.
Jill Stein is a candidate but the green party usually doesn’t have a platform besides weed and environment. I’m sure she has done some interviews explaining her stance but her platform leavesuch to desire.
Corrnel West was the name I heard a lot but never really looked at due to his odds. However, is platform aligns with my views around 96%. NATO and Ukraine would be something I wish he re-evaluated. If Trump wasn’t on the ballot I would vote for Cornell.
Trump can’t have a second term and should be behind bars. A multi party system needs to start at the local level and build its way up. If not, then we will always have the same system.
Age is more than a number. Some people are very sharp at 80. Some are rapidly deteriorating at 60.
This is the point I wish everyone would remember when they’re discussing this issue. It’s not the age, but the ‘wear and tear’ that matters.
Some people age more gracefully than others, and we truly do want to have our elders wisdom, especially during trying times.
Having said all that, my personal opinion on all of this is that Biden seems to have cognitively/physically worn down past the level required for the decision-making/stresses of the office of the Presidency.
If he wants to have a third party doctor give him a cognizant test, and he passes it, and he publicly notifies all of us voters of that, then I would be up for voting for him again.
But judging based on the very little I’m allowed to see, as a voter, based on how few public news conferences that he does, and having seen him faltering in some of those, it truly does seem like it’s time for him to move on.
Also IMO, Trump is a semen stain on the soul of America, and he quite literally is a test to see if America is America, or not. If we reaffirm our leader as someone who, as a ‘wolf in sheeps clothing’, is a very immoral and unethical grifter, then we are lost. All of us.
Not that it’s going to happen, but both parties should be putting someone else up as their candidates for the presidency of the United States of America in 2024.
Having said all that, my personal opinion on all of this is that Biden seems to have cognitively/physically worn down past the level required for the decision-making/stresses of the office of the Presidency
If JFK and Reagan could do it with all their health problems I think Biden will be fine. It’s not ideal, but the staffers of the White House and Pentagon can hold things together for a while if needbe, and I will take that over a Republican administration any day.
It’s a fact that the chance of an incumbent has a higher chance of winning a reelection. So, I understand why we are going with Biden. Even Biden said he was only going to run once. But this isn’t just some random election. This will likely determine if America is going to exist past 2024
Even Biden said he was only going to run once.
I don’t think Biden ever said that he would run only once. The news was that a few anonymous sources who were supposedly close to the Biden campaign said that he would not run for re-election and his campaign then denied that.
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/474059-biden-campaign-denies-one-term-report/
According to the same source he will be a 1 term president. Maybe they just covering their bases?
Yeah. The link I posted is a followup to that story, in which the Biden campaign says those rumors are false.
You have to read more than the headline (but even the headline has a hint that this is not Biden speaking directly). The article says “Four people who regularly speak with the 77-year-old Biden told Politico that it is unlikely he would run for reelection in 2024” It’s just rumors at best. More likely it’s propaganda to get people to not worry about his age.
Ya likely. Who knows except for him I guess. Well, at least we got Harris if he passes away. Can’t be said with Trump right now.
If he wants to have a third party doctor give him a cognizant test, and he passes it, and he publicly notifies all of us voters of that, then I would be up for voting for him again.
Except for the fact that it’s generally military physicians who treat the President, he gets a cognitive test every year as part of his physical. Trump got one every year too, and was as proud as a toddler with a gold star sticker when he “passed” it. The white house releases the results of the President’s annual exam and, presuming you do not distrust the doctor, it is what it is.
Nobody is going to be administering some mental agility test on the President any more than they’ll be asking him to complete and pass the ACFT (Army Combat Fitness Test).
(IMO he should have stepped aside last year and let Kamala Harris take over as President to give her a chance to make her own case for re-election, making way for the next generation to lead.)
Kamala Harris probably has less chances than Hilary unfortunately. Remember whoever the Dems choose have to beat Trump. And the election cycle is sort of repeating what happened in 2016.
Nobody thought Trump had any chances. At the start of this election cycle DeSantis was beating Trump in polls. People thought Trump was done for. Then what happens? Trump is constantly on the news, just like in 2016. Then he dominates the GOP primary, just like in 2016.
The only candidate that has any chance to beat Trump is another populist candidate. Someone like Bernie but more aggressive and controversial.
Biden only won because he was the VP for Obama who was a popular president (relative to modern presidents). He was a great public speaker and was the last real “presidential” president we’ve had. A coherent and articulate speaker.
Kamala Harris simply would not inherit any meaningful public opinion from Biden. It would be the opposite - she would have to start from a worse position.
Biden is less popular than Trump. Both current popularity and if we go back to Trump’a popularity at the same time during his presidency. If the election was held today, Trump would win with a strong margin - according to the polls.
according to the polls.
Yeah, about those - I’ve been wondering who and how they’re polling. Nobody I know under 50 even has a real landline, and most of them don’t pick up calls on their cell unless it comes up as someone in their contacts. Same with SMS or any messaging. Web ads? Facebook ads (LOL)? It sure as hell isn’t email, either. It’s probably nearly impossible to get any realistic data in person since most people avoid in-person marketing even harder than online. The only people I know who do answer the telephone are old people - like over 55 or 60, and that’s a pretty skewed demographic.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
there’s a website that catalogues and compiles polls from various different sources. each poll asks something like 1500~ people. they do both telephone and online polling, depending on the polling organization. if you click on the poll, you can find out more about the organization and they often publish exact methods and data so you can look for yourself how they gathered the data
now, you’re right that the sample size is going to be different than the population. however, there is a science and math to this stuff where you can use formulas in order to account for that. let me give a simple example
let’s say you live in Townsville with a population of 60 people. 20 of those people are male and 40 are female. you want to find out whether everyone likes vanilla or chocolate ice cream, so you go to the bowling alley. at the bowling alley, there are 10 men and 10 women. so you survey everyone but you realize
the sample size demographics are different than the actual population demographics. in the population, females outnumber males 2 to 1 whereas in the sample population it’s 1:1. so you need to weigh your votes accordingly
you can either do one of two things - you can count every vote from a woman twice. or you can count every vote for a men at a ratio of 50%. that way you are representing the population demographics more accurately
polling agencies do this but with a myriad of different demographic properties. age, sex, gender, income, ethnicity, etc, in order to try to get a more accurate number. you will never be able to exactly represent a population with a small sample size, but you can get pretty damn close within a margin of error.
tldr: polls are not perfect but they absolutely can help predict public sentiment because of some statistical axioms (Law of Large Numbers, Central Limit Theorem, Random Sampling)
I agree that there are statistical methods to everything, and they are quite powerful. My concern is that population sample is limited and, in many ways self-selecting, due to the ability of pollsters to access a representative cross section of the (population/voting population). I noted the impossibility of getting a representative sample using telephone polling. Online would be just as fraught - huge demographics literally don’t participate in those communication methods, by choice. Granted, actual voting is similarly inaccurate, and can be wildly so, do to voluntary non-participation; but the cross product of phone/internet poll users and voters, I would suspect, is pretty far from 1.0.
The bothsiderist media is happy to let a fascist slide into office all while acting like they just have to harp on Biden’s age.
Suppose Biden becomes unable to do the job. So what? There are plenty of capable people are him, and Harris will just assume the office. Big deal; not much changes.
But if tiny d gets into office…he’s been promising to be the con movement’s “vengeance” and promising to be a dictator (but only for a day, yeah right).
Depends on what you mean by the “media” because I’ll agree there are a lot of shitheel columnists and hack journalists out there, but I think there are a lot of very good ones too who are trying hard to do a very difficult job in a difficult historical moment, and I think they wouldn’t be doing their jobs properly if they didn’t talk about Biden’s age because it’s an obvious potential issue.
That all said, I agree with your second paragraph and strongly agree with the third.
But if tiny d gets into office…he’s been promising to be the con movement’s “vengeance” and promising to be a dictator (but only for a day, yeah right).
In that case the Democrats better put up somebody else besides Biden to vote for, so we don’t go there.
What is the population percentage of boomers, around 40%, per chance?
20% of population got 100% of presidents. Fucking iron throne.
Isn’t this why you have the VP running mates? You vote for them just as much.
Isn’t this why you have the VP running mates? You vote for them just as much.
VPs are chosen for ‘helping to win an election’ reasons, not processional/competency reasons.
They’re usually chosen to pull in very specific groups of voters/states to ‘shore up’ what the president can’t pull in on his or her own.
Surely that is not what the job is supposed to be though.
Surely that is not what the job is supposed to be though.
Its not, but it ends up that way.
this is certainly why you have primaries. not participating in the primaries is like saying “I don’t care” when someone asks you what restaurant you want to go to then complaining about the menu selection when you get there.
“So, do you want dog food or do you want someone to shit in your mouth? No, the Mexican place closed. No, the Italian place closed. No, the Chinese place closed too. … Dog food it is then!” - Democratic primary 2024
73% of Democrats think Biden is too old to serve but only 35% of Republicans think Trump is too old to serve. Ninety-one percent of independents think Biden is too old to serve, and 71% say the same about Trump.
This is one of the really interesting takeaways. People are looking at Biden’s gaffes–and he has always made verbals gaffes throughout his career as a politician–and saying that it’s a sign that he’s too old. Meanwhile, Trump, who trails Biden by a mere four years of age, is viewed as energetic and mentally sharp by Republicans. So essentially, Dems are pretty realistic in their assessment of both candidate’s ages, while Republicans are only realistic about Biden.
Also - forcing the Senate to vote against their own compromise bill, a bill they’d worked on for months, was a fantastic bit of hilarity. They know that they’re not going to be able to get a better bill under Trump–because the majority in the Senate would still shoot down their worst tendencies–but they couldn’t risk bucking Trump. So they undid all their own work. ::chef kiss::
You’ve basically just touched on how conservatives operate. It’s never actually about any sort of philosophy, it has always been about control and projecting insecurities on the world.
.
You can tell because they made the argument 4 years ago that Biden was too old to serve at 77.
That is cause the other 65% think Trump is too crazy to serve
Haha, a man can dream …
There are a fair number of Republicans that still think that Trump is a bridge too far. My parents, for instance; they’ve been reliable Republicans since, shit, Nixon?, and since 2016 they’ve been largely voting Democratic. Especially because all the people running as Republicans in their state are bitshit crazy MAGA-cultists. But if they could vote for a Jeb Bush, or a Mittens Romney, they would absolutely do it. I’m pretty sure that they’d vote for Nikki Haley, even though she’s probably more conservative than Trump, because she’s better at hiding how much pandering she does to the extreme right wing, and has some tact and decorum. (And, to be fair, Haley is consistently conservative, for the most part. Trump et al. are not; they’re far-right populists, not necessarily conservative in all or even most of their actions.)
If 59% think that they are both too old and 62% think that Trump is too old (regardless of Biden), does that mean that 3% think that Trump is too old but Biden isn’t too old, despite the objective fact that Biden is 4 years older than Trump?
Age is more than a number. Some people are very sharp at 80. Some are rapidly deteriorating at 60.
Nobody is very sharp at 80. What kind of bullshit is this? Would you get in the plane knowing the pilot and copilot were 80+ years old?
No, but I’d trust an 80 year old career pilot who is mentally sharp to write or weigh in on policies surrounding aircrafts.
deleted by creator
Let me try again:
I don’t want anyone over the age of 70 to have anything to do with policy, law, etc.
It’s funny to see that some online commenters, including progressives, would happily point out what’s wrong with society and welcome the proposed most sensible solutions. But when it comes to placing mandatory retirement age for politicians, these commenters would quickly object and say age doesn’t matter so long as the person could perform the job well. And these same people are also happy with keeping the minimum voting age at 18 years old and the minimum age to become eligible for POTUS at 35. If age doesn’t matter to these objectors, they should also be open to lowering the age to vote and become president of USA. It says a lot that these objectors are old people themselves.
Here here.
deleted by creator
Wild, because commercial airline pilots are forced to retire at age 65 in your country.
Edit: man I’m so baked I read the literal opposite meaning of your comment. I’m done for today, lol.
The 41% of Americans who don’t think Biden and Trump are too old for this bullshit, are probably beyond elderly themselves.
Sadly in this cycle even the declared independent and third party candidates are beyond mediocre so far as well. Stupidest election of my lifetime (and I was born when LBJ was Pres).
It doesn’t matter.
Even if the third party candidate was literally the best candidate possible in the eyes of every American - they still wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell at getting elected under a first past the post system.
We must enact and enforce a ranked choice voting system nationally, otherwise it will always come back to red vs blue, and a third party vote is electoral masturbation.
That’s some perspective considering you lived through both Nixon and Reagan.
assuming an even split between republicans who think they’re both too old and democrats who think they’re both too old, roughly 30% of the population voting would be enough to sway either party’s nomination process should these people decide to.
If they all agreed on a single candidate, which is where it gets difficult
68% of russians say they do not want to see president older than 70 years old. Putin is 71.
deleted by creator
