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?
As it should be. Anything else would have been giving the GOP a golden ticket for their golden turd
No, it should not be.
There was once a time when politicians would use election time to debate the president anyway, allowing up and coming politicians to get their views and voice out there while also letting the current president show their strength, conviction, and skill even within their own party. Time that's used for inter-Party debates is time where that party's points are being broadcast to all, as well.
But now that we're all so scared Trump's gonna win were tossing that in the garbage because "any question to Biden at all means we get a fascist!", which is only gonna bite the US in the ass when Dems eventually have nobody that's well known ready to take the seat
Biden absolutely should have been challenged in the primaries by competent Dems that will be the next generation
This was an anomaly that happened during the post-war era for a couple decades and ended when Newt Gingrich came along. Before that, the politician that could afford the most booze got elected.
You're wanting ambivalent debate during a war.
The Right has weaponized propaganda. They are extremely effective had taking any perceived weakness in their opponent, and blowing it out of proportion that even non-Right leading voters believe their new talking point is a real problem.
The landscape of politics has changed. Until we can get back to normal philosophical difference between adults, we can not let the Dems implode in inner fighting, as they are known to do.
I wholly reject your argument. There is a time and place for your idealistic model. This is not it. This country is hanging on by a thread, and the GOP is actively trying to cut it.
Edit - you downvoters are acting like we didn't just get Trump in 2016 largely because of infighting in the Left that disenfranchised voters. And we'll be paying the consequences for a generation because of it.
To many idealists here that can't see the forest for the trees.
I neither up nor downvoted you, but really have no idea what you're trying to say.
I was refuting that open debate against the incumbent president would be good for the Dems. That the DNC funding alternate candidates would be a net positive. My argument is that it could only result in division, and would greatly improve the GOP's position.
Well at this point, it certainly would. We're too far into the process. But for next time, this needs to be done differently.
Agree when there's no incumbent, and there's no MAGA nazi front runner. And if the Dems run clean campaigns without dragging their fellow Dems through the mud.
For the time being, the stakes are too high to give the GOP any ammo, at all.
There will always be enough excuses to silence progressives.
That's not true. Sure, you can't criticize presidents in their first year, since their just finding their footing. And obviously, you can't criticize them in their second year, because the midterms are coming up, and you need to be positive to get Democrats elected. But after the midterms, progressives are free to criticize the president as a much as the want...for about two weeks. A month tops. After that, we're getting into reelection season, and criticism will only help the GOP.
Nonsense. I think it would be hard to find anyone under 50 that wouldn't wipe the floor with trumps broken corpse. The only person Trump has a chance again is an octogenarian with no persona.