406
Biden sees highest approval rating since November
(thehill.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
406 points (94.3% liked)
News
23376 readers
2579 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
I don't buy the self destructive theory of "the Dems just pull some people out of a hat to block legislation and only act like they want to solve the problem."
That argument is basically built on a history of failure caused by razor thin margins. Margins that rely on Democrats in conservative areas that just barely won or have some fringe beliefs/interests.
Sinema was brand new and basically untested, Manchin has an interest in coal. It's not exactly a mystery or a conspiracy why both of them stonewalled.
It's more than that, we need a blue house and blue senate with a margin for some people to defect. We have a blue senate but we don't have that margin.
I never agreed with folks that wanted to get rid of Manchin, I grew up next to West Virginia, we were lucky to have him for the votes he helped us on instead of another Ted Cruz. We would be far better off if we had even more "Sherrod Browns" (a "corporate dem" like Biden that's willing to piss rich people off and demonstrated the "traditional democratic party" is not a bunch of sellouts). Flipping red seats is far more important than making the blue seats bluer.
Ooh! Productive disagreements based in good faith arguments! I love it!
The reason i buy into the "theory" in question is bc corporate democrats are notorious for playing the political game by ear and ammending their values to 1. Keep their voters backing, 2. Keep their owners happy.
Agreed on flipping the house, agreed on creating a tangible majority in the senate, agreed on flipping red seats. To this last point, based off of many many convos ive had with blue collar conservatives (who i think are either thr core of GOP support, or damn near), i feel like progressive candidates who arent afraid to get down and dirty on the grassroots level in red districts have a better chance of flipping those seats than so-called "moderate" dems. Per my experience, these right wing voters hate insurance conpanies, hate "the elite", hate being unfairly taxed or otherwise "controlled" by their govt, and are willing to enact the policies we preach (single payer healthcare, wealth tax, lower taxes for their tax bracket and higher for the "elite" they hate, or even max wages) as long as they are stripped of the buzzwords they fear. Thru continuous conversation, even those buzzwords start to be less scary when the policies u preach are being espoused by someone they see as one of their own.
Disagree on making blue seats bluer. Largely bc of what i just said. To your credit, you bring up excellent points on manchin, i must admit i was ignorant about the situation u describe in WV. Great food for thought. Nevertheless, flipping red seats is not an either or situation with replacing the old guard with progressives. You have to remember the new guard coming into voting power prefers progressives.
I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing, in fact I think it might be a necessary thing for any long serving politician. A politician should be there to represent the people that elected them more than themselves. The people in any given area change over time, as do their concerns and priorities.
If you go back and look at e.g. Bernie's vs Biden's record ... it's true Bernie has been a rock but it's also true that Biden got a lot more legislation through. Biden (as with many other long time Democrats) is willing to compromise on some things if folks end up better than where they started. Bernie does this to some extent as well but not as much.
It's a fine line to balance before you end up like many of those that Republicans have elected which just refuse to compromise on anything. It's their way or the highway even when dealing with others in their party.
I guess what I'm saying is, I think you need to be able to sway a bit with the wind in politics to be able to keep the thing moving. Things are so messed up right now in part because congress is increasingly composed of hard liners that "have their views" and they won't settle.
I think that the United States isn't as divided as it seems. I've similarly noticed in my various conversations people often say the same thing with a slightly different tilt that's a long shot from the major divergence we see in elected officials.
I'm not sure how to undo that while Russia and China target the country with a continuous psyhop.
I don't think progressive candidates are the only ones that can really break through to these folks. In some ways I think traditional Democrats have a better chance of breaking through because they're not the ones that have been painted as the demons ... they're only demon adjacent.
A young Obama or Biden I think could reach a lot of people in my home state of Ohio. A young AOC ... I think she would struggle in the same way that Clinton struggled, the propaganda and hate hose has been on for so long ... I think it's really hard for folks to bridge that gap.
Basically it's just sad, lots of people are voting against their own interest because they've been convinced voting in their own interest is voting for some radical agenda.
This is true and I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing. I would encourage those progressives to remain somewhat flexible though. We almost didn't get the infrastructure bill and the inflation reduction act which are some of the best bills to come out under the Biden Administration because of progressive stonewalling in the opposite direction that Manchin was stonewalling.
I don't want in fighting to make the Democratic party ineffective at governance similarly to how MAGA made the Republican party ineffective at governance.