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.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240214133801/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-americans-on-biden-age/story?id=107126589

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?

  • Eatspancakes84@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    17
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    There was NEVER anything any of us could do. The moment Biden announced he would run for reelection, everyone who mattered fell in line.

    • Wrench@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      As it should be. Anything else would have been giving the GOP a golden ticket for their golden turd

      • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        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.

      • gamermanh@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        9 months ago

        as it should be

        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

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          There was once a time when politicians would use election time to debate the president anyway

          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.

        • Wrench@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

          • stoly@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            I neither up nor downvoted you, but really have no idea what you’re trying to say.

            • Wrench@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

              • stoly@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                9 months ago

                Well at this point, it certainly would. We’re too far into the process. But for next time, this needs to be done differently.

                • Wrench@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  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.