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?

  • Bluefalcon@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    45
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    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.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • SolarMech@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        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”).

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

          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.

    • fidodo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

        • fidodo@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          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.

          • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            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.

            • fidodo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              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.

        • go_go_gadget@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          9 months ago

          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.