Democrats' dilemma: Biden's agenda is popular, but he is not
Andrea Singmaster is thankful for President Joe Biden. He helped secure funding to clean up a contaminated site in her Philadelphia suburb and his efforts to crack down on Medicare drug prices will help family members financially manage arthritis and Crohn's disease.
You're viewing a single thread.
Isn't this the problem with every Democratic president? Where the policies proposed have upwards of 70% approval, but once it's mentioned that the person has a scary D next to their name, it immediately drops 30%?
Also, 57% have a negative opinion of Biden, and yet only 58% have a negative opinion of Trump? If that polling is accurate, what an absolutely fucked country we are.
I think a lot of it is also “national mood”. The world is a bummer right now and people feel fed up. For a lot of voters, including sadly many on the left, “vibes” are more important than facts.
It's less that things are a bummer now, but that we have no idea what "better" even looks like. Instead of schlepping to the office in a gas car we schlep in an electric car? Instead of going bankrupt buying a fancy chemo treatment we go bankrupt buying a fancy mRNA treatment? Instead of conflict in the middle east we'll have conflict in the middle east? Is this what I have to look forward to for the rest of my entire life?
One thing conservatives have an advantage on is vision. Everybody remembers the past. A lot of people remember it fondly. It's easy to sell something like that. It's why they use it to sell everything.
That's why we call them out for the fiction they call the past. It never existed the way they paint it.
Of course it didn't exist. It's a cultural hallucination created by the Hayes Code. But that doesn't stop it from being incredibly effective marketing.
many people have plenty ideas of what " better" looks like throughout the left side of the spectrum. anarchists socialists and communists would like a word.
centrists are the one stuck with a failed system they refuse to try and change meaningfully other than voting and toothless forms of protest.
This. Just like every time there is a Democrat in office, we get economic dooming before the election regardless of what the actual numbers say.
Nah.
This is also actual progressives who didn't believe his platform last time, and have even less trust in him this time.
Like, I have a negative opinion of Biden. I think he's lied a lot to get elected, he went from saying only he could get Republican Senate votes for the Democratic platform, to acting like people were crazy for thinking he could talk Democratic senators into voting for the Dem platform.
I see absolutely no reason we're running him again. We're risking trump again by running an elderly unpopular candidate like we did in 2016.
But he's a hell of a lot better than trump, so I'm pretty much forced to vote for him.
When the only reason people have to vote for someone is so the other guy doesn't win, voter turnout will be down.
Positive reinforcement is always better than potential negative reinforcement.
When the only reason people have to vote for someone is so the other guy doesn't win, voter turnout will be down.
Turnout in 2020 was the highest in years, decades even, so this isn't true at all. People showed up mainly to vote against Trump. I was one of them.
Probably because of the pandemic, so they had nothing else to do.
You don't see why the Democrats are running him again? Really?
No democrat can beat him in a primary and the closest person capable is basically a pinko who is treated with more respect by trump voters than typical Democrats.
basically a pinko who is treated with more respect by trump voters than typical Democrats.
Weird way to say progressive politicians are popular with more than moderates...
I mean, isn't the whole "moderate" thing supposed to be to appeal to republicans?
But it's a bad thing if a progressive can get republicans to vote D?
But it's a bad thing if a progressive can get republicans to vote D?
Not a bad thing, just nearly impossible. Republican voters have had the last 20-years of Faux "News" equating Democrats to traitors and baby killers. They've tarnished the idea that compromise is required to have a functioning democracy, and their side is always right. Republicans will primary another candidate before they accept or work with Democrats.
Not a bad thing, just nearly impossible
So the moderates immediately giving up what voters want and claiming it's because they can compromise...
That's bullshit?
There's no reason for the democratic party to not be as progressive as voters want them to be?
Do you think moderate politicians are too stupid to know that? Or do you think they're lying to voters to get elected?
I think our two party system is two sides of the same coin. One is just better at doing the bare minimum to appease the masses. They're both right of center in terms of politics.
I feel like you may have taken my comment the wrong way. I was agreeing with you and adding personal observations of friends and family and their polarization based on the rhetoric spewed by Fox News. There's a reason Democrats don't get primaried by their own party for collaborating with Republicans. The opposite is not the same.
It's really hard to get through to these people after years of hearing, "liberals want to eat your babies," and some such shit. I've tried. The idea that progressives want what they want, but actually govern toward those goals when elected, is what is hard to convey when one side sticks their fingers in their ears and yells, "LA LA LA LA LA, SOCIALIST."
I'm definitely not saying to give up, but moderates are just closeted Republicans that want an "out" whenever the Republican caucus starts shouting fascistic rhetoric. Getting these people out of their echo chambers will take generations if we still have a society by then.
I think he’s lied a lot to get elected, he went from saying only he could get Republican Senate votes for the Democratic platform, to acting like people were crazy for thinking he could talk Democratic senators into voting for the Dem platform.
I don't recall him saying either of these things. Do you mind pointing me to some speeches or states that support this claim?
Positive reinforcement is always better than potential negative reinforcement.
Not if you've experienced the potential negative. And I think there's actually a psychological basis to this. The best example of this is food that's a little past the expiry date. The only reason to not eat it is because I could get sick. If I've been fine so far, I'll just eat it without a worry. But if I end up with painful stomach cramps and nausea and I'm running to the bathroom constantly, the next time I'm faced with the dilemma, I'm just throwing the food in the trash.
Psychologically I think our lizard brain creates a negative association. If we eat something that makes us sick, we aren't going to be eager to eat it again in the future because of our negative experience. That's why I'll still occasionally gag if I have a drink with whiskey.
Not if you’ve experienced the potential negative
Nope, still is.
It's basically psychology. Might not be taught in highschool, but it's incredibly basic.
Not just humans either, it's how all mammals are, that's how basic it is.
Hmmm, I might be confusing two different things then. It's been a hot minute since I took a psych intro in college
Yeah, theres some good studies on it you can look up if you want. But I was dumb enough to major in psych in college and they can still be a bit wordy for me.
Think about a slot machine. People will dump thousands of dollars into one a night for the brief dopamine of a single $200 win.
Meanwhile everyone going 10 mph over the speed limit keep doing it despite knowing at any minute they may get a speeding ticket.
Even if the negative is consistent after a certain threshold, all that does is get the bare minimum to avoid it.
What is surprising is a random positive reward is better at motivating than a consistent one. To take it back to slot machines, if everytime you put in a dollar you got a dime, no one would ever play. Even if the result is the same at the end of the day, the randomness makes our brain want to keep trying.
Agreed. Our brain keeps thinking "the next one could be it".
I think I see what you're saying about speeding. Negative reinforcement can influence behavior, but it'll go as far as to avoid the negative, no further. You won't get a compulsion like you do with random rewards. I see your point.
It would help Dems tremendously if there was any follow through on campaign promises. Immediately giving voters the cold shoulder in order to further the corporate agenda after getting into office leaves a bad taste in voters’ mouths.