Elections Guess who has the best lowest approval ratings in seven decades

[Confucamus]

Yet he gets rousing applauses wherever he goes, most recently at a UFC event.

Almost as if these retarded polls mean nothing.

That's everywhere he goes. Many on the left are still in denial that the majority of voters resoundingly rejected their platform and elected Trump. They were spouting off about "Trump regret" before he was even sworn in. It's just desperate coping. Enjoyable to see, for sure, but it doesn't accomplish anything for the country.

lmao at using CNN as their only source. CNN is a tabloid now.

 

[Darkavius]

In a world where Biden is of sound mind, plenty of people would. Most people like a happy medium, as the extremes only pander to their bases, and inevitably cause a pendulum swing because the middle is switching back and forth, once the extremes go out of their comfort zone. Biden beat Trump by running as a centrist. He also beat Bernie in the primaries. He lost support by placating to the left, mostly surrounding immigration policy. He also lost some support among the left on the Israel shit, but it was mostly immigration that fucked him, which was being run as basically an open borders leftist hellscape. The tranny stuff didn't sit well with people either. Take those two hard left positions away from the administration and you might've seen a different result in 2024.

I don't know why you think the center is so unappealing. Most of the successful politicians in the west of the past 50 years or so, have been good at balancing the divide, since most people have different leans on different issues, and aren't strictly left or right. A centrist party would gobble up the people in the middle, who aren't MAGA or extreme progressives who have to hold their nose when they vote, and there's quite a lot of them.

Trump would have won in 2020 if he did not mess up the Covid response. I would argue Biden did not win as a centrist. He won because Trump totally messed up the response to a worldwide issue and everyone was losing their jobs. Biden won off of Trump and his team being idiotic. I would like to answer your response though as to why the center is so unappealing. The reason is very simple. It has not gotten Americans anything. Centrism, as David Graeber kind of highlights is just the ability to feel better than other people (i.e. The Obama Campaign of Hope) with no real substance to back it up.

The past 50 years America policy has been running the exact same cycle over and over again. How many campaign cycles have there been complaints about immigration? Asia and Central America taking American jobs? Defending Israel? Improve the economy? Lower taxes? Less government? These same talking points have been with both Dems and Repubs before Reagan. Meanwhile what has a Centrist fixed?

I would love to know what problems in America Centrism has fixed. Centrists say I want lower costs on medications but I don't really want to go after health care companies. I want Middle Eastern peace but I'll fund Israel to do a genocide. I want economic freedom but I don't want to raise the minimum wage. I want immigrants to our country but support higher deportation numbers than my Republican predecessors. See why Centrism does not work?

Medicare for All (a left policy) Repubs and Centrist Dems won't touch. A Federal Workers program (similar to FDR) Repubs and Centrist Dems won't touch. Moving the cap so the rich pay more into Social Security Repubs and Centrist Dems won't touch. Getting rid of the Faircloth Amendment (a left policy) Centrist Dems and Repubs won't touch.

 

[Last Falconry]

but he gets standing ovations in arenas full of shitfaced white trash, so this is all fake or something

 

[HereticBD]

I would love to know what problems in America Centrism has fixed. Centrists say I want lower costs on medications but I don't really want to go after health care companies. I want Middle Eastern peace but I'll fund Israel to do a genocide. I want economic freedom but I don't want to raise the minimum wage. I want immigrants to our country but support higher deportation numbers than my Republican predecessors. See why Centrism does not work?

I get your frustration if you're on the left, but in an electoral sense, most prefer the status quo, if the status quo is balanced. A lot of left wing positions like you state are simply unpopular among the masses, once they get how it's gonna be paid for. Most people are fiscally conservative and don't want higher taxes to pay for certain programs that the left proposes. The Israel shit is a mixed bag, and not really party specific. On the ground, anyways. Both parties are obviously pro-Israel. Mass immigration is not popular.

You use the word "fix", but most of your "fixes" would just pander to a hard left base. They're not universal fixes. Which is why it doesn't work with the two party system in place. The far left needs it's own party. Even if you were to call Democrats "center right", they're still not Republican right on a whole bunch of issues. Let the Dems be their boring selves, and let the left splinter off and form their own party. Then we'll have a better idea on how "popular" these far left policies really are.

Bernie missed a golden opportunity to do just that, but it's not too late.

 

[Darkavius]

I get your frustration if you're on the left, but in an electoral sense, most prefer the status quo, if the status quo is balanced. A lot of left wing positions like you state are simply unpopular among the masses, once they get how it's gonna be paid for. Most people are fiscally conservative and don't want higher taxes to pay for certain programs that the left proposes. The Israel shit is a mixed bag, and not really party specific. On the ground, anyways. Both parties are obviously pro-Israel. Mass immigration is not popular.

You use the word "fix", but most of your "fixes" would just pander to a hard left base. They're not universal fixes. Which is why it doesn't work with the two party system in place. The far left needs it's own party. Even if you were to call Democrats "center right", they're still not Republican right on a whole bunch of issues. Let the Dems be their boring selves, and let the left splinter off and form their own party. Then we'll have a better idea on how "popular" these far left policies really are.

Bernie missed a golden opportunity to do just that, but it's not too late.

That's a misconception Heretic. There are far left solutions that would go well in all groups and don't necessarily pander to the left. Medicare for All compared to private insurance. The Faircloth Amendment being removed so more public housing can be built for poor people. A Federal jobs guarantee program things like ghost jobs can start being eliminated. All of these are an example. Weird thing is you said some of the fixes pander to the left but there are no solutions to many of these problems coming from Centrist Dems and especially Repubs except the market will fix it (which is nonsense).

I would argue that the reason people have such an issue with taxes and government is because Americans have been brainwashed (JFK and Reagan especially) that more government is always bad (and to be fair there are countless examples). The government can fix stuff. I mean part of the reason cities like San Diego exist as they do now is because of government investment. But you know let's keep relying on the market to help fix systemic issues because that's going well over the past 50 years.

 

[GrantB13]

still your president LOL cope and seethe

Yes, he's the President. And?

 

[nhbbear]

Who is really surprised by this?

 

[HereticBD]

That's a misconception Heretic. There are far left solutions that would go well in all groups and don't necessarily pander to the left. Medicare for All compared to private insurance.

Didn't they already try that? Wasn't it soundly rejected?

That's an issue that's not cut and dry. People without insurance love it. People with insurance don't. Speaking from a country that has UHC, it's got it's fair share of problems and benefits. For example, a benefit being you won't go into debt over a broken arm, and a problem being you might die waiting for treatment if you're diagnosed with some awful shit. Up here, if you have the money and are diagnosed with something real bad, you go to the US and pay for treatment. You don't settle for our UHC system.

The Faircloth Amendment being removed so more public housing can be built for poor people.

Again though, who pays for it? Do tax payers want their money going towards such a program? Like a lot of left wing positions, it sounds good on paper, until you start talking about cost and who will be paying for it all.

Weird thing is you said some of the fixes pander to the left but there are no solutions to many of these problems coming from Centrist Dems and especially Repubs except the market will fix it (which is nonsense).

Because they don't feel a "solution" is the left's solution, because it really isn't and comes with their fair share of downsides.

I would argue that the reason people have such an issue with taxes and government is because Americans have been brainwashed (JFK and Reagan especially) that more government is always bad (and to be fair there are countless examples).

If there are countless examples, then they aren't really being brainwashed. They're observing failed examples of government bloat and waste.

These are issues that require a scalpel, and the only tool the left uses is a broad brush. They don't think about little things like "cost", because they don't put a price on "fixing" these issues. That's all well and good, but it's not realistic. Cost is a HUGE factor in whether or not people get behind these policies, because as I said, most people are fiscally conservative.

 

[CantCucktheTuck]

lol another swing and a miss from CNN.

 

[James Bomb]

The ONLY thing people should glean from this data is just how polarized the country is. 54% of Republicans gave Trump an 'A' and 83% gave him an 'A or B'.

That's bad. Bad for the country. Bad for everyone. Trump is doing precisely what over 40% of the country wants him to do. Let that sink in for a minute.

To have productive dialogue, people at the very least need to exist in the same reality. Democrats and Republicans no longer have a shared reality.

Independents also think he sucks too. He's losing the middle and he's already starting to lose business leaders.

 

[Darkavius]

Didn't they already try that? Wasn't it soundly rejected?

That's an issue that's not cut and dry. People without insurance love it. People with insurance don't. Speaking from a country that has UHC, it's got it's fair share of problems and benefits. For example, a benefit being you won't go into debt over a broken arm, and a problem being you might die waiting for treatment if you're diagnosed with some awful shit. Up here, if you have the money and are diagnosed with something real bad, you go to the US and pay for treatment. You don't settle for our UHC system.

Nope. In America UHC or a single payer system has never, ever been put up for a single vote. Just talking only. In America if you don't have an employer that has a good plan you are basically fucked. You could sign up for the ACA but I have heard the deductibles and costs for the plan are insane. Also, unless you have a limited emergency situation you cannot sign up for healthcare or make changes usually until the enrollment period which is around October/November.

Again though, who pays for it? Do tax payers want their money going towards such a program? Like a lot of left wing positions, it sounds good on paper, until you start talking about cost and who will be paying for it all.

I don't understand the hostility with paying when taxes will always be a thing. Americans (not sure about other countries) have tried to lean on the market to provide housing and it has not worked. The market has consistently shown they won't provide adequate amounts of housing unless profit is involved, which is dumb when we are talking about helping poor people.

Because they don't feel a "solution" is the left's solution, because it really isn't and comes with their fair share of downsides.

You misunderstand. When I say they don't have a solution it's not that it's wrong because of the left. They don't have a solution because they legit do not have an alternative solution. For example, what is the Repubs solution to fix healthcare?Does any one actually exist?

These are issues that require a scalpel, and the only tool the left uses is a broad brush. They don't think about little things like "cost", because they don't put a price on "fixing" these issues. That's all well and good, but it's not realistic. Cost is a HUGE factor in whether or not people get behind these policies, because as I said, most people are fiscally conservative.

I wish this were true but it is not. Medicare for All research has been done and would save way more money than America spends more on healthcare and yet no movement from Repubs or Centrist Dems. If America truly cared about cost the Pentagon would be able to pass an audit. Side note, being fiscally conservative is a terrible statement because that statement only applies to assisting middle class and poor people. Being fiscally conservative never applies when corporations need things like money and subsidies.

 

[HereticBD]

Nope. In America UHC or a single payer system has never, ever been put up for a single vote. Just talking only. In America if you don't have an employer that has a good plan you are basically fucked.

Regardless, my point stands. It's more complex than "give everyone same public healthcare, everyone happy".

I don't understand the hostility with paying when taxes will always be a thing.

Yeah, but they don't want higher and higher taxes. You can't just brush aside "taxes" as if rates don't fluctuate depending on government spending, as if it's just some static thing we all just accept. It's the main sticking point on why leftist policies run into problems come election time. Everything sounds great, until the cost comes into play.

Americans (not sure about other countries) have tried to lean on the market to provide housing and it has not worked. The market has consistently shown they won't provide adequate amounts of housing unless profit is involved, which is dumb when we are talking about helping poor people.

Another part of it is how the government handles money. I think they receive enough to make these kinds of investments already, but they don't use the money properly. Now you want to give them even more money to mismanage?

You misunderstand. When I say they don't have a solution it's not that it's wrong because of the left. They don't have a solution because they legit do not have an alternative solution. For example, what is the Repubs solution to fix healthcare?Does any one actually exist?

They would have to believe it's broken to fix it. There also just might not be one that's viable, or acceptable to the masses.

I wish this were true but it is not. Medicare for All research has been done and would save way more money than America spends more on healthcare and yet no movement from Repubs or Centrist Dems.

I don't think this is an issue that can be determined by studies. You have to put into practice and see what's what.

If America truly cared about cost the Pentagon would be able to pass an audit. Side note, being fiscally conservative is a terrible statement because that statement only applies to assisting middle class and poor people. Being fiscally conservative never applies when corporations need things like money and subsidies.

Sure it does. People aren't exactly happy with bailouts and the like. What are they supposed to do about it though? It's not like they have much of a say when it happens, other than to punish the guy who green lit it at the ballot box. Something they can control is rejecting big ideas that would raise their taxes substantially, before they're implemented by a guy promoting the ideas on a campaign trail.

 

[Snubnoze707]

"the best lowest"

...

 

[Darkavius]

Regardless, my point stands. It's more complex than "give everyone same public healthcare, everyone happy".

Except in America this complexity you speak of literally bankrupts people and puts them into poverty. Someone gets into an accident that changes their life forever due to no fault of their own and they are bound to poverty which essentially removes them from receiving any adequate healthcare.

Yeah, but they don't want higher and higher taxes. You can't just brush aside "taxes" as if rates don't fluctuate depending on government spending, as if it's just some static thing we all just accept. It's the main sticking point on why leftist policies run into problems come election time. Everything sounds great, until the cost comes into play.

It is a thing we all except because in order for a government to function at least remotely it must have taxes. You mention that leftist policies have an issue but a few posts ago I mentioned name me a left policy that was made after FDR and you did not mention any. There is a left policy that does exist since FDR called Social Security but oddly enough no Centrist Dems or Repubs want to pay more taxes for that and that is a popular program that works.

Another part of it is how the government handles money. I think they receive enough to make these kinds of investments already, but they don't use the money properly. Now you want to give them even more money to mismanage?

Guess where a lot of that money is mismanaged? When it is sent to the market and let the market assist with things (i.e. For Profit Prisons, Healthcare, gun manufacturers). There are hundreds of stories that as soon as the market starts being involved quality gets worse. So while people are blaming the government an argument can be made that the corporations are the ones truly mismanaging the money but that's kind of what corporations do.

They would have to believe it's broken to fix it. There also just might not be one that's viable, or acceptable to the masses.

This is not a secret. Both Republicans and Dems across the board know it is broken but again I ask where is the alternative solution. The left at least has a solution that works in other countries and the country you live in uses.

I don't think this is an issue that can be determined by studies. You have to put into practice and see what's what.

You do know that it has been put into practice in other countries and it works, right? You just adjust for what is needed in America. It's funny though because people in other countries tell us the downsides of UHC but I have yet to meet a single country that would openly take and accept the American style healthcare system.

Sure it does. People aren't exactly happy with bailouts and the like. What are they supposed to do about it though? It's not like they have much of a say when it happens, other than to punish the guy who green lit it at the ballot box. Something they can control is rejecting big ideas that would raise their taxes substantially, before they're implemented by a guy promoting the ideas on a campaign trail.

If being fiscally conservative matters why does a corporation need a tax break or a bailout? Yet, Repubs especially push these policies consistently. Tesla is partly functioning because of the government giving it money or limiting how much it needs to pay. So you ask what is the solution. I would argue the solution would be if a company files as a corporation you can no longer asks for government assistance and tax breaks. If that corporation goes belly up it can sell off its assets.

 

[Sweater of AV]

"the best lowest"

...

 

[Snubnoze707]

Was this some phrase that Trump used before that I missed? Yeah, it is going over my head since I have no point of reference...

 

[James Bomb]

Fox News tried to sell Trump's first 100 days like an infomercial product, and people are having a good time making fun of it