We've been in historically polarized times. Prior presidents didn't have to deal with a large segments of the electorate getting their information via algorithms while sitting on the toilet.
>Yeah everyone's in their own little bubbles as a result of the internet.
I wouldn't say it's the result of the Internet. Social media platforms, people using them to spread misinformation, calling news you don't like "fake news", etc are more specific factors
Social media and the general internet are two very different things. Social media may exist on and because of the internet, but saying the internet in general is the cause of this polarization isn't true. It may have caused some, but it has gotten much, much worse since social media became so prevalent.
What a fantastic line. I am going to use this in the future "large segments of the electorate getting their information via algorithms while sitting on the toilet."
OR he's another in a long line of puppets for a failed social and economic system who's presiding over the late stages of its decay, while offering no solutions to the real problems faced by millions, telling people it's all good and that he's very progressive, but only those with their heads in the sand believe that. People are sick of being lied to, nothing getting better, everything getting worse, and the two party lesser evilist race to the bottom.
Lol, you just have it pretty good and also really trust the failed institutions that run the world. Puppet to the capitalist class and, moreover, to capitalism. Yes, failed social, economic, and political system of capitalism. It's pretty clear you don't know what it means but still judge the content harshly. Capitalism is a globally dominant system based on exploitation and predecated on oppression, where a tiny minority of people make up the capitalist class who own all the means of production, resources, wealth, land, as well as the institutions and political parties.
Is it really news that the vast majority of people, those who work for a living, have no control over society and their conditions have continued to get worse since the late 70s?
You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. I don’t have it “good”. I’m man enough to take on adversity and not subscribe to weird conspiracy theories or bizarre resentments. I’m the maker of my destiny.
I work for a living mf. So does the rest of my family. None of them “blame capitalism”. Everybody is on their grind in this weird economy. Gtfo here with your corny soapboxing. Go serve your pamphlets at a university plaza or to some soc dem yuppies, I bet it’ll play well there.
Quit blaming yourself and your family for their challenges. The system is built to work against you by billionaires and their friends who control everything down to your city council and favorite non profit organization. Your justifications for oppression and exploitation sound a lot like Trump and the right wing's, which is what happens when you fall deep into the proganda of capitalism and "rugged individualism". Good luck breaking out of your backwards, self hating, anti worker, pro billionaire mentality.
Unless you just own something instead of work for a living. Then you're still fooling yourself but the specifics are different. Cuz I know you ain't no billionaire lol.
One thing I think gets overlooked with approval ratings is that a large part of your own party can disapprove of the person, but that doesn't mean they won't vote for them. So, you're going to have people that disapprove because of one issue that's important to them, but it doesn't mean they won't vote for the person or don't approve of 10 other things they do that don't matter as much as the one big thing they disapprove of.
None that I know of, but it's a poll about approval of a random sample of people. Obviously, there are people on the Democratic side who are upset about Israel/Palestine, and there are others who perpetually think not enough is being done by whomever the President would be. People on the far left who disapprove because the Democratic President hasn't ushered in their paradise(and couldn't due to the nature of governing, plus Congress). If we had a fully Progressive president, people left of center would disapprove because they go too far. Same on the right if there's a Republican president, hardliners will disapprove for not going far enough, center right will disapprove for going too far. You can never please everyone.
I think it has more to do with neoliberalism and the New Democrats failing to deliver on their laissez-faire promises. NAFTA, free trade, the destruction of the welfare state, all happened under Democrats. Incomes started stalling under Democrats (even though those issues were initiated under Republicans). Today Democrats are the more hawkish party, which is generally unpopular in the US as it becomes more isolationist. There’s real reasons to hate Democrats and their classical liberal attitudes, which as an ideology has time and again sold out the working class and is so dated and its promises illegitimate to most by this point.
Because a large portion of Americans are living in a simulation.
[People have stopped following actual news; they get their information from social media.](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/news-platform-fact-sheet/) People are getting their news from bots and algorithms owned by zillionaires; perception is disconnected from reality.
And it’s only going to get worse. Shocking and outrage-inducing content gets attention, attention equals profit. Tech/media companies optimize for profit so their algorithms optimize for attention, and with so many people creating and consuming content the algorithms move extremely quickly. These alternative reality bubbles will grow and grow with nothing to stop them.
Truth and reason simply aren’t valued in our society unless they make money, and for the most part they don’t.
It’s crazy how much could be fixed by simple legislation to ban bots and algorithms on social media platforms. My only concern is doing it with this SCOTUS.
I feel like true conservatives should be all for the notion of “organic reach”.
One data point I would be really interested in is whether there is a correlation between news source and polarization level. Intuitively it seems like there would be since there's so much polarizing junk on the internet, but it'd be great to see hard data about it, if it exists.
Great point.
Young people are getting *bombarded* with Russian/Iranian/Chinese propaganda pushing division on the Israel/Palestine issue and demonizing Biden’s policies there.
The Washington Post just reported enough on its incoming editor (who was an insane British dude picked by Bezos) that he’s no longer the incoming editor, so yeah, I’ll go with them having standards
This is a fairly condescending and pandering take that implies anyone against Biden is just plain wrong - I bet it does fairly well with the usual crowd here.
The truth is - people do live in reality, and economic indicators don't always reflect the people's day to day lives. Your average American doesn't hang out on the internet all day. They're too busy working their a\*\* off and not seeing much in return.
So ironically, it's the opposite. People are seeing what they get in reality, and what the POTUS is saying and they see a disconnect.
US voters are unhappy with the economy in general, and that unhappiness will translate to the guy in charge of the country regardless of who he is. The COL has increased, the wages haven't followed, there's some fairly expensive wars the US is funding which created a perception of Biden not caring about the average voter.
His lack of mental acuity, along with his admin not clearly communicating his economic plans have also added to this.
[https://abcnews.go.com/538/voters-bidens-economy/story?id=109749510](https://abcnews.go.com/538/voters-bidens-economy/story?id=109749510)
[A large majority of Americans say that their own financial situation is good.](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/americans-are-actually-pretty-happy-with-their-finances) People think the economy is bad because they think it is bad for a large portion of other people, and they are wrong.
When people say unemployment is high right now, they are not expressing a viewpoint. They are just flat wrong. When they say a large number of Americans are working multiple jobs, they are wrong. When they say the crime rate is spiking upward, they are wrong. These are measurable facts.
> The COL has increased, the wages haven't followed
[You are wrong.](https://www.epi.org/blog/average-wages-have-surpassed-inflation-for-12-straight-months/)
> there's some fairly expensive wars the US is funding which created a perception of Biden not caring about the average voter.
They are less costly than the war the US was literally fighting in before Biden took office, but people still say "With Trump we didn't have any wars". Because they are living in a simulation.
>You are wrong.
The better way to phrase this is "wages are starting to catch up". By the graph in your own graph there is still a lot to catch up on. And that's not even getting into the issue of what inflation is actually measuring - and what its not.
Your own source shows that its tipped back down in recent months. You could argue there is a trend lines in a few places (just eyeballing it, there's a general trendline from 96-97 onward, another started around 2012-2013 that we're kind of on.
A slight dip from one quarter to the next has happened before; it's just noise. We've returned to the upward trend that started in the early 2010s and was interrupted by the pandemic.
> A large majority of Americans say that their own financial situation is good.
Articles lie, numbers don't. I think I'll take a Pew poll over an article with a set narrative to paint. I also thought you just said Americans are disconnected from reality? So which one is it?
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/23/views-of-the-nations-economy-may-2024/
> You are wrong.
So the link you provided in this condescending reply says how the avg real wages outpaced inflation for the last 12 months. Which is great, but it's hardly going to fix the GIANT gap that remains between COL and wages overall. At this point you're just cherry picking statistics and you're losing me.
> They are less costly than the wars the US was literally fighting in before Biden took office, but people still say "With Trump we didn't have any wars".
Christ. I never said any of that. The question wasn't about Trump at all. Trump **also** has a bad approval rating. You keep expressing the most stereotypical strawmen Republican points when not a single soul mentioned Republicans or Trump. And the people don't care that the current quagmires in the east cost less than the stuff from 10 years ago, what a completely out of touch talking point.
> Because they are living in a simulation.
Yikes. You're really not making your argument look that good. Your whole comment is either stereotyping and strawmanning, and then you just say "you're wrong, they're wrong, they're just plain wrong." You're not changing any minds with this approach buddy.
The difference between the Pew poll you cited and the Axios poll I cited is semantics. In your link, it shows that 80% view their own situation as good or fair, and only 19% say it is poor.
> it's hardly going to fix the GIANT gap that remains between COL and wages overall.
It already has. [Real wages have returned to pre-pandemic levels.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q)
It is just not accurate to say that a disproportionately large number of Americans are struggling financially right now. The pandemic caused some serious economic problems, Biden successfully navigated us out of them.
> The question wasn't about Trump at all.
Then I guess I didn't understand the question. What are Americans supposedly mad about?
[A large majority of Americans support funding Ukraine.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/643601/americans-say-not-helping-ukraine-enough.aspx)
[A large majority of Americans support funding Israel. (Question 27)](https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1232a1Israel-Hamas.pdf)
You're saying that people are mad at Biden for doing what they say they want him to do?
EDIT: Did this guy seriously block me to stop me from responding to him? He doesn't even know what Real Wages are.
> The difference between the Pew poll you cited and the Axios poll I cited is semantics.
Hahah the pew poll says the exact opposite of what you claim, but somehow it's a question of semantics?
> It already has. Real wages have returned to pre-pandemic levels.
Real wages returning to the levels from 5 years ago instead of growing while costs balloon is somehow a positive?
> A large majority of Americans support funding Ukraine.
No, around 49% think US is doing ok or should do more, but support trends downwards while opposition grows. [source](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/05/08/views-of-ukraine-and-u-s-involvement-with-the-russia-ukraine-war/)
> A large majority of Americans support funding Israel.
No, it's split fairly evenly with a third supporting, a third opposing and a third being neutral or not having an opinion. [source](https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/views-of-the-u-s-role-in-the-israel-hamas-war/)
Both of which are fairly consistent with the 55% disapproval and 40% approval rating OP is asking about. Obviously there's other factors but it tracks.
Come off it man, you're not even trying anymore. You've done nothing but spin and you contradict yourself with every comment.
I'm not engaging any further with this. You've shown a contempt for the American voters that we're supposed to be discussing, you've clearly given up on answering OP's question, and are just using this as a soapbox for your own views, while not even making a good case for them.
Part of the problem is that the news stopped being actual news. Take the [*Cargill* ruling](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf). The [NYT doesn't even get the ruling right](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/19/us/bump-stocks-supreme-court-guns.html), didn't really even explain *why* the ruling was made the way it was nor how the court basically said "Congress can fix this."
When one of the most respected newspapers in the country can't get the ruling right - basically, "machine gun" has a statutory meaning and the ATF can't just ignore it meanings because they really want to do something - why should you go back to that paper again? We could find bad or worse reporting all over the place, regardless of political leaning, and into the TV channels - they're even worse because while the NYT has plenty of space online to explain the ruling, TV is much more limited and becomes basically social media as well.
What does that NYT article get wrong?
They say in the article that the legal definition of a "machine gun" is the relevant issue. Then, they directly quote Justice Thomas's explanation of why, in the Court's view, a gun with a bump stock does not meet that definition.
>Then, they directly quote Justice Thomas's explanation of why, in the Court's view, a gun with a bump stock does not meet that definition.
Its the next step that is key in the decision. Since it didn't meet the defintion, it couldn't be banned under that topic. Something the NYT then basically tries to argue around multiple times by stating:
>officials focused on a gun accessory known as a bump stock, a device that allows a rifle to fire at nearly the rate of a machine gun.
And
>“The end result is similar,” said David Pucino, legal director of the Giffords Law Center, a gun-violence prevention group. “From the perspective of the shooter, it’s automatic fire.”
and
>“Assault weapons are dangerous already,” Nick Suplina, the senior vice president for law and policy at Everytown for Gun Safety, said in an email. The modifications, he said, “make this deadly problem even worse.”
But the other key thing to note - how many times does "Congress" or "legislation/legislature" or "pass" or "regulation". The real take away, and what the opinion stressed, is this is a *legislation* issue, not a regulatory one. Congress needs to figure this out - and it might be made even more important if *Chevron* is struck down.
Its important to note, and the NYT misses this as well, is nowhere in the decision did it say you *cannot* ban bump stocks. It just stated that *not under current law* and that the law has to be changed.
> Its the next step that is key in the decision. Since it didn't meet the defintion, it couldn't be banned under that topic.
What? They say that the definition of a machine gun is what the case is about, and they give the Court's reasoning for why bump stocks don't meet that definition. Anyone with a basic understanding of how the Supreme Court works would conclude that the Court's reasoning meant that the law in question does not apply to bump stocks.
> Something the NYT then basically tries to argue around multiple times
The NYT is not arguing anything. They're directly quoting people connected with the case, just like they directly quote Clarence Thomas and Lawrence DeMonico. They're presenting both sides of the argument. It's weird that you would describe letting people hear both sides as trying to "argue around" something. It's good journalism.
> But the other key thing to note - how many times does "Congress" or "legislation/legislature" or "pass" or "regulation". The real take away, and what the opinion stressed, is this is a legislation issue, not a regulatory one.
Future gun legislation is not the focus of the article. The ruling itself and its implications for other cases are.
You haven't pointed to anything this article says that is dishonest or inaccurate. You've just pointed to ways they didn't phrase things the way you would have phrased them, which hardly constitutes bad journalism and doesn't serve as a good argument for abandoning traditional journalism altogether.
Legal reporting is almost never accurate, though. Even local news reporting about non political crime tends to badly misunderstand the rulings of a court, as do laypeople in general.
But that reporting was accurate. It accurately described the ruling and took statements from heavily involved parties, and presented it objectively without making any sort of argument
This is exactly right. And people use the low approval rating to justify their disapproval. So literally people don't like him because people don't like him.
There was a substantial educational divide between print and cable news, but both got gobbled up by the internet, so it's a lot harder to still make it out. The problem is that an entire Fox "story" can fit in a single, easily sharable meme. By contrast, if you share an interesting and well-written article from *The Atlantic* with a four-minute read time, 0.0003% as many people are going to read it as those who read the meme.
It's trivial to churn out content that affirms someone's bubble, and they get clicks/views/likes/subscribes/upvotes/etc. for it. The social media market for quality journalism is much, much smaller.
There's tons of reasons. First off he's not very charismatic. Even accounting for his stuttering which IMO isn't a problem, he's just not a dynamic speaker or someone you really want to go out of your way to listen to. Second, he was really forced down people's throats. Despite an entire party of younger and more charismatic members, he became the candidate and for many Biden vs Trump was no choice. Third, he hasn't really been very present. While I don't blame him for crime, the economy, immigration...in the face of a disfunctional congress he could have done more to put them on blast or make executive orders. Instead, it seems like we rarely hear from him.
Possible most import, the media is terrible these days. So much opinion masquerading as news and making so many of us feel like we're pundits or in the know.
but there was a bipartisan immigration deal that was rejected by Congress because Trump didn't want Joe to get a win. If anything Biden doesn't brag on himself like Trump did. Maybe he should start I reckon. But yeah, the media is terrible. I don't know why every media outlet is pretending like Trump is a serious person.
He doesn't need to brag like Trump did but I feel like Obama was tactfully present in the face of an obstinate congress. It would be great to see Biden addressing the public and mingling with people more but I do wonder if his age is a limiting factor for that.
Your premise is a bit faulty. The pandemic is old news, we didn't "just" come out of it, and only looking at "covid recovery index" doesn't exactly give you a good look of the overall economy.
The US is fighting inflation, most voters are citing increasing cost of life, shaky job prospects, and the perception of Biden focusing on foreign interests over domestic policy as their concerns. Interest rates are also rising and the housing bubble is getting worse.
The pandemic doesn't really matter when a lot of people think times are worse than pre-pandemic times. So it's not necessarily what Biden did, it's what he didn't do. If you've been running the country for 4 years and people don't really see tangible improvements, you will end up with a bad approval rating.
[https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/29/politics/biden-young-voters-what-matters/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/29/politics/biden-young-voters-what-matters/index.html)
He’s not historically unpopular. Bush Sr. went into his re-elect with approvals in the low 30s. His son left office in the 20s. Biden is in the low to mid 40s. Not great, but enough to beat Trump, who has worse negatives.
Bigger picture, every Western leader has their approvals below 45%. The reason why? We just went through a major pandemic with significant supply chain disruptions that created moderate price hikes throughout the world. Housing, food and fuel were all particularly impacted. Those costs hit the lower and middle classes the worst. Naturally this is a period where challengers looking to upend entire orders can gain traction. A lot of voters are fearful and worried for the future, all of which doesn’t benefit incumbents running for reelection.
If people stop looking at the candidates themselves(gaffes and falls versus nasty name-calling and mean tweets)and focus on their plan for the next four years instead of their record, it might be a different question. Currently, I'm not sure what either one's plan is. They both talk in glittering generalities as to what they're going to do, but neither one will commit to a strategy like it's some big secret. "I'm going to lower inflation." How? Obviously, anything they've tried this year doesn't have much of an effect on our grocery bills. "I'm going to deal with the border." How? Limit the number of people let in or shut it down completely? Are we going to keep spending money we don't have for things the American people have no say in? If this were truly a democracy, we would put it to a vote, just like we do for bond packages on the local level. We don't get a bill with a name like "The Border Security Bill" or "The Inflation Reduction Act" (neither of which explains what the bill fully entails). They give them those misleading titles, so if you vote against it, it seems like you're against having a secure border, or you don't want to reduce inflation. No one truly believes that is what they are voting against, regardless of how the biased media outlets frame it.
Every time this gets asked, the answer is the same: "It's the economy, stupid" -- Bill Clinton
Prices are high and wages are low. Is it Biden's fault? No. Is he the guy in charge when it happened? Yes. Is it being caused by corporations raising prices in unison? Mostly yes. Has he addressed that in any way? No.
Is this a historically bad economy? What I’m trying to figure out is why his approval is so far in the gutter. I don’t believe it’s historically bad, but maybe I am wrong.
The economy, as a whole, isn’t historically bad, but the price hikes at supermarkets and fast food joints are steeper than in most voter’s memories, and working class wages haven’t followed suit. Short of imposing price controls and extending universal basic income, things Biden can’t legally do, there’s nothing Biden can do without agreement from Congress. And the MAGAs in the House of Representatives aren’t going to allow anything to happen which benefits Biden, even if it helps their purported base.
Having written that drives home the similarity between Hamas and the MAGA faction of the Republican Party. It’s not their responsibility to protect the civilians, it’s Israel and the UN for the former, and the Democratic Party for the latter.
Then you weren’t looking. Median rents jumped about 20% between 2012 and 2013, and even the dollar amount was (edit) more than the recent 2020-2021 peak. https://www.statista.com/statistics/200223/median-apartment-rent-in-the-us-since-1980/
But the statistics don’t matter. People are being told that it’s worse, by sources they trust, and facts are irrelevant.
Yeah sorry guess I missed that one time it was almost but not quite as big a jump as we recently experienced.
Especially since I was renting then. Sneaky landlords.
I edited my statement: the 2012-2013 jump was $196. 2020-2021 was $133. Edit: and 2020 was down from 2019, so the jump in 2021 was just correcting back to the trend.
Edit2: different data, but still pretty much the same story. A jump in 2020-2021, but not out of line with past trends. Far less than the 15% annual rate from 1980-1985, or 19% from 1970-1975.
https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/average-rent-by-year
Forget the food prices, you need to work three jobs to have a place to live...this economy is the worst I've experienced in nearly fifty years of living...it's historically bad.
Again, Biden can’t mandate that businesses pay employees more. And fifty years of Republicans rigging the system in favor of the top end of the income scale has effects that a President can’t change.
Edit: Biden supporting a higher minimum wage, and higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, doesn’t matter unless a Congress is elected which will pass the necessary legislation.
Oh I agree and did vote and will vote for Biden as the much lesser of two problems.
However he did campaign before and now on raising the federal minimum wage and that would help as well as taxing the rich at a higher rate and possibly corporations that inflate prices and pay slave wages to that fire too.
And yes less butt kissing of the rich will help a great deal.
There are levers they can pull although with the current supreme court some would be dicey. For example, Biden could direct certain spending away from certain large companies that rely on the government more than they publicly admit. He also has some leverage to use regulatory agencies to increase pricing transparency. There potentially things that he and Harris could do with respect to congressional transparency and inaction. So while they can't force term limits, votes...they may be able to withhold pay, seize assets...
It goes without saying that none of the above wouldn't be challenged in courts and I doubt much of it would hold up. But maybe the potential disruptions would be enough for large corporations to cut prices in exchange for political certainty.
Any number of ways. First and foremost, they are America's cheerleader. They should be calling out the bad behavior and demanding action from corporate leaders. And praising companies that don't gouge their customers
Wages are higher for many people. The sheetz near me is currently hiring at over 15/hr which is more than many gas stations in the area and sheetz gives shift bonuses. While I agree that the economy and immigration are the issues, many people have a distorted view of what's going on. Despite higher grocery prices, people are still consuming and in many cases a lot. Despite a shrinking middle class, people are eating better or more than ever. I come across tons of people whose kids are allowed to eat way more than many families historically fed their kids. It's always funny to hear people blaming Biden and saying how bad the economy is and then in the next breath talking about how their kid ate 2 steaks the night before
Polarization and perhaps unrealistic expectations.
People who probably would've answered "don't care" before have now formed extremely strong opinions, informed or otherwise (on either side).
Also, as a person who's always voted left, I can definitely say that there's nobody who can fill the shoes of Obama, for good or for ill. He continues to loom large over the party whether you agree with him or not, and as someone who supported him his departure from the Presidency was bittersweet in a lot of ways. He on one hand was incredibly popular (ya know, considering) and on the other, fell short of a LOT of the hopes that launched him into the presidency.
So Biden is fighting comparisons to Barack (who also, being realistic is more attractive charismatic AND compelling than him), AND to Trump, on top of essentially being in the job only because people hate the orange guy so much.
Like does anybody remember what Biden's actual platform was before getting elected? Cause I just remember "I'm not that guy." It was good enough to get votes but is not good enough to win loyalty, especially with the right wing media machine (and left wing skeptics) constantly angling to make him out as ineffective.
All Republicans hate him because he is a communist who is also racist and anti-Christian and antisemitic and wants to tax like crazy and take our guns and put all white people like jail, plus, you know, he's a pedophile who drinks the blood of infants and all that. Plus, he is senile and incompetent and used complex, nefarious evil genius methods to steal the election in '20.
Most democrats disapprove because he is none of those things and is frustratingly prone to compromise and work with Republicans and maintain the status quo.
How is he possibly supposed to make those two
sides approve?
Look at the Israeli Palestinian conflict. 50% of the country wants us to support Israel no matter what, and the other 50% wants us to support the Palestinians no matter what. Both are wrong, and we need to oppose hamas and Iran while also trying to prevent chaos and death in Palestine - which seems to he Netanyahu's goal. Amercian interests demand a middle road, and thankfully, the president has the courage to take it, and that has literally everyone angry.
I believe Netanyahu is being overly brutal in part because he knows it angers Biden's base, and he wants to see trump elected and subsequently loses all restraint.
I agree completely about Bibi, he's holding out for a Trump presidency because Trump will defer to whatever he wants, including as many weapons as we can give him.
The cost of living has become outrageous. Inflation is felt by just about every regular person every time they buy groceries, pay rent, or do anything. While both parties have become big spenders, the current administration has touted programs that profess to curb inflation while precisely doing the exact opposite. Good politics but bad policy. Continuously printing money for short term gains has had a long term impact on regular people. Like it or not, Biden (or his handlers) and the tsars that have been put place around him seem more out of touch with the realities of the commoner compared to the more populist right-wing candidate.
Foreign policy-wise, the Biden administration has not done themselves any favors either. The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan ended in catastrophe and the entire nation, and world, watched it unfold in real time on television. The perception of weakness followed, and Russia invaded Ukraine. China has begun to lay the foundations for moving on Taiwan. Iran has funded and activated regional terror cells and puppets to attack Israel. All of this is correlated to the perception of foreign policy weakness and predictability that, like it or not, Trump did not give off. Trump was a lot of things, but predicable was not one of them — this served as a foreign policy strength.
People also see the numbers at which illegal border crossings are occurring at the southern border now versus when Trump was in office. Normal people see Biden and his mouthpiece Alejandro Mayorkas as intentionally letting the border get out of hand on purpose for political reasons which, ironically, have had bad political repercussions. There is a definite possibility that part of why Trump and the republicans didn’t come together at 11:59pm to pass a last minute bipartisan border bill because they wanted to run on it, but they wouldn’t have to if Biden hadn’t come into office on day one and overturn all of the border measures that Trump had enacted to prevent the border crisis. Messaging and bad policy are the roots of the humanitarian issue at the southern border and people see how much worse it is now. They believe that Biden and the democrats want uncapped immigration to both garner eventual voters and turn key states and districts blue, as well as drive down the wages of working class people, furthering the decline of the middle class.
Additionally, keep in mind the specter of the botched Pandemic response that hurt small business owners and propaganda coming out in defense of lockdowns and government overreach. People don’t like being demonized by politicians, their bought-and-paid-for media mouthpieces, and celebrities.
Looking at all of these things that impact regular people, who do not like the overly-progressive messaging and possible threat to the nuclear family that they see everyday on social media, and in conjunction with Biden’s obviously declining mental faculties, I’m a bit confused why so many people still CAN’T seem to grasp why Joe Biden has this historically bad approval rating.
/u/_PC__LOAD__LETTER_, thank you for participating in r/Ask_Politics! Unfortunately, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/comments/1dl4vn2/-/l9ngp9q/) has been removed from /r/Ask_Politics for violating the following rule(s):
* **All comments should contribute to healthy discussion.**
---
Please visit the [Moderation Section](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/wiki/rules#wiki_moderation) of the Rules page if you have questions about the implications of this removal. If you're uncertain why your comment was removed or you believe this removal to be an error, please [send a message to the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAsk_Politics)
I'm not sure what you mean by "historically" unpopular. I dont think any of these following things, but a lot of people (mainly magas) think he is too old to be president; they think he has dementia; they think he is a pedo; they think he took money from his son's business dealings in Ukraine; they don't think he is doing enough to stop the border crisis. Democrats don't think he is doing enough to stop the war in Gaza.
Welcome to /r/ask_politics. Our goal here is to provide educated, informed, and serious answers to questions about the world of politics. Our full [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/wiki/rules) can be found here, but are summarized below.
* Address the question (and its replies) in a professional manner
* Avoid personal attacks and partisan "point scoring"
* Avoid the use of partisan slang and [fallacies](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_fallacies)
* Provide sources if possible at the time of commenting. **If asked, you must provide sources.**
* Help avoid the echo chamber - downvote bad/poorly sourced responses, not responses you disagree with. **Do not downvote just because you disagree with the response**.
* Report any comments that do not meet our standards and rules.
Further, all submissions are subject to manual review.
If you have any questions, please contact the mods at any time.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
(Libertarian)
The short version is that life is more expensive and people can't afford groceries and other things as much. There is debate if this is entirely Biden's fault but he is in charge so he is going to be blamed.
There are many other reasons like the border crisis, multiple wars, and questionable foreign policy and energy policies.
And many think he is in mental decline too.
That doesn't mean that they are rushing out to vote for Trump but they might be. Trump isn't loved either though.
I will probably vote for neither.
Remember everyone, this is not *your opinion* on the question. Please provide sources and references.
We've been in historically polarized times. Prior presidents didn't have to deal with a large segments of the electorate getting their information via algorithms while sitting on the toilet.
Yeah everyone's in their own little bubbles as a result of the internet. Makes it a lot easier to see the opposing party as an evil "other"
>Yeah everyone's in their own little bubbles as a result of the internet. I wouldn't say it's the result of the Internet. Social media platforms, people using them to spread misinformation, calling news you don't like "fake news", etc are more specific factors
The things you mentioned came about as a result of the internet…you’re being more specific but saying basically the same thing.
Social media and the general internet are two very different things. Social media may exist on and because of the internet, but saying the internet in general is the cause of this polarization isn't true. It may have caused some, but it has gotten much, much worse since social media became so prevalent.
But the internet didn't exacerbate this polarization before the rise of social media
What a fantastic line. I am going to use this in the future "large segments of the electorate getting their information via algorithms while sitting on the toilet."
OR he's another in a long line of puppets for a failed social and economic system who's presiding over the late stages of its decay, while offering no solutions to the real problems faced by millions, telling people it's all good and that he's very progressive, but only those with their heads in the sand believe that. People are sick of being lied to, nothing getting better, everything getting worse, and the two party lesser evilist race to the bottom.
Opinion…
Puppet to who?? Failed *social* system? What does that even mean? This comment is so melodramatic.
Lol, you just have it pretty good and also really trust the failed institutions that run the world. Puppet to the capitalist class and, moreover, to capitalism. Yes, failed social, economic, and political system of capitalism. It's pretty clear you don't know what it means but still judge the content harshly. Capitalism is a globally dominant system based on exploitation and predecated on oppression, where a tiny minority of people make up the capitalist class who own all the means of production, resources, wealth, land, as well as the institutions and political parties. Is it really news that the vast majority of people, those who work for a living, have no control over society and their conditions have continued to get worse since the late 70s?
You don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. I don’t have it “good”. I’m man enough to take on adversity and not subscribe to weird conspiracy theories or bizarre resentments. I’m the maker of my destiny. I work for a living mf. So does the rest of my family. None of them “blame capitalism”. Everybody is on their grind in this weird economy. Gtfo here with your corny soapboxing. Go serve your pamphlets at a university plaza or to some soc dem yuppies, I bet it’ll play well there.
Quit blaming yourself and your family for their challenges. The system is built to work against you by billionaires and their friends who control everything down to your city council and favorite non profit organization. Your justifications for oppression and exploitation sound a lot like Trump and the right wing's, which is what happens when you fall deep into the proganda of capitalism and "rugged individualism". Good luck breaking out of your backwards, self hating, anti worker, pro billionaire mentality.
Unless you just own something instead of work for a living. Then you're still fooling yourself but the specifics are different. Cuz I know you ain't no billionaire lol.
One thing I think gets overlooked with approval ratings is that a large part of your own party can disapprove of the person, but that doesn't mean they won't vote for them. So, you're going to have people that disapprove because of one issue that's important to them, but it doesn't mean they won't vote for the person or don't approve of 10 other things they do that don't matter as much as the one big thing they disapprove of.
Sure. But this has always been true and doesn’t explain the current low rate we are seeing
This checks out to me in theory. Is there data you know of to back it up?
None that I know of, but it's a poll about approval of a random sample of people. Obviously, there are people on the Democratic side who are upset about Israel/Palestine, and there are others who perpetually think not enough is being done by whomever the President would be. People on the far left who disapprove because the Democratic President hasn't ushered in their paradise(and couldn't due to the nature of governing, plus Congress). If we had a fully Progressive president, people left of center would disapprove because they go too far. Same on the right if there's a Republican president, hardliners will disapprove for not going far enough, center right will disapprove for going too far. You can never please everyone.
I think it has more to do with neoliberalism and the New Democrats failing to deliver on their laissez-faire promises. NAFTA, free trade, the destruction of the welfare state, all happened under Democrats. Incomes started stalling under Democrats (even though those issues were initiated under Republicans). Today Democrats are the more hawkish party, which is generally unpopular in the US as it becomes more isolationist. There’s real reasons to hate Democrats and their classical liberal attitudes, which as an ideology has time and again sold out the working class and is so dated and its promises illegitimate to most by this point.
Because a large portion of Americans are living in a simulation. [People have stopped following actual news; they get their information from social media.](https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/news-platform-fact-sheet/) People are getting their news from bots and algorithms owned by zillionaires; perception is disconnected from reality.
And it’s only going to get worse. Shocking and outrage-inducing content gets attention, attention equals profit. Tech/media companies optimize for profit so their algorithms optimize for attention, and with so many people creating and consuming content the algorithms move extremely quickly. These alternative reality bubbles will grow and grow with nothing to stop them. Truth and reason simply aren’t valued in our society unless they make money, and for the most part they don’t.
It’s crazy how much could be fixed by simple legislation to ban bots and algorithms on social media platforms. My only concern is doing it with this SCOTUS. I feel like true conservatives should be all for the notion of “organic reach”.
One data point I would be really interested in is whether there is a correlation between news source and polarization level. Intuitively it seems like there would be since there's so much polarizing junk on the internet, but it'd be great to see hard data about it, if it exists.
I think the Democrats' strength relative to previous elections with older voters and similar weakness with younger voters points to this.
Great point. Young people are getting *bombarded* with Russian/Iranian/Chinese propaganda pushing division on the Israel/Palestine issue and demonizing Biden’s policies there.
You do realize that news outlets are owned and controlled by zillionaires, too right?
Yes, but they also have journalistic standards and are more likely to be called out and corrected when they are wrong.
In theory, yes.
The Washington Post just reported enough on its incoming editor (who was an insane British dude picked by Bezos) that he’s no longer the incoming editor, so yeah, I’ll go with them having standards
I’m referring to Fox & the like.
They at least aspire to have standards. Social media doesn't even claim to try.
How many news organizations have journalistic standards? I'd ask you to name them so I could have a big laugh 😂😂
AP and Reuters.
This is a fairly condescending and pandering take that implies anyone against Biden is just plain wrong - I bet it does fairly well with the usual crowd here. The truth is - people do live in reality, and economic indicators don't always reflect the people's day to day lives. Your average American doesn't hang out on the internet all day. They're too busy working their a\*\* off and not seeing much in return. So ironically, it's the opposite. People are seeing what they get in reality, and what the POTUS is saying and they see a disconnect. US voters are unhappy with the economy in general, and that unhappiness will translate to the guy in charge of the country regardless of who he is. The COL has increased, the wages haven't followed, there's some fairly expensive wars the US is funding which created a perception of Biden not caring about the average voter. His lack of mental acuity, along with his admin not clearly communicating his economic plans have also added to this. [https://abcnews.go.com/538/voters-bidens-economy/story?id=109749510](https://abcnews.go.com/538/voters-bidens-economy/story?id=109749510)
[A large majority of Americans say that their own financial situation is good.](https://www.axios.com/2024/01/17/americans-are-actually-pretty-happy-with-their-finances) People think the economy is bad because they think it is bad for a large portion of other people, and they are wrong. When people say unemployment is high right now, they are not expressing a viewpoint. They are just flat wrong. When they say a large number of Americans are working multiple jobs, they are wrong. When they say the crime rate is spiking upward, they are wrong. These are measurable facts. > The COL has increased, the wages haven't followed [You are wrong.](https://www.epi.org/blog/average-wages-have-surpassed-inflation-for-12-straight-months/) > there's some fairly expensive wars the US is funding which created a perception of Biden not caring about the average voter. They are less costly than the war the US was literally fighting in before Biden took office, but people still say "With Trump we didn't have any wars". Because they are living in a simulation.
>You are wrong. The better way to phrase this is "wages are starting to catch up". By the graph in your own graph there is still a lot to catch up on. And that's not even getting into the issue of what inflation is actually measuring - and what its not.
There is not still a lot to catch up on. [They already have caught up.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q)
Your own source shows that its tipped back down in recent months. You could argue there is a trend lines in a few places (just eyeballing it, there's a general trendline from 96-97 onward, another started around 2012-2013 that we're kind of on.
A slight dip from one quarter to the next has happened before; it's just noise. We've returned to the upward trend that started in the early 2010s and was interrupted by the pandemic.
> A large majority of Americans say that their own financial situation is good. Articles lie, numbers don't. I think I'll take a Pew poll over an article with a set narrative to paint. I also thought you just said Americans are disconnected from reality? So which one is it? https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/05/23/views-of-the-nations-economy-may-2024/ > You are wrong. So the link you provided in this condescending reply says how the avg real wages outpaced inflation for the last 12 months. Which is great, but it's hardly going to fix the GIANT gap that remains between COL and wages overall. At this point you're just cherry picking statistics and you're losing me. > They are less costly than the wars the US was literally fighting in before Biden took office, but people still say "With Trump we didn't have any wars". Christ. I never said any of that. The question wasn't about Trump at all. Trump **also** has a bad approval rating. You keep expressing the most stereotypical strawmen Republican points when not a single soul mentioned Republicans or Trump. And the people don't care that the current quagmires in the east cost less than the stuff from 10 years ago, what a completely out of touch talking point. > Because they are living in a simulation. Yikes. You're really not making your argument look that good. Your whole comment is either stereotyping and strawmanning, and then you just say "you're wrong, they're wrong, they're just plain wrong." You're not changing any minds with this approach buddy.
The difference between the Pew poll you cited and the Axios poll I cited is semantics. In your link, it shows that 80% view their own situation as good or fair, and only 19% say it is poor. > it's hardly going to fix the GIANT gap that remains between COL and wages overall. It already has. [Real wages have returned to pre-pandemic levels.](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LES1252881600Q) It is just not accurate to say that a disproportionately large number of Americans are struggling financially right now. The pandemic caused some serious economic problems, Biden successfully navigated us out of them. > The question wasn't about Trump at all. Then I guess I didn't understand the question. What are Americans supposedly mad about? [A large majority of Americans support funding Ukraine.](https://news.gallup.com/poll/643601/americans-say-not-helping-ukraine-enough.aspx) [A large majority of Americans support funding Israel. (Question 27)](https://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1232a1Israel-Hamas.pdf) You're saying that people are mad at Biden for doing what they say they want him to do? EDIT: Did this guy seriously block me to stop me from responding to him? He doesn't even know what Real Wages are.
> The difference between the Pew poll you cited and the Axios poll I cited is semantics. Hahah the pew poll says the exact opposite of what you claim, but somehow it's a question of semantics? > It already has. Real wages have returned to pre-pandemic levels. Real wages returning to the levels from 5 years ago instead of growing while costs balloon is somehow a positive? > A large majority of Americans support funding Ukraine. No, around 49% think US is doing ok or should do more, but support trends downwards while opposition grows. [source](https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2024/05/08/views-of-ukraine-and-u-s-involvement-with-the-russia-ukraine-war/) > A large majority of Americans support funding Israel. No, it's split fairly evenly with a third supporting, a third opposing and a third being neutral or not having an opinion. [source](https://www.pewresearch.org/2024/03/21/views-of-the-u-s-role-in-the-israel-hamas-war/) Both of which are fairly consistent with the 55% disapproval and 40% approval rating OP is asking about. Obviously there's other factors but it tracks. Come off it man, you're not even trying anymore. You've done nothing but spin and you contradict yourself with every comment. I'm not engaging any further with this. You've shown a contempt for the American voters that we're supposed to be discussing, you've clearly given up on answering OP's question, and are just using this as a soapbox for your own views, while not even making a good case for them.
Part of the problem is that the news stopped being actual news. Take the [*Cargill* ruling](https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-976_e29g.pdf). The [NYT doesn't even get the ruling right](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/19/us/bump-stocks-supreme-court-guns.html), didn't really even explain *why* the ruling was made the way it was nor how the court basically said "Congress can fix this." When one of the most respected newspapers in the country can't get the ruling right - basically, "machine gun" has a statutory meaning and the ATF can't just ignore it meanings because they really want to do something - why should you go back to that paper again? We could find bad or worse reporting all over the place, regardless of political leaning, and into the TV channels - they're even worse because while the NYT has plenty of space online to explain the ruling, TV is much more limited and becomes basically social media as well.
What does that NYT article get wrong? They say in the article that the legal definition of a "machine gun" is the relevant issue. Then, they directly quote Justice Thomas's explanation of why, in the Court's view, a gun with a bump stock does not meet that definition.
>Then, they directly quote Justice Thomas's explanation of why, in the Court's view, a gun with a bump stock does not meet that definition. Its the next step that is key in the decision. Since it didn't meet the defintion, it couldn't be banned under that topic. Something the NYT then basically tries to argue around multiple times by stating: >officials focused on a gun accessory known as a bump stock, a device that allows a rifle to fire at nearly the rate of a machine gun. And >“The end result is similar,” said David Pucino, legal director of the Giffords Law Center, a gun-violence prevention group. “From the perspective of the shooter, it’s automatic fire.” and >“Assault weapons are dangerous already,” Nick Suplina, the senior vice president for law and policy at Everytown for Gun Safety, said in an email. The modifications, he said, “make this deadly problem even worse.” But the other key thing to note - how many times does "Congress" or "legislation/legislature" or "pass" or "regulation". The real take away, and what the opinion stressed, is this is a *legislation* issue, not a regulatory one. Congress needs to figure this out - and it might be made even more important if *Chevron* is struck down. Its important to note, and the NYT misses this as well, is nowhere in the decision did it say you *cannot* ban bump stocks. It just stated that *not under current law* and that the law has to be changed.
> Its the next step that is key in the decision. Since it didn't meet the defintion, it couldn't be banned under that topic. What? They say that the definition of a machine gun is what the case is about, and they give the Court's reasoning for why bump stocks don't meet that definition. Anyone with a basic understanding of how the Supreme Court works would conclude that the Court's reasoning meant that the law in question does not apply to bump stocks. > Something the NYT then basically tries to argue around multiple times The NYT is not arguing anything. They're directly quoting people connected with the case, just like they directly quote Clarence Thomas and Lawrence DeMonico. They're presenting both sides of the argument. It's weird that you would describe letting people hear both sides as trying to "argue around" something. It's good journalism. > But the other key thing to note - how many times does "Congress" or "legislation/legislature" or "pass" or "regulation". The real take away, and what the opinion stressed, is this is a legislation issue, not a regulatory one. Future gun legislation is not the focus of the article. The ruling itself and its implications for other cases are. You haven't pointed to anything this article says that is dishonest or inaccurate. You've just pointed to ways they didn't phrase things the way you would have phrased them, which hardly constitutes bad journalism and doesn't serve as a good argument for abandoning traditional journalism altogether.
Legal reporting is almost never accurate, though. Even local news reporting about non political crime tends to badly misunderstand the rulings of a court, as do laypeople in general. But that reporting was accurate. It accurately described the ruling and took statements from heavily involved parties, and presented it objectively without making any sort of argument
This is exactly right. And people use the low approval rating to justify their disapproval. So literally people don't like him because people don't like him.
There was a substantial educational divide between print and cable news, but both got gobbled up by the internet, so it's a lot harder to still make it out. The problem is that an entire Fox "story" can fit in a single, easily sharable meme. By contrast, if you share an interesting and well-written article from *The Atlantic* with a four-minute read time, 0.0003% as many people are going to read it as those who read the meme. It's trivial to churn out content that affirms someone's bubble, and they get clicks/views/likes/subscribes/upvotes/etc. for it. The social media market for quality journalism is much, much smaller.
There's tons of reasons. First off he's not very charismatic. Even accounting for his stuttering which IMO isn't a problem, he's just not a dynamic speaker or someone you really want to go out of your way to listen to. Second, he was really forced down people's throats. Despite an entire party of younger and more charismatic members, he became the candidate and for many Biden vs Trump was no choice. Third, he hasn't really been very present. While I don't blame him for crime, the economy, immigration...in the face of a disfunctional congress he could have done more to put them on blast or make executive orders. Instead, it seems like we rarely hear from him. Possible most import, the media is terrible these days. So much opinion masquerading as news and making so many of us feel like we're pundits or in the know.
Listening to Biden 20-40 years ago, he sounds so good. His age really caught up to him.
but there was a bipartisan immigration deal that was rejected by Congress because Trump didn't want Joe to get a win. If anything Biden doesn't brag on himself like Trump did. Maybe he should start I reckon. But yeah, the media is terrible. I don't know why every media outlet is pretending like Trump is a serious person.
He doesn't need to brag like Trump did but I feel like Obama was tactfully present in the face of an obstinate congress. It would be great to see Biden addressing the public and mingling with people more but I do wonder if his age is a limiting factor for that.
Your premise is a bit faulty. The pandemic is old news, we didn't "just" come out of it, and only looking at "covid recovery index" doesn't exactly give you a good look of the overall economy. The US is fighting inflation, most voters are citing increasing cost of life, shaky job prospects, and the perception of Biden focusing on foreign interests over domestic policy as their concerns. Interest rates are also rising and the housing bubble is getting worse. The pandemic doesn't really matter when a lot of people think times are worse than pre-pandemic times. So it's not necessarily what Biden did, it's what he didn't do. If you've been running the country for 4 years and people don't really see tangible improvements, you will end up with a bad approval rating. [https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/29/politics/biden-young-voters-what-matters/index.html](https://edition.cnn.com/2024/04/29/politics/biden-young-voters-what-matters/index.html)
[удалено]
[удалено]
He’s not historically unpopular. Bush Sr. went into his re-elect with approvals in the low 30s. His son left office in the 20s. Biden is in the low to mid 40s. Not great, but enough to beat Trump, who has worse negatives. Bigger picture, every Western leader has their approvals below 45%. The reason why? We just went through a major pandemic with significant supply chain disruptions that created moderate price hikes throughout the world. Housing, food and fuel were all particularly impacted. Those costs hit the lower and middle classes the worst. Naturally this is a period where challengers looking to upend entire orders can gain traction. A lot of voters are fearful and worried for the future, all of which doesn’t benefit incumbents running for reelection.
If people stop looking at the candidates themselves(gaffes and falls versus nasty name-calling and mean tweets)and focus on their plan for the next four years instead of their record, it might be a different question. Currently, I'm not sure what either one's plan is. They both talk in glittering generalities as to what they're going to do, but neither one will commit to a strategy like it's some big secret. "I'm going to lower inflation." How? Obviously, anything they've tried this year doesn't have much of an effect on our grocery bills. "I'm going to deal with the border." How? Limit the number of people let in or shut it down completely? Are we going to keep spending money we don't have for things the American people have no say in? If this were truly a democracy, we would put it to a vote, just like we do for bond packages on the local level. We don't get a bill with a name like "The Border Security Bill" or "The Inflation Reduction Act" (neither of which explains what the bill fully entails). They give them those misleading titles, so if you vote against it, it seems like you're against having a secure border, or you don't want to reduce inflation. No one truly believes that is what they are voting against, regardless of how the biased media outlets frame it.
People leave out the “considering” part, if things are bad the captain will get the blame even if the storm is the reason.
Every time this gets asked, the answer is the same: "It's the economy, stupid" -- Bill Clinton Prices are high and wages are low. Is it Biden's fault? No. Is he the guy in charge when it happened? Yes. Is it being caused by corporations raising prices in unison? Mostly yes. Has he addressed that in any way? No.
Is this a historically bad economy? What I’m trying to figure out is why his approval is so far in the gutter. I don’t believe it’s historically bad, but maybe I am wrong.
Why would it matter? A person living in 2024 doesn't care if it's a historical record, all they know is things are bad now.
The economy, as a whole, isn’t historically bad, but the price hikes at supermarkets and fast food joints are steeper than in most voter’s memories, and working class wages haven’t followed suit. Short of imposing price controls and extending universal basic income, things Biden can’t legally do, there’s nothing Biden can do without agreement from Congress. And the MAGAs in the House of Representatives aren’t going to allow anything to happen which benefits Biden, even if it helps their purported base. Having written that drives home the similarity between Hamas and the MAGA faction of the Republican Party. It’s not their responsibility to protect the civilians, it’s Israel and the UN for the former, and the Democratic Party for the latter.
You can't forget the rent increases, which I think are historic. I'm 55 and I've never seen 500 dollar a month increases across the board before.
Then you weren’t looking. Median rents jumped about 20% between 2012 and 2013, and even the dollar amount was (edit) more than the recent 2020-2021 peak. https://www.statista.com/statistics/200223/median-apartment-rent-in-the-us-since-1980/ But the statistics don’t matter. People are being told that it’s worse, by sources they trust, and facts are irrelevant.
Yeah sorry guess I missed that one time it was almost but not quite as big a jump as we recently experienced. Especially since I was renting then. Sneaky landlords.
I edited my statement: the 2012-2013 jump was $196. 2020-2021 was $133. Edit: and 2020 was down from 2019, so the jump in 2021 was just correcting back to the trend. Edit2: different data, but still pretty much the same story. A jump in 2020-2021, but not out of line with past trends. Far less than the 15% annual rate from 1980-1985, or 19% from 1970-1975. https://ipropertymanagement.com/research/average-rent-by-year
Blame COVID era eviciaton mortums. Landlords cya and don't forget squatters
Forget the food prices, you need to work three jobs to have a place to live...this economy is the worst I've experienced in nearly fifty years of living...it's historically bad.
Again, Biden can’t mandate that businesses pay employees more. And fifty years of Republicans rigging the system in favor of the top end of the income scale has effects that a President can’t change. Edit: Biden supporting a higher minimum wage, and higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, doesn’t matter unless a Congress is elected which will pass the necessary legislation.
Oh I agree and did vote and will vote for Biden as the much lesser of two problems. However he did campaign before and now on raising the federal minimum wage and that would help as well as taxing the rich at a higher rate and possibly corporations that inflate prices and pay slave wages to that fire too. And yes less butt kissing of the rich will help a great deal.
For investors it is great. For workers, not so much.
It is for anyone under 40 that's just the reality
How does a sitting POTUS address corporation corruption which they have no control over?
There are levers they can pull although with the current supreme court some would be dicey. For example, Biden could direct certain spending away from certain large companies that rely on the government more than they publicly admit. He also has some leverage to use regulatory agencies to increase pricing transparency. There potentially things that he and Harris could do with respect to congressional transparency and inaction. So while they can't force term limits, votes...they may be able to withhold pay, seize assets... It goes without saying that none of the above wouldn't be challenged in courts and I doubt much of it would hold up. But maybe the potential disruptions would be enough for large corporations to cut prices in exchange for political certainty.
Any number of ways. First and foremost, they are America's cheerleader. They should be calling out the bad behavior and demanding action from corporate leaders. And praising companies that don't gouge their customers
Wages are higher for many people. The sheetz near me is currently hiring at over 15/hr which is more than many gas stations in the area and sheetz gives shift bonuses. While I agree that the economy and immigration are the issues, many people have a distorted view of what's going on. Despite higher grocery prices, people are still consuming and in many cases a lot. Despite a shrinking middle class, people are eating better or more than ever. I come across tons of people whose kids are allowed to eat way more than many families historically fed their kids. It's always funny to hear people blaming Biden and saying how bad the economy is and then in the next breath talking about how their kid ate 2 steaks the night before
Also, [isn't that a Carville quote](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_the_economy,_stupid)?
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Polarization and perhaps unrealistic expectations. People who probably would've answered "don't care" before have now formed extremely strong opinions, informed or otherwise (on either side). Also, as a person who's always voted left, I can definitely say that there's nobody who can fill the shoes of Obama, for good or for ill. He continues to loom large over the party whether you agree with him or not, and as someone who supported him his departure from the Presidency was bittersweet in a lot of ways. He on one hand was incredibly popular (ya know, considering) and on the other, fell short of a LOT of the hopes that launched him into the presidency. So Biden is fighting comparisons to Barack (who also, being realistic is more attractive charismatic AND compelling than him), AND to Trump, on top of essentially being in the job only because people hate the orange guy so much. Like does anybody remember what Biden's actual platform was before getting elected? Cause I just remember "I'm not that guy." It was good enough to get votes but is not good enough to win loyalty, especially with the right wing media machine (and left wing skeptics) constantly angling to make him out as ineffective.
All Republicans hate him because he is a communist who is also racist and anti-Christian and antisemitic and wants to tax like crazy and take our guns and put all white people like jail, plus, you know, he's a pedophile who drinks the blood of infants and all that. Plus, he is senile and incompetent and used complex, nefarious evil genius methods to steal the election in '20. Most democrats disapprove because he is none of those things and is frustratingly prone to compromise and work with Republicans and maintain the status quo. How is he possibly supposed to make those two sides approve? Look at the Israeli Palestinian conflict. 50% of the country wants us to support Israel no matter what, and the other 50% wants us to support the Palestinians no matter what. Both are wrong, and we need to oppose hamas and Iran while also trying to prevent chaos and death in Palestine - which seems to he Netanyahu's goal. Amercian interests demand a middle road, and thankfully, the president has the courage to take it, and that has literally everyone angry. I believe Netanyahu is being overly brutal in part because he knows it angers Biden's base, and he wants to see trump elected and subsequently loses all restraint.
I agree completely about Bibi, he's holding out for a Trump presidency because Trump will defer to whatever he wants, including as many weapons as we can give him.
The cost of living has become outrageous. Inflation is felt by just about every regular person every time they buy groceries, pay rent, or do anything. While both parties have become big spenders, the current administration has touted programs that profess to curb inflation while precisely doing the exact opposite. Good politics but bad policy. Continuously printing money for short term gains has had a long term impact on regular people. Like it or not, Biden (or his handlers) and the tsars that have been put place around him seem more out of touch with the realities of the commoner compared to the more populist right-wing candidate. Foreign policy-wise, the Biden administration has not done themselves any favors either. The chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan ended in catastrophe and the entire nation, and world, watched it unfold in real time on television. The perception of weakness followed, and Russia invaded Ukraine. China has begun to lay the foundations for moving on Taiwan. Iran has funded and activated regional terror cells and puppets to attack Israel. All of this is correlated to the perception of foreign policy weakness and predictability that, like it or not, Trump did not give off. Trump was a lot of things, but predicable was not one of them — this served as a foreign policy strength. People also see the numbers at which illegal border crossings are occurring at the southern border now versus when Trump was in office. Normal people see Biden and his mouthpiece Alejandro Mayorkas as intentionally letting the border get out of hand on purpose for political reasons which, ironically, have had bad political repercussions. There is a definite possibility that part of why Trump and the republicans didn’t come together at 11:59pm to pass a last minute bipartisan border bill because they wanted to run on it, but they wouldn’t have to if Biden hadn’t come into office on day one and overturn all of the border measures that Trump had enacted to prevent the border crisis. Messaging and bad policy are the roots of the humanitarian issue at the southern border and people see how much worse it is now. They believe that Biden and the democrats want uncapped immigration to both garner eventual voters and turn key states and districts blue, as well as drive down the wages of working class people, furthering the decline of the middle class. Additionally, keep in mind the specter of the botched Pandemic response that hurt small business owners and propaganda coming out in defense of lockdowns and government overreach. People don’t like being demonized by politicians, their bought-and-paid-for media mouthpieces, and celebrities. Looking at all of these things that impact regular people, who do not like the overly-progressive messaging and possible threat to the nuclear family that they see everyday on social media, and in conjunction with Biden’s obviously declining mental faculties, I’m a bit confused why so many people still CAN’T seem to grasp why Joe Biden has this historically bad approval rating.
[удалено]
/u/_PC__LOAD__LETTER_, thank you for participating in r/Ask_Politics! Unfortunately, your [comment](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/comments/1dl4vn2/-/l9ngp9q/) has been removed from /r/Ask_Politics for violating the following rule(s): * **All comments should contribute to healthy discussion.** --- Please visit the [Moderation Section](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/wiki/rules#wiki_moderation) of the Rules page if you have questions about the implications of this removal. If you're uncertain why your comment was removed or you believe this removal to be an error, please [send a message to the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAsk_Politics)
I'm not sure what you mean by "historically" unpopular. I dont think any of these following things, but a lot of people (mainly magas) think he is too old to be president; they think he has dementia; they think he is a pedo; they think he took money from his son's business dealings in Ukraine; they don't think he is doing enough to stop the border crisis. Democrats don't think he is doing enough to stop the war in Gaza.
Welcome to /r/ask_politics. Our goal here is to provide educated, informed, and serious answers to questions about the world of politics. Our full [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Ask_Politics/wiki/rules) can be found here, but are summarized below. * Address the question (and its replies) in a professional manner * Avoid personal attacks and partisan "point scoring" * Avoid the use of partisan slang and [fallacies](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_fallacies) * Provide sources if possible at the time of commenting. **If asked, you must provide sources.** * Help avoid the echo chamber - downvote bad/poorly sourced responses, not responses you disagree with. **Do not downvote just because you disagree with the response**. * Report any comments that do not meet our standards and rules. Further, all submissions are subject to manual review. If you have any questions, please contact the mods at any time. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Ask_Politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
(Libertarian) The short version is that life is more expensive and people can't afford groceries and other things as much. There is debate if this is entirely Biden's fault but he is in charge so he is going to be blamed. There are many other reasons like the border crisis, multiple wars, and questionable foreign policy and energy policies. And many think he is in mental decline too. That doesn't mean that they are rushing out to vote for Trump but they might be. Trump isn't loved either though. I will probably vote for neither.
[удалено]