Joe Biden regrets having pulled out of this year’s presidential race and believes he would have defeated Donald Trump in last month’s election – despite negative poll indications, White House sources have said.
The US president has reportedly also said he made a mistake in choosing Merrick Garland as attorney general – reflecting that Garland, a former US appeals court judge, was slow to prosecute Donald Trump for his role in the 6 January 2021 insurrection while presiding over a justice department that aggressively prosecuted Biden’s son Hunter.
With just more than three weeks of his single-term presidency remaining, Biden’s reported rueful reflections are revealed in a Washington Post profile that contains the clearest signs yet that he thinks he erred in withdrawing his candidacy in July after a woeful debate performance against his rival for the White House, Trump, the previous month.
No, he wouldn’t have.
But of course he would think that. 🙄🙄
I mean he might have, a lot of people that voted for Biden in 2020 did not vote for Kamala in 2024 for various reasons. Trump did only very slightly better in 2024 than be did in 2020. Would the people who stayed home and didn’t vote for Kamala have gotten out and voted for Biden? Maybe. If anything though Biden should have dropped out sooner or not ran at all, the DNC should have fielded better candidates, instead they spent 4 years (longer) trying to strangle any progressives before they could become feasible candidates.
The Joe Biden who showed up in 2020 would have beaten Trump. Joe Biden in 2024 is not the same guy.
The only real asset Joe had over Kamala, though, is a penis. For some voters, though, that’s enough to make them pick one and not the other.
A white penis.
Well that’s disturbing image I can’t get out of my head, lost circulation or just old?
For some voters, though, that’s enough to make them pick one and not the other.
Those voters would’ve picked Trump over Biden anyway. The Democrats will never, ever win by falling over themselves to court those types of voters at the expense of progressives and leftists.
But Liz Cheney supported Kamala…
Look at all these Republicans who say, “Don’t vote for Trump.”
Surely that’ll work…
One of the Republican talking points was that Kamala never won a primary and just snuck in. Not that it mattered for her actual policies but more so it was another reason for votor apathy
His own internal polling had trump winning over 400 versus him
I mean he might have
No. “We finally beat Medicaid” Biden would have lost, bigly.
If anything though Biden should have dropped out sooner or not ran at all
Yes, 100% this. He should have been the transitional president he signaled he’d be, before being elected in 2020.
I actually think that Biden won the election because of the primary campaign against Bernie. Bernie shifted the platform left and attracted young voters to the party that subsequently voted for Biden in the general election (even if they had to hold their noses). Nothing like a primary to unite voters behind the candidate.
A lot of people who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 spent the next four years getting poorer.
Kamala lost because she promised to be four more years of the same thing.
I agree.
They would have kept showing that first debate performance over and over as a reason Joe is too old, and it would have worked.
I mean he already had, and if he had capitalized on how a LOSER was going to try and LOSE again because he was a huge loser I think he might have swayed many of the minds
I agree, but it deserves more discussion than just “No.”
Eh, does it? The whole reason he was pushed out was because he was a combination of personally incoherent and organizationally sheltered from reality. His opinion on his own greatness has little value.
Depends how senile he would be or not be. What killed him was the debate, if there was another one and he was fully fine, then yeah a decent chance.
The US president has reportedly also said he made a mistake in choosing Merrick Garlandas attorney general – reflecting that Garland, a former US appeals court judge, was slow to prosecute Donald Trump for his role in the 6 January 2021 insurrection
At least that part is fair
It’s been absolutely appalling how long it has taken to prosecute Trump.
Many cases should have been ready the second he was no-longer president.
All the lame considerations about looks and not getting involved is idiotic. if the politicians in power don’t work to defend democracy, who else should?
The left have been screaming for Democrats to wake up for more than a decade, but they behave like a party with dementia that doesn’t understand what’s going on around them.
As AOC has stated multiple times, people will come to vote for you, if you give them a good enough reason for it. Harris was the better more moderate candidate. But I think most Americans want more, they want real change.
Preventing a fascist narcissist becoming president apparently wasn’t enough?!Remember how there was already a document produced by a special prosecutor that said there were crimes committed but a sitting president couldn’t be prosecuted? Just fucking memory holed by Garland’s DOJ. He literally could have taken that up the day he was confirmed.
I’d say his first mistake was choosing Garland. Biden then made a second mistake when he didn’t immediately fire Garland as soon as it became obvious that Garland wasn’t going to do his job.
So it’s everybody else’s fault.
said he made a mistake
He literally said it was his.
No, he literally said his mistake was selecting Garland. There were many other mistakes, and opportunities for him to push Garland even after he had been selected.
That’s the taking responsibility equivalent of “I’m sorry you feel that way” apology.
Not a chance in hell.
It does highlight how out of touch those in the gerontocracy are, however.
Mr. I’m only gonna be a one term President seems to have a short memory, yet again.
Him and his staff misled and dragged their feet about his intentions early in then he went full out with ‘no I’m gonna run fuck you all’ and it turned into a disaster.
This is just one of the problems with the current Democratic Party. No one will work with and groom the upcoming young members to take control. The older party members literally do not have a clue what it means to step aside for the good of the party and the good of the country.
I wish this comment was higher. Biden betrayed the party and its chances of defeating Trump the moment he won the 2020 election and chose to not start preparing the nation on Jan 20th 2021 for a younger generation to lead. Merrick fucking Garland was the other, related, and just as large mistake. That one is totally on him.
And Kamala has just never been a great candidate, but he could have taken actions to try to boost her prominence. Instead he saddled her with no-win issues throughout and jealously guarded any successes for himself. And the one big bad issue I remember that he didn’t dump on her (the rail strike), he farmed out to Pete Buttigieg to be the face of the administration (even though it wasn’t a DOT issue). It was almost like the goal was to sabotage any potential locus of political power that wasn’t Biden and his inner circle.
I don’t think a better grooming would have helped Harris when she wasn’t willing to be not-Biden in any way other than being coherent, but it certainly didn’t help and seems indicative of their lack of intention to ever transfer power.
An open primary would have helped.
The older party members literally do not have a clue what it means to step aside for the good of the party and the good of the country.
“They young care too much about disrupting our economy (making it more fair which means less for my
ownersdonors) we can’t have that.”I have a fun test for you, it will inform you if your information ecosystem is informing you or misinforming you
Mr. I’m only gonna be a one term President seems to have a short memory, yet again.
You clearly remember this as a big promise during Biden’s 2020 campaign - but can you actually find evidence of him saying this, ever?
Can you find anything official - with a name attached to it - of the Biden campaign saying anything about only serving for one term?
Google gives a bunch of examples. Did he actually say it to the press? Perhaps not. Was it discussed and was his age recognized as a liability within his campaign in 2020? Absolutely yes.
They all, all reference the exact same quote each article.
“If Biden is elected,” a prominent adviser to the campaign said, “he’s going to be 82 years old in four years and he won’t be running for reelection.”
The adviser argued that public acknowledgment of that reality could help Biden mollify younger voters, especially on the left, who are unexcited by his candidacy and fear that his nomination would serve as an eight-year roadblock to the next generation of Democrats.
By signaling that he will serve just one term and choosing a running mate and Cabinet that is young and diverse, Biden could offer himself to the Democratic primary electorate as the candidate best suited to defeat Trump as well as the candidate who can usher into power the party’s fresh faces.
None of that was official, it was all just the campaign’s attempt to shore up an issue they had without an actual commitment and you fell for it.
None of that was official, it was all just the campaign’s attempt to shore up an issue they had without an actual commitment and you fell for it.
That’s not a failure of the media, that’s a deception by the campaign. Unless you think the media lied about a prominent advisor saying that, they did their job.
If they were off the reservation, there should have been a firing, but just because they’re putting out statements through unofficial side channels doesn’t make it not a message from the campaign.
off the reservation
that phrase was used to describe native americans who ventured outside of the confines of the reservations they had been forced into. You can imagine what happened to them if caught. That phrase has a dark, dark, history.
None of that was official, it was all just the campaign’s attempt to shore up an issue they had without an actual commitment and you fell for it.
Vote for us! We lied to you!
Yeah, great look.
I am amazed of the mental gymnastics.
“Can you find proof of this?”
“Yes, dozens of reputable sources give proof.”
“Well that’s not good enough, what I meant was you’re a moron for never thinking a 78 year old man with dementia would be great for 8 years as the hardest job in America.”
Well, then they should’ve repudiated it a lot sooner (i.e. during the 2020 campaign), because to allow the misconception to exist is tantamount to confirming it.
His campaign unofficially put that out in 2020, since he was near the bottom of the primary rankings. Campaigns that desperate start to float ideas as a trial balloon, to see if it would help or not. That’s how this works; a suggestion given by campaign staff that he can formally deny if it hurts his campaign or embrace if it’s helping. Once he started to gain ground in the primaries he backed off of the idea. He did many of these trial ideas.
Okay grampa, back to bed.
“Benedict Arnold” developed a clear connotation over time. The same needs to become true for “Merrick Garland”. History will remember him as a coward beyond measure and a key to enabling trump’s final push to end American democracy.
Fuck Merrick Garland, without exception.
He spent so much time trying to make a good legacy that he forgot to actually do the right thing in the moment.
Garland knew he’d be accused of bias and selective prosecution, so Garland took slow and deliberate steps to make an ironclad case… only to be accused of bias anyway, and doing it so slowly that the charges expired.
Garland was hired to slow walk the case so Biden could run as second worst to Trump again.
What would have made him a good Supreme Court Justice made him a HORRIBLE attorney general.
His tenure was so horribly handled though, that I can’t help but suspect some actual intent… Otherwise, Im I’m left to conclude that he was just that impotent and cowardly. There’s no way he was that lost on what this moment was - He had an unquestionable historical mandate to act against an insurrection at the US Capitol, with police officers being beaten and stabbed with US flags on sharpened poles, all broadcast live across every channel, in full HD. He is a failure on an unimaginable scale that spans all recorded time and space. He’s a fucking dunce.
And fuck Biden for picking a Republican as AG.
Garland made a lot of sense in theory. Obama had picked him first and he had been denied his likely singular life’s goal by obstructionist gop with trump egging it on. He should have sought justice for this country, while feeling the cathartic release of righting his personal wrongs.
But he didn’t, because he’s feckless and an absolute waste of that historical moment.
He’s a colossal fucking failure.
Hey, hey. Rude of you to call the guy who was supposed to save us from another 4 years of Trump but then delivered it anyways a failure. All he did was tread water for 4 years and then hang on to power way too long, simultaneously tanking his own campaign, and making it much more difficult for someone to follow him.
Rude of you to call the guy who was supposed to save us from another 4 years of Trump but then delivered it anyways a failure.
Biden literally kept a lot of Trump’s policies in place, kept his tax cuts in place, and did things Trump was considering despite public outcry, like limiting COVID protections and telling the CDC to stop covering it.
This ghoul was propped up in 2020 with the full force of the party and then won thanks to covid, but he thinks he’s some hero. Democrats lost in 2024 in large part thanks to him. Fuck you biden, you racist, genocidal, and power-hungry piece of shit.
Things would have likely gone a lot better if the Ds would have had an actual primary. It’s so frustrating.
So… I take it he’s completely forgotten that disastrous debate by now huh? It was pretty clear to even the most fervent Biden supporters that he wasn’t going to win. When even those folks were telling him to resign, it as done by that point.
If anything, staying in would’ve driven more people to Trump or caused them to stay home due to disillusionment.
of course he’s forgotten
It was painful to watch. It’s even more painful that he put us in this position. Now he is rubbing salt in the wound.
He is hopelessly arrogant and not the brightest.
He certainly seemed like a patient who had escaped the memory care unit. I still remember my wife came in to see how it was going, she saw my face and turned right around. There just wasn’t any recovery to that. I would not have been surprised if Adult Protective Services had showed up on that stage.
of course he forgot… he forgets all sorts of things….
His own staff had data that showed he would have lost even more electoral votes, giving Trump 400 instead of the 312. Biden is not aware of this data though. Kind of makes you think his staff is still heavily censoring what he sees.
No, all the problems left of fascists have with Kamala were even moreso with him. The only way Democrats could have won was to hold a fair primary which they haven’t done in a long time. They needed to get people voting for a candidate and not against the other guy which has been the strategy of both parties for ages, but doesn’t work well when one side has people voting for him and your side actually wanted to vote against you, but were never given an alternate.
which they haven’t done in a long time
Dude I’ll be the first to say the DNC stacked the deck against Bernie but he lost at the ballot box ultimately. His miracle contingent of young voters did not materialize. Nobody stole the candidacy from him in any concrete way, but the democrats absolutely should have stepped back more or - god forbid - supported him (particularly in 2015/2016. 2019 he ran the same playbook and worse, that was stupid).
If that is not what you are referencing then I am very curious what you mean.
Bernie is one example of not running a fair primary, but not specifically what I was referencing. I was referencing the 2024 Democratic Primary specifically, and then mentioning that very few in the past have been fair to candidates. Not just because of the way the party treats the candidates publicly, but because of the way funding works and the direct control the leaders of the party have over that funding and how blackballing works if any candidate doesn’t follow the party line. Which would be fine if there were allowed to be more than two viable, active parties at once. But the electoral college, among other things, makes that almost impossible, thus why Bernie had to run as a Democrat in the first place when he doesn’t usually belong to the party.
You said “which they have not done for a long time” so I’m having a hard time believing you just meant 2024. Can you elaborate?
The two party system is bullshit but you can’t blame that on the democrats’ primaries.
I would also like to add that I worked both of Bernie’s campaigns so for those of you who are angry, maybe you should actually ask for some explanations.
You’re quoting the last half of a sentence. “The only way Democrats could have won was to hold a fair primary which they haven’t done in a long time.” A prepositional phrase is an addition/side comment to a current statement. Thus, the 2024 primary was the primary focus of my comment.
But, again, to address the prepositional phrase portion, yes, none of the primaries in my lifetime have been truly fair.
As for the two party system, the original comment is referencing the electoral college which is the primary cause of the two party system as I mentioned in the original comment. The reason it’s relevant here is the same reason duopolies are unfair in economic contexts. When hundreds of millions of people have only 2 choices, those 2 rarely will care to appease the majority because they don’t have to in order to keep the customers/constituents. They just have to be the less hated for more people than the other one.
So, funding. Where does most presidential funding come from if they don’t have direct wealthy donors? The SuperPACs are controlled by the same group of people who lead the DNC. And most primary elections are determined by funding because it’s so expensive just to get your name out there, your message heard, and to get on the ballots. So funding is very relevant to the fairness of the primaries.
Bernie Sanders’s problem in 2016 and 2020 was not funding. He had cash. He outraised and outspent Clinton consistently every month in the 2015/2016 primary for instance. That is not a satisfactory answer because it doesn’t reflect reality. Your entire answer is predicated on access to funding, which he had. So unless you have something else to discuss here then I guess it wasn’t that unfair. Which honestly is kind of ridiculous of me to write but you’re the one saying that’s the important metric here.
SuperPACS in 2024 aren’t relevant because we didn’t have a proper primary. Which I totally agree was a problem. But that’s not the source of my scrutiny here anyway so it’s moot.
I don’t know why you’re so focused on Bernie when I only side discussed decades of primaries, but OK if that’s the only primary that matters in all of history, then let’s discuss it.
Clinton took a bunch of money she promised to give a significant amount of to state and local Democratic parties and then a bunch of what she didn’t take went to the DNC instead and less than half a percent of the $80+ million went to the state and local candidates. And this was fine with the fund raising agreement technically because the DNC wrote it that way, but definitely unethical considering the donations were made with the assumption that it would help the Democratic candidates up and down the ballot, not just Hillary and the DNC. Bernie didn’t take part because of the mismanagement of the DNC and the agreement language that allowed for such things.
Additionally, Warren, Biden, and several other candidates were prevented from running through pressure from the DNC leadership. If they had been allowed to run, it was said, it would have split the vote too much away from Hillary. Again, it’s easier to control the narratives with a two sided competition so they could get who they wanted.
These are just two examples of problems with the way the primary was conducted. Unfortunately, because a lot of the financials and other business of political parties is considered proprietary, much more like a corporation than something representing the people who it purports to represent, there is less evidence of a lot of the other issues. Fortunately, Hillary’s campaign was more forthcoming with financial data than the DNC, so we do have some data at least.
I’m not a Hillary hater and while I think she did some things wrong, and while I admit I’m biased against her from her taking a bunch of money to drop the healthcare reform during her husband’s term that could have saved a lot of lives and perhaps a certain CEO assassin’s severe pain, it’s the responsibility of the party to make the primary elections fair, not the candidates, beyond basic ethical standards at least.
He was the primary challenger for the last 2 primaries lmfao you’re seriously asking why I’m focused on him!?
You keep going on all these big tangents grinding whatever axe you fancy yet refuse to get back to the core discussion: what was unfair about the previous primaries? You said it was money but that’s demonstrably false. What is it?
I’m having problems rationalizing what you’re trying to get to. You admit “the DNC stacked the deck” but you don’t think that effected his outcome? You ran on the campaigns but have completely forgotten about the Nevada scandals involving unions and the caucus or what happened in SC when the DNC pressured high profile representatives to back Biden instead of Bernie (of which historically Biden has been horrible for minority communities). These are just off the top of my head, articles and references if you need them and I’ll make sure to find you some more to help with the analysis.
Seems like you’re splitting hairs trying to form some type of narrative. Democratic primaries have nothing to do with the two-party system? You’d have to completely wretch out decades of political knowledge from my head to even consider that nothing is connected. If there’s a real, viable point you’re trying to make besides “nuh uh”, would love to be exposed to it.
Stacked the deck on messaging and support but that doesn’t impact votes directly. Even trying to hurt his funding didn’t work: he out raised and outspent Clinton. So I’m curious what they mean “they haven’t held a fair primary in a long time.” If it’s “the party leans in to their favorites“ then I don’t really see the revelation here because that has been the case of all parties forever. Do you think the libertarian party has a fair primary? The problem is this discussion is almost always imply there was some sort of actual thumb on the scale or potentially even cheating of some sort, invariably super delegates come up even though superdelegates have never shifted the course of the primary for the Democrats ever (and the rules were changed after people freaked out about it in 2016).
All of this is to say “the Democrats have not held a fair primary in a long time“ is a pretty big statement that implies a lot of things, and for some reason I’m getting all kinds of responses that don’t even relate to the primary, definitely not a straight answer. I’ve got people talking about how don’t like first past the post, the two party system, etc. but no assessment of that initial claim I raised my eyebrow at. It feels like it shouldn’t be this difficult to zero in on.
Once again I would like somebody to explain to me what meant by “they have not held a fair primary in a long time”? It’s too broad and sinister sounding currently to just be “they have a favorite and message in their favor.”
This is all sounding a little delusional and honestly blind. Several factors have been pointed out to you, you’re aware of some of it and supposedly followed along. The very statement of “they have a favorite and message in their favor” is a direct conflict to having a “fair primary”.
sadfasfsadfd
shoulda never ran
Ever. For any position.
I would say “wow, the dementia is even farther along than we realized” but it’s likely the entire neoliberal faction that will be determined to come to this erroneous conclusion. They will grasp at any straw, even racist/sexist ones, in order to avoid admitting that the electorate is crying out for anti-corporate change.
What do you mean neoliberal faction?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Neoliberals are guys like Elon Musk.
Yes, I know what neoliberalism is and yes, I really do mean that.
The dominant faction of the Democratic Party is, in fact, neoliberal. As a result, the party’s platform as a whole supports free-market capitalism, free trade, low regulations, weak worker protections, etc.
That’s why (for example) Hillary Clinton championed the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and why politicians like Elizabeth Warren and AOC who care about things like workers’ rights and Wall Street reform are among the minority within the party.
Neoliberals are guys like Elon Musk.
No, Neoliberals are guys like Elon Musk pretended to be before he came out as full-blown fascist.
Thank you for literally being the first person I’ve ever seen online that actually seems to know what Warren stands for. Not exaggerating even in the slightest, either.
She could’ve been president, back when it would’ve mattered.
I worry that neoliberalism may need fascism in order to be fully realized.
No you don’t. You just want a word for super evil. The TPP is not in any way, shape, or form Neoliberal. And the Democrats just finished four years of fighting tooth and nail to get more regulation of industry into place. I’m not a fan of them but this is just ridiculous.
The TPP is not in any way, shape, or form Neoliberal.
This just proves you have no clue whatsoever what neoliberalism is.
Oh dude lemmy has decided that there are no normal liberals left. It’s progressives and neoliberals. And no amount of reasoning, showing them academic materials, or engaging with the tenets of the ideologies will shift it. Neoliberals is the new “rich people I don’t like” label.
He could have defeated medicare too.
Seems like this is his way of arrogantly throwing Harris under the bus for his own historically low ratings, starting back in 2022 after Roe was lost. Theres no way he could have done better than Harris. With him running it would have been an even bigger blowout. He seems to think he could run a genocide against his parties wishes and then go on to win an election. Its idiotic.
You can go back and look at Pew polling or Gallup polling. The top concern for people who voted Trump was the economy. Within that, the aspect that they were most concerned about was prices. That is, people were very unhappy about inflation. There was a lot of inflation relative to normal US levels under Biden.
The Trump administration also adopted inflationary policy. And doing so was generally considered desirable by economists; having inflation is preferable to recession in terms of the impact on a country, and COVID-19 was going to produce some level of economic disruption. But that doesn’t change the fact that the public doesn’t view inflation in that way; it’s very unpopular with the public, and past polling has shown that the public, in the US and elsewhere, is more upset about having inflation than a recession.
https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c8881/c8881.pdf
The results show that most people in all countries would choose low inflation even if it meant that millions more people would be unemployed.
In general, the American public also attributes short-term aspects of the economy directly to the President.
The Trump campaign also worked to drive those concerns and associate them with the Biden administration.
Benefitting from mis-attribution of economic behavior and policy is not unique to the Republicans. Clinton benefited from it; the “it’s the economy, stupid” slogan played off public concern about economic policy where there probably wasn’t much to blame Bush for, but the public was still upset about it. To some extent, it winds up being luck of the draw; if the economy is growing when you’re President, people tend to credit you for it, whether you really deserve credit or not, and if it’s contracting, people tend to blame you for it, again whether you really deserve blame or not. They don’t go digging through data or reading much about where policy originated.
That’s been a property of American elections for some time.
If you want to change that, you have a hard communications problem.
My guess is that neither Biden nor Harris was going to solve that communication problem, fundamentally change that aspect of electoral politics, and I think that unless they managed to pull some very large rabbit out of the hat, that was going to dominate the election.
To me, there are a couple problems of perception that gave Biden/Harris a huge uphill battle in the election that they didn’t need to have.
Biden actually did a ton to address problems of inequality and income in America. He worked harder on it than any president since Johnson at least, and scored some huge successes driving up low-income wages and strengthening unions. But, he didn’t do it in ways that were visible to the average American, I think because he’s so far removed from the present-day average American that he genuinely didn’t realize how invisible a lot of his reforms would turn out to be.
His two huge mistakes were:
- Talking about, and letting people in his adminstration talk about, inflation, in terms of “how much have prices gone up this year?” He bragged about getting inflation back down, which speaking from an economist’s point of view is accurate. But things are still expensive. To the average American, “getting inflation back down” would have meant that eggs go back down to costing what they used to cost. He could have gotten away with half as much gains on wages, but taking strong action to bring down grocery prices and rent prices. People respond to how much stuff costs, even if they’re making 20% more than they used to a year before.
- Focusing all his wage efforts on people who are in the “W-2 economy,” even at a low level. The biggest economic victims in the country are undocumented people, people driving Uber, people working at Wal-mart being kept just barely under full-time employment, all of whose rent goes up every year to match anything they’re gaining. People are being squeezed out of the full-time-job-having economy steadily more and more every year and into the desperation economy. I know he did the Climate Corps, but something more like the CCC or WPA, giving real full-time working jobs that can pay a decent income on a massive scale, would have been better than looking out for people who already have a W-2 union job having their union more effectively able to fight for them.
And then, also, letting Merrick Garland twiddle his thumbs for four years like the cowardly lump that he is. I think history will look back on this past few years of slow-walking the Trump prosecutions as a massive error that led to untold misery and bloodshed. Honestly, even if he fucked up everything else and lost the 2024 election, if he had simply taken the fire on the roof as an urgent problem that needs all hands on deck, instead of one more renovation project that needs to wait its turn until it comes up in the agenda, it would have been better.
Garland is easily this day and age’s Chamberlain. Except Chamberlain sacrificed the Sudetenland to buy time for rearmament, what’s Garland’s excuse?
Focusing all his wage efforts on people who are in the “W-2 economy,” even at a low level.
Do people not in the W-2 economy turn out to vote? (Undocumented people clearly don’t.) This isn’t a rhetorical question.
Edit: a quick search found this from 2016, but it would need to adjusted by the number of people in each segment. (And “W-2 economy” isn’t synonymous with income, but they are correlated.)
If people not in the W-2 economy had gotten jobs working in the modern-day WPA, paying $75k a year, they sure as fuck would have started turning out to vote. Probably forever, as long as it kept going. There’s a reason FDR won 4 terms.
Now how do those income blocks compare as proportions of the total voting-eligible population?
No Democrat will in our lifetime. It’s to late for that. The wealthy own all major social media outlets, all major traditional media outlets, and are turning them to disinformation and AI slop. Even as they spin up thousands of AI slop and misinformation farms masquerading as small independent outlets to keep the fools that stray corralled.
Liberal or economic liberal politics will never solve it either. As this is a feature of them. It’s working as intended, in the interests of the worst possible people.
Technically, Inflation peaked in Biden’s first year. That means it rose under Trump and declined under Biden. I’m sure people really did think what you said, but I think it needs to be clarified that the economy actually did improve, from how it was in the Covid 2020 Era, after Biden took office.
