For the last several years the illustrious media has been telling us that Biden is too old, etc.

every single time I turned the radio on including Katy Tur, Ari Melber. A guest on Ari Melber pointed out that James Effing Carville was “echoing” rethug talking points about Biden’s age and Ari got his panties in a wad about that saying that a comment like that would hurt Carville’s feelings! If the truth offends you, Ari, by all means avoid it! MSNBC is ridiculous with this. The Welker interview was beyond the pale.

The problem is, you watched MSNBC. Why people here still watch corporate media is beyond me, but you do you lol.

That's the bottom line.

I don't know why anyone is surprised Americans think an 80 year old president is too old. Biden has to dispel that notion by going out there and doing an aggressive campaign. He can't campaign in 2024 like he did in 2020. He needs to be attending rallies, getting in front of the camera, doing interviews - reassuring the American people he's still up to the task.

2024 is going to be a tough election and Biden is going to have to campaign like he wants it. Go watch the 1996 Clinton campaign or the 2012 Obama campaign and you'll see incumbents who treated every second of the day like it was the last and most important of the campaign season.

In 1992, Bush Sr. attempted to campaign from the White House. It failed. It made him look aloof and people started questioning whether he had the energy to fight for the job he was about to lose. It wasn't until late in the campaign that Bush finally stepped outside and started campaigning like you'd expect from an incumbent. But by that point, it was too late.

I trust Biden will do the right thing and it's still super early - but the campaign can't get complacent.

At this point in 2019, Biden was beating Trump by an average of 12 points nationally.

There was always a high-level of potential support for Biden back in 2020. That support is much softer today than it was four years.

How much of it is due to his age? I can't say - but I suspect not as much as we like to pretend. If gas prices were at $2.00 a gallon, and inflation never spiked in 2021 and 2022, so prices weren't 16% higher today than they were this time three years ago, Biden's age probably wouldn't be as big of an issue.

But whenever the environments are tough, it amplifies the weaknesses of the incumbent candidate. Biden's age is his weakness and he's going to have to convince Americans he has the energy to handle the job for four additional years.

I know people will point to Trump and say, "but he's only a couple years younger!" and it's valid. But regardless what you think, Trump is everywhere and always everywhere. He was in 2020 too. He will go on every show that will have him and to a lot of Americans, they see that as high energy. Biden? I think the last sit-down interview he did was months ago.

Someone earlier posted on DU asking why didn't MTP get Biden instead of Trump and I guarantee they would have taken Biden but I doubt he offered. He needs to step out of his comfort zone and start doing these interviews. He needs to show America he's not too old.

The best way to do that is by running a high-energy campaign. I'm hopeful he'll do that.

But Biden has a problem when speaking before audiences. He tells stories. And many times those stories are easily disproven. On this past 9/11 he spoke to troops at a base in Alaska. He told them he rushed to New York City the day after 9/11 to view the destruction. Fact checkers immediately disproved that story. He was in DC all day on 9/12/2001. He was part of a congressional delegation which visited on 9/20/2001. The White House had to walk the story back. Several times now in front of Gold Star families he has made the claim that his son Beau died in fighting in Iraq. He did not. He died of cancer in the U.S.

I think this is why there is a reluctance to have Biden do rallies.

Keep him on script. When Obama did rallies in 2012, he rarely deviated from the teleprompter. But if he doesn't do rallies, he's not going to win reelection. You can't beat back the idea you're too old by staying in the White House the whole time.

Like I said, it's not going to be like 2020 where he can get away playing it safe. He won't have near the lead on Trump he did back then and he won't have the excuse of a pandemic to lean into. People are going to expect multiple rallies a day, especially during the heat of the campaign. That's the only way he's going to play down the 'too old' factor.

So I suppose you missed this -



Seems many on DU manage to ignore whenever Biden gives speeches in front of crowds, and then whine later.

It's not just about giving speeches in front of a few hundred people while president.

Campaign rallies are generally open to the public, not smaller presidential events where a few local leaders are invited and maybe some plant workers where the speech is given.

Biden has held zero campaign rallies this year.

Fortunately, there's plenty of time to do so. But he's definitely going to have hit the trail multiple times a week, especially at the start of 2024, if he's going to dispel the notion he's too old.

just like his RALLY this past June that you obviously also missed -



You are spreading misinformation for whatever reason, I have no clue.

I don't know where you live but he has been campaigning in his home state of PA and particularly here in Philly.

If anything, you're proving my point.

It's September and you've posted two videos - one a presidential visit to Pennsylvania and another that yes, appears to be a campaign rally. I will take back what I said about him having no campaign rallies.

But again, it's September. This event was held three months ago.

But you see how you're proving my point, right?

Even counting the one event you linked to originally back from July - that's two 'rallies' in three months.

He's gotta be out there way more than that.

To put that into perspective:

In September, 2011 alone, Obama held rallies in:

Columbus, Ohio

Richmond, Virginia

Detroit, Michigan

And there might have been more. That's all I found after a quick search.

But a low-key campaign is not going to be effective for Biden. He doesn't have that luxury, especially when compared to Trump, who has held multiple rallies the last few months.

He can't be averaging one every couple months.

The only way to beat back the 'too old' narrative is if he has an energetic campaign. Holding one rally, political or not, every other month is not a viable strategy.

And that's not even getting into the lack of actual 1:1 interviews. He barely does interviews or press conferences and that's fine. But it absolutely plays into the narrative. Which is why it's important for him to control the narrative with these large, energized rallies. That's the best way to showcase he still has the energy for a second term.

Here was your misinformed claim -



And I just gave you a video of a full fledged "official kickoff rally" right here in Philly on June 17, 2023 at the PA Convention Center.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-kick-off-reelection-campaign-rally-after-rolling/story?id=100126268

So what did you do?



PA is a swing state that Hillary Clinton lost in 2016, the first time this state voted for a Republican at the top of ticket since 1988. Biden is from Scranton, PA and made it his mission to bring PA back into the blue column where it belongs, and keep it there, and he did with the messaging he has continued to use during his entire term as President.

He is resonating with the blue collar/union workers here in this state.

He just spent several days overseas in India at the G20 Summit, actually Presidenting, something his predecessor refused to do. He was in Alaska visiting a base there on the way home from that Summit after a trip to Vietnam on September 11, where he gave remarks and met with the troops there.

The "too old" narrative that you are attempting to reintroduce and magnify, that was scuttled when Mitch McConnell froze at the podium during a press conference for a 2nd time, prompting the realization that this would also apply to 45 (who is just a few years younger), establishes exactly the same tired attempts at spreading FUD.

DU gets like this every Presidential election and I have been here now going on my 5th as a member, and it's as predictable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

And here is more misinformation that I will call out -



Every time he is giving remarks, I try to post them. Here is one of his "invisible" (to you) 1 on 1 interviews -



And links to some of his other events -

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017847035

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017849338

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017858183

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017861699

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017862810

These are just the ones that *I* posted since May.

Oh and the one he gave today that I know you didn't bother to watch -

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1017863935

Because this is easier to do -



We got your number.

But the point is even more clear with your post!

The fact you're dipping into White House events where Biden is speaking to the press to prove he's holding campaign rallies only supports my claim. Most of these are not rallies. They're typical events EVERY president does. But they're not campaign rallies.

This is probably where you're confused. I specifically mentioned campaign rallies because they're different than these smaller events that are tailored around one specific message and don't mention the 2024 election - or Biden's opponent.

I mean, Biden addressing the UN is NOT a campaign rally and it's surprising that has to be clarified to you.

This is a campaign rallies:



That was Obama's 2012 kick-off in May, 2011.

They're open to the public and they're pep rallies where the candidate touts their record and attacks their opponent.

THIS is not a campaign rally:



It's the duties of the President of the United States.

He wasn't rallying for reelection there. He wasn't campaigning. He was speaking to world leaders at the UN today.

Campaign rallies are specifically done to fire up the base and create as much energy as possible. Almost every video you linked to was a very small event that wasn't open to the general public and people who were there were likely employees.

Go back and re-read my original post. I said rallies. There is a huge difference because the audience is different.

Most of the videos you linked to were not rallies.

This is not a rally:



Finally, again, you proved my point. I said he barely holds interviews and your example is an interview he gave nearly three months ago.

The difference between you and me is that I see this as a problem. You want to talk about burying one's head in the sand: you're the one that is doing it.

All I said is that Biden needs energetic rallies to help dispel the narrative. Your response to that is to show videos from three months ago, a speech to the UN and speaking at the White House about the UAW strike.

Those are not rallies. Rallies are all about energy. It's all about the crowd. It's all about creating strong optics.

You want to know how I know this?

Because of this video:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/53SYzuVkiCc

I showed that to my friend who voted for Biden in 2020 but feels he's too old now and she loved it. She said he looked bad-ass and energized. She said he needed to do more of THAT because it's high-energy and he feeds off the crowd.

Most of what you posted isn't going to hit that. He needs to do political rallies where there's strong energy.

Just like this:



That's how you start to create a narrative the president isn't too old. Put him a situation where there's energy. Of the videos you showed me, only three - since May - have come close to that.

All I'm saying is that if he's going to win in November next year, he's going to need to do way more of those rah-rah rallies than just three in four months. That's it. No misinformation just how I see it. Biden doing things every president has ever done isn't going to change the narrative. You want to know how I know this? Because the narrative persists despite Biden doing presidential things.

What can change the narrative is by creating campaign energy through open rallies in front of thousands of people.

But this isn't a political rally:



I have no problem with those events but they can't be your example of a political rally. Not when there's a hundred or so people + press.

Those are good events. They're not the backbone of a political reelection campaign, tho.

Biden needs energy. He thrives off that energy and he's successful when there's an energetic crowd in front of him. Small events are fine - but larger rallies (and I'm not even talking massive rallies but a few thousand or so) are going to be what ignites his campaign and help defuse the perception about his age.

People notice that energy. Biden speaking to thousands of cheering supporters will always play better to Biden speaking in a shipyard with a couple hundred in attendance and hardly any cheering.

But again, that's the difference between presidential speeches and political rallies. Political rallies are open to the public. They draw large crowds. They draw energized crowds. The speeches are tailored to the election and the opponent. It gets people excited and creates a frenzied atmosphere that shows enthusiasm for the candidate but also energy.

Like Biden's 2020 campaign kick off in Philadelphia in 2019:



And there's nothing wrong with my take. I m not even saying Biden won't do these things - I'm saying I hope he does. I hope next year, he's campaigning in front of large crowds all the time because the optics of a large crowd will absolutely help him. That passion and energy is how you defuse a lot of the concerns about Biden.

If you disagree that's fine. But I don't think you've made a compelling case to show me why what he's done will work in 2024. In fact, I doubt the campaign will keep things as limited as they are right now. I 100% expect they'll ramp up the rallies and the 1:1 interviews knowing that he's going to have to be out there fighting for every vote possible. You don't think he needs to. That's okay. I think that's the only way he'll shake the image of being too old.

More goal-post moving. Your assertion has been to basically claim that the current President is doing nothing, you even added that at the end of your last post -



and I laid out SOME of what he has been doing but that was rejected. Because.

The kick-off that Biden did was in June here in Philly and guess what he did after that, he went to Chicago and did the same thing.





Again - You are moving goal posts but not only doing that, but you have now made the term "rally" as superficial as what 45 used to make them, where I noticed that you neglected to mention that 45 has yet to do any this year as well. He has blown off a debate and plans to blow off another. Maybe because he is busy dealing with 4 indictments and 91 charges.

Biden is using his bully pulpit, that DU complained that Obama "never did" to promote the policies that have been enacted by he and his fellow Democrats because people want to know WHAT HAVE YOU DONE. And just like what was done here during the 2 Obama administrations when the list of "what was done" was added in a post, the eyes roll and the whining continues. That's because the point was never to critique but to promote FUD.

But let's go through the summer and some of what also happened between June and now, eh? You had the city of Lahaina burn to the ground due to wildfires and he did what a President is supposed to do (news flash, it's a 12 hour flight from the east coast to Hawai'i, because I have done it) -



And when Hurricane Idalia hit FL, he went there too (and white boots DeSatan managed to make an ass out of himself by hiding from Biden) -



And lookie here - an "invisble"non-existent press conference with FEMA about the disasters (and that might not be the whole thing) -



In fact, when he was in Vietnam just over a week ago while people were asleep, he gave another "invisible" press conference -





This is pure RW talking points that you are spreading on DU. "I showed that to my friend... " Or as the kids say "Cool story bro."



They are HIS JOB. You know, he DOES work for his $400,000 a year salary unlike his predecessor. But he is leveraging it to continue to promote the things that he has accomplished including keeping the economy out of a recession and getting badly needed projects off the ground.



I am the same age as Obama and I guarantee you that I couldn't keep up with Biden, who is almost 20 years older, and who has jetted around the country and around the world.

You don't want a "President" you want demigod. That's what RWers push for when they promote 45.



But you ARE saying that. You are continuing to promote a narrative despite what has been put before your eyes. "Optics" of a "crowd"? Like 45's insistence that he had the bigglyest inauguration of any President ever???? That's how superficial you have made the office of the President. I suppose that happens.



If you want a clown show to entertain you, then you go to the circus.

One of the things that you missed is that a "formula" was tested and worked right here in PA to hit the "disenchanted" voter. It came out of the campaign of one John Fetterman, who made not one but two trips to all 67 counties here. What did he do? He met with groups of people, from the bigger cities to the small towns to the rural areas. People got to know him and guess what? He became the 2nd elected (not appointed) Democratic Senator from PA to join Senator Bob Casey (D). A first here because we normally either have one of each or two Republicans.

Fetterman didn't have massive massive rallies. He had a few larger events in the big cities like here and Pittsburgh but he brought his message to the people who have felt that Democrats had "abandoned them" because no one would COME TO THEM. Many small town and rural people are reticent to come to a "big city rally". You take your message to those people where they are. People who live in those areas complain about "big city rallies" as "elitist".

Like Fetterman, Biden has been running on a "populist" message. In fact, Biden is literally sounding like Bernie Sanders when he is out on the road and I never EVER thought I would hear that out of him. He has always been a "centrist" and he has "seen the light", and it is shining through when he meets with those construction workers or with the various unions. Those are the people that need to be convinced (and they can and will bring others along in terms of canvassing), and he has been going right to them and speaking plainly but fiery. He has called out the GOP and their loons and they ate that up.

Obama was aiming at a different demographic because the fucking racist white MAGat crowd, in other words, "the deplorables" would NEVER EVER give him the time of day or even consider pushing a button to elect a "n****r" to office. So he had to aim at a different audience to get them energized to vote - i.e., the younger ones who have not been consistent or reliable voters like the older demographics.

But Biden does NOT have that problem. He is one of "them" and comes from them - "White working class" that people so obsess about, and they respond to his directness, bluntness, and boldness.

So the strategies are going to be different between an Obama and a Biden.



So now you have completely walked back the rest of your comments. Like I said, I got your number.

I get it. I do. You seem to confuse the duties of the president to the point I am making. If you go back to my original post, which you continue to ignore, I mentioned political campaign rallies. Almost everything you have offered up is not refuting my claim that he needs to start hosting more political rallies with large crowds and energy.

But the most damning thing about your post is your continued inability to articulate how Biden doesn't have a problem. When poll after poll suggests Biden's age IS a problem, it's purely ignorance at this point to deny the numbers. In fact, much of the denialism I am seeing from you was employed last year around this time from the Republicans. They frequently mentioned this red wave that there was no problem despite national polls indicating they were not looking at near the tsunami most parties out of power see in midterms. Like you, they denied the polls because it didn't fit their narrative. They could not believe, despite all the conditions, that the Democrats weren't due for a drubbing.

Well guess what?

The polls were largely right. The only thing is that you had massive amount of pro-Republican pollsters trying to manipulate the narrative.

And where the polls were wrong, like in Pennsylvania, they were wrong within the MOE.

And there were plenty of polls that also pointed to wins.

The fact is, there's no national poll that Biden leads comfortably in and multiple polls where voters have suggested his age is an issue.

All the videos of Biden speaking in front of FEMA about a disaster, something literally every president has done (even the last guy) isn't going to change that.

So, where you and I differ is that you refuse to accept the evidence presented to you - the fact that Biden has very low approval and his head-to-head with Trump is far closer today than it was at this point heading into the 2020 presidential election. Or if you accept it, you've yet to explain a way to overcome it. If any of what you said was true, and there was no issue here, he wouldn't be tied with Trump nationally - or in some instances, losing to him.

Every national poll released this week either has Biden tied with Trump or trailing him.

Clearly there is a disconnect between what YOU believe and what America believes.

I am offering up ways Biden can counter the old age claim. You have offered up no explanation on how he can do it beyond doing what he's been doing. Well if that was working, he wouldn't be struggling head-to-head with the dude he kinda easily beat nationally in 2020 and there wouldn't be continued concerns about his age from voters.

It's okay to admit you're wrong at reading the situation.

But ignoring the warning signs does no one any good. It's exactly what the Clinton campaign did in 2016 and it cost 'em. I would hope we'd learn from ignoring those warning signs because we can't fathom Americans think differently than we do.

But saying over and over Biden does not have a problem when poll after poll says he does is the definition of burying your head in the sand.

Go re-read my original post and see that my message has been consistent: Biden's best bet to push back against the narrative he's too old is to hold campaign rallies that are open to the public and are high-energy. Nothing you've posted, outside that union rally three months ago, comes close to it.

And if you believe he's fine doing what he's doing. Fine. That's your right. You're wrong, tho. And all I have to do is look at the fact he's not beating Donald Trump head-to-head in most polls. You've yet to give me any evidence to prove his strategy is working.

That's a fact.

And until you do, you've failed.

You sound like this guy, Jann Wenner - https://www.democraticunderground.com/10143131279

He loved using terms like that.



No you have a naive view about what a "President" does, which is well beyond your comprehension. They perform different functions and thanks to traveling on the taxpayer's dime, can utilize their travel and appearances to "govern" while promoting the party policies.

In other words, they know how to walk and chew gum at the same time and they will also take advantage of a microphone when it is placed before them, whether you happen to be near a screen to see them speak or not.

Capeche?



No what you originally said was this -



and



And you have wasted a lot of time trying dip and dodge around a preset false narrative that you were promoting and when examples about that nonsense were given, you moved the goal posts. It's that "preset narrative" and you are going down with that ship.



It most certainly has shown that you haven't been paying attention, neither to what the President has been doing nor to what I have posted that he has been doing.



I see no "problem" but you can't seem to "articulate" much at all here except going back to your selected false narrative.



LOL RW poll after push poll after poll a full year BEFORE a general election. You do realize the general election is not this November but next November, right?

I suggest you ignore those polls for now.



I'm afraid the opposite happened because the same "polls" predicted that a "Red Tsunami©" was going to crush Democrats in 2022 and that we were not only going to get wiped out in the House, but lose the Senate, and idiocy such as my Senator - John Fetterman - was going to lose to the 9 mansion-owning NJ. domiciled quackadoodle Dr. Oz.



Not one "poll" predicted that PA Democrats would win 12 state House seats and take control of the PA state House and the Speaker's gavel in 2022. NOT ONE.

Not one poll predicted that a ballot initiative to ban abortions in the red state of KS would LOSE almost 2 - 1. NOT ONE.

Not one poll predicted red state after red state would bring out record numbers of voters to not only reject the extremist GOP agendas being offered as amendments to their state Constitutions when those initiatives were on the ballot, but that in many of those same states and even swing states, Democrats would actually be winning special election after special election - not just in blue districts but in swing districts.

NOT ONE. But here we are.

Don't believe the hype.

Here's one of the 538 guy's mea culpa essay... afterwhich the boss guy, the landed gentry founder of 538 Nate Silver, was forced to leave his company, not only because of the trainwreck of his trumped up prognostications, but his literal dick-waving at those who were critiquing the problems of something as simply idiotic as having a poll from a pair of high school students count as "legit" in his aggregations or claiming that Trafalgar Group wasn't associated and funded by conservatives and the GOP -



What this guy describes above is that habit encourages "pollsters" to cling to some past result to predict future ones. The same type of thing has been happening with the economic analysts that I have ranted and raved about the previous year or two, month after month, as they swung and missed with their "expectations" of what the economy would be like - particularly the employment numbers.

They ASSumed that what happened "before" would happen "again" because "patterns". Well that is not always the case and when you get lazy, you end up with the egg on your face. It's what they say about what happens when one "assumes", they make an "ass" out of "u" and "me".

Let me give you a piece of advice and sandwich in a personal story... I am a weather hobbyist and have been for almost 55 years. I was just looking at some of the global and mesoscale weather models this afternoon because there is a potential for a nor'easter or perhaps a subtropical storm to form off the coast of FL and the Carolinas and then move up the east coast. NHC has the budding system as an area of interest that they are watching. And they run those models several times a day. They are fed all kinds of sensor inputs and then utilize climo and certain statistical algorithms to come up with a forecast of where certain high/low pressure systems and fronts might be in the future. Those models also have what they call their "ensembles" where they will spit out frames/plots of a series of different statistical probabilities and outcomes (vs the main consensus run).

A good met doesn't go by any of this "verbatim". In most cases, the models and their ensembles, can be all over the map because of some variables that don't get factored in or that are too unpredictable. So it is up to the met to look at all of this and even throw some of the solutions away as improbable... or interpolate others knowing the climatological history of an area.

So it will always require changes and judgement and tweaking. Not the type of blind acceptance that you have shown dealing with similar "statistical models" - "polls" (which are the same type of thing that weather models are).

When you don't use your noggin, in the meteorological world they call that "model humping". So similarly in the political world, there seem to be people who do "poll humping". Don't fall into that trap.



I'm afraid they were just the opposite, which is exactly your problem. They have slowly come around to admitting the disaster of the failed 2022 polls. They had failed 2016 polls and failed 2020 polls and failed 2022 polls, as they swing around and keep trying to over-correct and scrape fantasy voters out of the parched land.

It had nothing to do with what the GOP "believed" but what the GOP managed to funnel as a narrative into those polls. And it also relied too heavily on "past practice" during what was to be an anomaly election.

What was that anomaly? Some very powerful issues that some misogynist men felt would "fade with time". And even today, they still think that Roe v Wade isn't "a thing" despite the fact that overwhelmingly, referendum after referendum is reflecting that anger that women and their families and friends feel as they find others taking away a woman's rights, piece by piece.



The "only thing"? And you now think that everything is back honky dory again? Scout's Honor!!1!11!???



Really?

Here are the results for the PA Governor's race -



And the results for the Senator's race -



Neither of these spreads were "within the MOEs".



Yeah in "red states" and "blue states", including races where there was no challenger.



As I posted above, I suggest you re-calibrate your reliance on "polls". They WILL BE all over the place - whether "good" or "bad". Right now, over a year from the general election, they are meaningless. When you start getting through the actual primary season then people might start paying attention, because the average person is NOT paying attention right now. They don't post on political forums nor do they watch political shows day in and day out. How can you tell? Look at the turnout during the primaries - you're lucky to get 20% - 30% turnout, if that.



Yes it is because the people that LIVE in those locations who may have had their lives turned upside down and ruined, are VOTERS TOO, and they want to know what "the government" and "President Biden" is doing to HELP THEM. And they have LONG memories.

It's as simple as that.

What was one of the most iconic and ridiculous things that 45 did after Hurricane Maria destroyed much of Puerto Rico? He threw rolls of paper towels into the crowd. That shows the day and night contrast.

You brought up Obama and what was he nicknamed? "The Consoler in Chief" because he was showing up after many mass shootings and giving people that "human touch" while yes, giving a status update "speech". This is what Biden is doing as well and he has even brought Jill along to help make that "personal contact". You can't do that at a "rally".



You haven't shown me any "evidence" other than some photos similar to those I have actually posted here on DU in the past when Obama was receiving the same sort of vitriol and actually worse. He was accused of "not using his bully pulpit" and not "stomping his feet and pounding the podium" and was "too meek" and not "fiery" enough. He was called a "Piece of shit used car salesman" and was "turd way" and people promised that he WOULD "implement chained-CPI", "approve the Keystone pipeline", unilaterally enable "TPP", and other nonsense.

So you see, I have been there done that on DU the previous 4 Presidential election cycles, as I watch you continuing to post the same sort of RW talking points, and your type is "familiar".



Every "national poll" last year said that Democrats were going to get wiped out. And that brought out the concern troll army here on DU, all through the spring and summer, and right up to election day in November of 2022.



I'm afraid "your America" is "your America", NOT mine. You don't speak for me nor can you ever assume the arrogant mantle of doing such nonsense.



No again, you are only repeating RW talking points while somehow insinuating that the Republican will win unless Democrats "do as you say". The amount of time and effort that you have put on a Democratic party-supporting discussion forum, not actually attacking Republicans, is instructive. What you need to do is find a local Democratic party office or Democratic-party supporting political organization that is organizing and looking for volunteers, and go sign people up to vote. Do some canvassing and gathering petitions for Democrats running where you live. Stop whining and DO.



I'm afraid that you have shown some breathtaking lack of knowledge of what is actually going on in the non-RW world. There is a movement that you are missing that has been building - and notably at the state level. And that is where the battle lines are being drawn.

The "Electoral College" is won at the state level, not at the national level and your fixation on the "national polls" are going to be your undoing.



As I said many times above, you can yell about "polls" a year before the election all you want because you will then disappear (which I assume you will probably do) when the rubber meets the road. I have seen it happen over and over here.



There's nothing else to get out of you but some whimpering out of a hurt puppy.

How exhausting for you to commit so much energy arguing an invalid point.

I am still waiting for you to show me evidence Biden's age isn't an issue that should be addressed in some capacity.

It's quite amazing someone can say so many words and still miss the point.

Polls were generally right in 2022:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/2022-election-polling-accuracy/

But it's not a surprise someone like you would pick and choose what polls to focus on because I think it's clear you don't have much of a leg to stand on.

I noticed you didn't include the Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsin races that polls indicated were going to go the way they actually did:

Arizona

Georgia

Wisconsin

Or the national polls, which were extremely accurate:



Nor have you even given an explanation on why you feel the polls are wrong and underestimating Biden's support somehow.

Your whole argument is predicated on the notion that we should just ignore every single poll that shows Biden's age as an issue. That is a lazy, dangerous argument and shouldn't be taken seriously.

Especially with your argument that national polls don't matter.

National polls at least point to the mood of the country. They did in 2016 and they did in 2020 - but for different reasons.

In 2016, the national polls showed time and time again that Hillary was struggling to pull in a majority of the vote - especially in a four-way race.

Clinton was polling at 45% nationally on election day on average according to the final polls (four-way race):



That was a huge red flag. It showed extreme vulnerability for her campaign and that she was susceptible to getting dinged by third-party support. And that's exactly what happened.

That doesn't even get into the fact that the Republicans hold an advantage in the electoral college regardless of the national vote and that when the national vote is close, it likely means a Republican victory.



I highlighted the part that should prove interesting to you. So, while we don't elect via national popular vote, it does telegraph how the election is likely to go, especially with Trump as the candidate since we now have two elections he's been in to examine.

The reality is that in 2020, Biden won the popular vote very similarly to what Obama saw in 2012.

He won 51.3% to Trump's 46.8%. In 2012, Obama won 51.1% and Romney won 47.2%.

So, even in 2020 Biden did better nationally than Obama (Biden's margin over Trump was 4.5% and Obama's over Romney was 3.9%).

The difference? The closeness of the swing states.

In 2012, Obama won Pennsylvania by about five points. He won Wisconsin by about seven points. He won Michigan by a bit over nine points. Of course, he won Florida by less than a percentage point and Ohio by like four - while losing Georgia and Arizona. He also won Nevada by six points or so.

In 2020, with a larger popular vote margin than Obama, not only did Biden win fewer electoral votes (303 to 332), the margin in his tipping point state (Wisconsin) was much smaller than Obama's (Colorado) - as Biden won Wisconsin by .63% and Obama won Colorado by 5.36%.

Essentially, the 2020 election came down to 42,918 votes in Georgia, Arizona and Wisconsin.

Granted, that was across three states but it shows you just how close 2020 was.

In 2012, for Romney to have won, he would have had to flip 527,737 votes across Florida, Ohio, Virginia and Colorado.

That's how dramatic the electoral college has changed in the last few election cycles. It's why Cook, who is very well respected and certainly not a partisan outlet (especially right-leaning) outlines how a very close popular vote margin equals a likely Republican win.

Bottom line: is that the 2024 presidential election is probably going to be a lot closer than the 2020 presidential election. It's no guarantee Trump will retain the support he had in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan, as well as the support he needs in Georgia and Arizona to win those states back.

But 2020 also saw a turnout of almost 67% of Americans who were eligible to vote. That was up from 60% in 2016 and even higher than the 61.6% in 2008. In fact, it was the highest turnout since 1900.

We can't expect 2020 like turnout. It was unheard of, likely a result of mail-in ballots and a complete and utter hatred for Donald Trump.

That hatred exists still but is it going to be a motivator if Joe Biden is struggling to energize the voters he needs to win?

What we do know is that voter turnout in 2022 favored Republicans. They won the overall popular vote and that helped lead to gains in the House. It was not the drubbing many Republicans expected (and the polls indicated wouldn't happen anyway). But the results were also clear:

67% of Democrats who voted in 2020, voted again in 2022 according to Pew.

71% of Republicans who voted in 2020, voted again in 2022.

Of those who voted, 93% of Biden voters supported Democrats. 97% of Trump voters supported Republicans.

Which shouldn't be a surprise because the party in power generally takes a licking during the midterms.

But we also know, based on 2004, 2012 and 2020 that reelection campaigns are no longer the blowouts they used to be. This isn't going to be 1996 or 1984. This is going to be a tough election campaign and Biden is going to need every vote he can get.

Where you seem settled in your inconsistent thoughts is that you believe those votes are there and they don't need to be motivated to get out to the polls.

I think they can be there but the fact Biden, despite winning 51% of the vote in 2020, is currently polling at 44.6% nationally on average, lends to my argument that there is concern among voters. He his underperforming his vote total in head-to-head polls with Trump by six points. Conversely, those same polls show Trump averaging 45.1%. Trump received 46.8% in 2020. That means he's only underperforming his 2020 results by roughly two-points.

I see that as a red flag. It's not a devastating red flag but I absolutely see it as an enthusiasm issue. It's why, when a third party is added to the equation (say Cornel West), Biden's average drops to 42%, which is now nine points worse than he did in 2020. Trump drops to 43%, which is four-percent off his 2020 total.

How do you motivate and retain support? By creating energy. By having these campaign rallies that drive up support.

The status quo might work out in the end for Biden but I see no evidence to suggest it's cutting it right now.

What Biden is doing today he can't do in 2024. he's going to have to put out an extremely aggressive reelection campaign. He's going to need to hold multiple rallies that are open to the public. He's going to have to sit down and do more interviews with every outlet he can think of because what he's doing right now is not working. It doesn't mean he can't fix it or doesn't plan on fixing it but anyone who thinks the status quo is effective at this moment is again burying their head in the sand.

As I've said multiple times, you've not shown any evidence to suggest these polls, where a majority of Americans think Biden is too old, are wrong - or not concerning.

Americans think it. So, he's got to do a good job of dispelling that belief. And it's clear doing what he's been doing probably isn't going to change that narrative and Is ay that because, of course, if all those videos you linked to had an impact, Americans wouldn't be concerned with Biden's age.

And you can say the polls are consistently wrong - or that the national vibe doesn't matter. But the truth is, there are so many examples of Americans showing their concern for Biden's age.

Just today, in fact (from Emerson):



I promise you, as someone who has done polling for years on local campaigns, and worked to cultivate a narrative and a popular image for specific candidates, Biden's team is taking these numbers seriously. They're not going to be flippant like you are. They'll see this as his biggest vulnerability in 2024. And I expect that they'll counter that vulnerability by doing exactly what I've laid out here and what you've pooh-pooh'd the last few replies.

In fact, I guarantee it. He'll ramp up the rallies and interviews and he'll be aggressive and enthusiastic because I know they know that his age could deter just enough votes in places like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and Michigan and Arizona so that he loses reelection.

Those are the facts. Your argument just doesn't have support. I'm sorry.

And on that note, you take care. I think we've made our claims. We'll just have to step aside and let this play out.

I'm out.

The only one who is rambling is the one rambling what the GOP rambles on about.



So you add an image of the right-leaning "RCP" (Real Clear Politics) "poll analysis" and expect that to justify your argument? All it does is solidify the RW-bias that you have been infested with.



The RW tilt at RCP happened even before then, where it was completely hijacked by 2020.

Here is what I posted earlier. I'll add it again and this was from 538 that admitted that they were wrong -






This gives a good analysis of the problem -



The "misreading the mood", which you are doing, is exactly why the "polls" keep getting it wrong and why they need to be taken with a grain of salt a year ahead of the actual election.



You apparently have no idea what my "whole argument" is because you keep swinging and missing. Every major party (and often the top tier candidates) commissions "internal polls". It gives them a sense of where things are without all the media drama that surrounds the "national" polling outlets.



The 2016 election was such a huge fail for the pollsters and pundits that your even trying to justify it is laughable. That is why they attempted to make "adjustments". I followed Sam Wang from the Princeton Election Consortium and even he was flummoxed -



Wang is a great explainer and having followed him through a couple elections that his group were writing about, was very instructive.

You also have this -



This is a problem and it was problem with that last CNN poll because of the oversampling and purported "weighting to correct". Statisticians "weight" as a matter of course. But good ones don't put themselves into the position to have to make ridiculous leaps to normalize a curve.



Since you mention Obama/Romney, you do know that Gallup, the previous "gold standard" of Presidential polling, self-destructed with this beauty, where they predicted in their final allocation, that Romney would win the 2012 Presidential against Obama 50 - 49.

You gave the "actuals" but you missed the "polls" that failed in 2012.



And eventually the mea culpa had to happen and they released a final analysis of what went wrong (PDF), their partner USA Today officially dropped them as a partner after that, and Gallup no longer does this poll -



After that, Gallup no longer does that "daily tracking" poll. Imagine that.



And again, you give the "actuals" but not the polls that completely missed any of that. So you basically negate your argument.

A "swing state" is a "swing state" for a reason. But trying to anticipate what these states are going to do a year in advance is a fool's errand that you have hung your existence on. One can use polls being done "now" as guidance on making adjustments. But to use them as a definitive answer to what is going to happen in November of 2024, which is what you are insisting on doing, is an egregious mistake.

What has fascinated me about "framing" is how so many have cherry-picked a couple states to establish "how close" 2020 was yet they ignore the big juicy states like Pennsylvania, which was a state that in 2016, had flipped to (R) for the first time since 1988. In that 2016 race, 45 was shown to have won by about 44,000 votes. Yet in 2020, when Biden won PA, it was not just a reversal but a near-doubling of a win by 82,000 votes. This is summarily dismissed by armchair "pundits".

Similarly, Michigan, a state that flipped for 45 in 2016 by about 11,000 votes, actually flipped back by a whopping (but ignored because it doesn't fit a narrative) 154,000 votes.

Both states have a target-rich number of Electoral votes but are dismissed.



No one knows what is going to happen next November. If the economy is "booming" and interest rates start dropping while unemployment stays low, that will sway some people. But if the oil prices are back in the stratosphere and the housing market - or more recently - the crypto market, starts to crumble, taking out more "regional banks" with it, then that will sway other people.

If the presumptive GOP nominee is found "guilty" of any number of criminal cases that he is entangled in by the time of the election, that will certainly have an impact that could go either way when it comes to some of the GOP and indies.

Putting faith in polling done now is like trying to predict which horse is going to win the Kentucky Derby next year rather than evaluating what happens leading up to that race (i.e., using the analogy, the results of the "races" leading up to the big event).



Again, you are relying on RW framing and ignoring Democratic "motivators" like Roe v Wade, gun control, and most recently a topic that has been embraced - "climate change". Your framing also ignores a new generation, like what you saw happen in Tennessee with the 2 Justins and "gun violence". Tennessee is a state to watch because you have young people - GenZ - who are energized.



And as I posted previously, relying on that "the party in power generally takes a licking" was where they FAILED. in 2022 The analyst from 538 explained why. Making such "assumptions" in exchange for actually gathering data to support it, is the lazy way they handled 2022.



You did an odd reach in the above and interestingly missed 2008. Meaning that you torpedoed you "every race is close so this one will be too" nonsense.

Why did you skip over 2008? What was it about 2008?



THAT is what I am talking about. Lazy analysis. You can't arbitrarily dismiss events that can become "motivators" for an electorate. For Obama in 2008 - the black community, who is the hardcore base of the Democratic party, were motivated. Similarly Republicans who had had enough of Shrub, were similarly motivated and had even been courted by Obama.



Remember this? Of course you don't because it doesn't fit your skewed and outdated narrative about "enthusiasm" -



There is an interesting thing happening under the surface of this country that is being shown but is being dismissed outright, including by people like you. I saw it dismissed here in PA with the last election when so-called Democratic "operatives" insisted that progressive candidates like Summer Lee would not win a Congressional seat in the state of PA, let alone that Fetterman would beat Conor Lamb in the primary.

Sometimes one has to come out of the basement and drop the preconceptions. There is a GenZ generation coming of age (one of my youngest nieces who is 17, is part of that). They are politically savvy (many of them participated in BLM protests), social media aware, and have been developing issues to rally around. This is something that Biden is tapping into - including yesterday with the announcement about an "American Climate Corps".

This is why the GOP is working overtime to try to crush any type of voting on college campuses because they know a sleeping giant has awoken within that demographic.



Correction. Right-wing MAGats "think it".



Have you ever heard of a "push poll"? Do you even know what that means? Here is a definition (there are many but here is one from Political Wire -



So when what could be an "opinion poll" is being used as an "election poll", for example, like CNN's nonsense where questions were included about Hunter Biden (who is not running for President by the way) with inartfully, if not bogus innuendos about his legal status, and then tying that to Joe Biden in order to foist and force Hunter's problems onto his father, the propaganda of which then helps to skew the thinking about Joe Biden, is a case in point.



Ahh... so you have outed yourself as a "pollster". Got it.

What do they say about the "hit pig"????

This explains all this fruitless nonsense that you have put forth.



Yeah you need to be "out" because what all this boils down to, which should have been revealed at the BEGINNING of this long tirade, was that you are a "pollster" who was critiqued, didn't like it, and has now had a meltdown.

You need to reevaluate your thinking and actions, in other words, Nate Silver, is that you?

More and more I have embraced what the great Tip O'Neill was wont to say -



We have seen that here in PA where people "looked in their backyards" and helped to find candidates and vote for them so that Democrats could re-take the PA state House. And amazingly, I heard a news report this morning that for the first time, the state - and bizarrely this includes the GOP loons in the Senate, are NOW looking at legislation to move PA's Presidential Primary date EARLIER - (proposals are to push it back to March of 2024 vs the scheduled April). This would have NEVER been considered had Democrats not focused on "local politics" to take over a chamber in the PA legislature and start knocking back all the fringe extremist crap and focus on practical things to make elections here better.

The Democratic primary will help to herd the cats on the left and bring things into focus. I don't think Trump will get the same bump, his Never Trumpers on the right are more entrenched. The fact that it is a dead heat right now bodes well for Biden in my opinion.

Instead of deflecting to things that they think are more positive for Biden, hit it head on. Say that Biden had no part in Hunter's activities. Lay out what Biden does in a typical day and use some talking points to show how much more he has achieved than cheato. It might be helpful to admit that Biden's personality is soft spoken and even handed, and that may appear weak, But he likes to show his strength through action. Whatever. Sidestepping is not the answer.

He doesn't have to parade. He doesn't have to talk to every two-bit reporter that asks him stupid questions. He is busy enough dealing with China and Putin and saving America

As for the media, glad you see the media is not fair. In fact, they are so unfair even you see how the media is cheating

To help Biden we must become the media and change, one-by-one the minds of Americans who have their doubts.

open his yap with the same shit.

In the media in 50 years. The media only misses Democratic administration's after they've help replace them with a shit show

The media will lose ratings by going on a sour the same thing with things happening.