Young voters overwhelmingly say they would support President Biden over former President Trump in a hypothetical head-to-head match-up if the 2024 presidential election were held today, according to a poll released Wednesday.

In the Economist/YouGov poll — conducted via web-based interviews Dec. 16-18 — more than half (53 percent) of registered voters under 30 said they would support Biden, and less than a quarter (24 percent) said they would support Trump.

Another 10 percent said they would support another candidate, 4 percent said they were not sure, and 9 percent said they wouldn’t vote.

  • brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Well I’ve seen them very a clear majority and not do anything, so this feels like a situation where the pertinent number will always been “just a bit more”.

    • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      Please tell me you’re not talking about the two month window in 2010 where they had a filibuster-proof majority, and passed a major healthcare reform bill, but it was kneecapped because it relied on Joe Lieberman to pass. Because that’s a case where a couple more Democrats would have made a huge difference in what we would have gotten, and also turned 2 months and some change into two years.

      • brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        See, this is exactly what I’m talking about; no matter how many they get, it always wasn’t quite enough. It always needed “just a couple more”.

        • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Having enough is a spectrum: the more there are, the bolder the legislation and the more likely it is to pass. So however many you get, you always fall short of doing even better with more.

          Single payer healthcare had been discussed in the early stages — and it was clear they wouldn’t have 60 votes for it, so it was a non-starter. Because there were exactly 60 D/Is, there was no wiggle room. And the GOP held up the 60th Senator in the courts as long as they could because they had no wiggle room. And then Ted Kennedy had to vote for the ACA on his virtual deathbed, and after that their 60 votes were gone, so they couldn’t spend more time on healthcare or move on to other tough issues. Lieberman forced them to remove the public option from the bill.

          But you are just overlooking that they did pass a major, consequential healthcare reform bill that solved some very important problems, which couldn’t be accomplished for decades before then, even though people tried.

          And this all touches on my original point: a couple more Senators would have changed things significantly at that time, but a more progressive president would not have.

          • brain_in_a_box@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            So what’s the minimum for them to actually do anything meaningful then?

            But you are just overlooking that they did pass a major, consequential healthcare reform bill that solved some very important problems, which couldn’t be accomplished for decades before then, even though people tried.

            A Republican healthcare reform bill.

            The Republican’s seem to be able to accomplish big things even when in minority. While Democrats apparently need a filibuster proof majority (and maybe a bit more to make up for the inevitable rotating villains) to even start.