The poll found 50% of Democrats approve of how Biden has navigated the conflict while 46% disapprove ā€” and the two groups diverge substantially in their views of U.S. support for Israel. Bidenā€™s support on the issue among Democrats is down slightly from August, as an AP-NORC poll conducted then found that 57% of Democrats approved of his handling of the conflict and 40% disapproved.

  • RedditReject@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    Ā·
    1 year ago

    I love how the headline sounds so negative, and yet looking at the Numbers they could have easily just said ā€œmore Democrats approve of his handling of the crisisā€.

    • SkepticalButOpenMinded@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      I mean, almost half the members of his own party disagree with him, not the nation as a whole. If this doesnā€™t go away, it is not good news.

      The old adage come to mind that, ā€œThe left fall in love, and the right fall in line.ā€ The right will more reliably vote for ā€œtheir guyā€, but Iā€™ve seen so many losses on the left because of disenchantment.

      • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        Ā·
        1 year ago

        Thatā€™s part of the problem, though: the left never fell in love with him. He got elected by a small margin in a few key states similar to that of Trump 2016 mainly due to not being Trump rather than any merit of his own.

        It might not work a second time since voters have ridiculously short memories and ā€œnot the other oneā€ tactics are much less effective for incumbents.

    • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      Ā·
      1 year ago

      Or they could have been brutally honest and said ā€œmore than half of democrats approve of enabling genocideā€.

      And before you say ā€œbut Trump and the Republicans are much worseā€, yes thatā€™s obviously true but thatā€™s besides the point.

      • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        Ā·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Or they could have been brutally honest and said ā€œmore than half of democrats approve of enabling genocideā€.

        Actually, if they were being genuinely honest, it would be more like ā€œmore than half of democrats think Bidenā€™s making the best choice in an all-round shitty situationā€. None of us approve of enabling genocide.

        Some people actually think ā€œpushing Israel to set rules of engagementā€ is some of the best weā€™re going to get if we canā€™t get the entire world on-board. Nobody wants to invade Israel to stop this (do they), and Israel is out for blood right now. Trying to focus them towards Hamas and not ā€œdestroying Palastineā€ might be the only win we can have 7,000 miles away.

        Iā€™m a fence-sitter on this issue, but I think the majority that supports Bidenā€™s plan do so for reasons that have nothing to do with ā€œenabling genocideā€.

        I get that you want us to condemn Israel. And Iā€™m sure itā€™s been considered. I also undersetand there are ramifications to the US of doing that, and it wonā€™t necessarily save a single Palestinian life.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          Ā·
          1 year ago

          Actually, if they were being genuinely honest, it would be more like ā€œmore than half of democrats think Bidenā€™s making the best choice in an all-round shitty situationā€. None of us approve of enabling genocide.

          Thatā€™s a self-contradiction since what you guys think is the ā€œbest choiceā€ is objectively enabling genocide by unquestioningly supporting the government committing it while punishing those that speak up against it.

          Some people actually think ā€œpushing Israel to set rules of engagementā€ is some of the best weā€™re going to get

          It isnā€™t, though. Israel has been setting their own rules the whole time and thatā€™s the majority of what caused the whole thing.

          Nobody wants to invade Israel

          Of course not.

          Israel is out for blood right now. Trying to focus them towards Hamas and not ā€œdestroying Palastineā€ might be the only win we can have 7,000 miles away.

          Thatā€™s not being done, though. Unless thereā€™s consequences such as withholding military (but not humanitarian) aid and possibly targeted sanctions, the apartheid regime is going to continue committing atrocities.

          I think the majority that supports Bidenā€™s plan do so for reasons that have nothing to do with ā€œenabling genocideā€.

          Yes and no: I believe that most of the people who supports his genocide-enabling are under- or misinformed enough to not know that theyā€™re indirectly supporting genocide.

          I get that you want us to condemn Israel.

          Of course. Anything else is being complicit.

          And Iā€™m sure itā€™s been considered.

          Probably not seriously, no. The neoliberal Dem leadership depend too much on bribes from AIPAC and others like them.

          I also undersetand there are ramifications to the US of doing that, and it wonā€™t necessarily save a single Palestinian life

          I guarantee you that no longer getting the financial and political support of the US would force them to be less aggressive, which would save thousands of lives.

          • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            Ā·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Thatā€™s a self-contradiction since what you guys think is the ā€œbest choiceā€ is objectively enabling genocide

            I think objectively doesnā€™t mean what you think it means. But more importantly, even if youā€™re right about there being a better response than Bidenā€™s (and you might be; itā€™s a complicated issue), that doesnā€™t mean people who support Bidenā€™s position agree that youā€™re right. Which means, NO, objectively, they do not ā€œapprove of enabling genocideā€. Just look at literally the other reply to me that agreed with me at length. And if there are at least two people who support Bidenā€™s decisions in this thread alone that do not ā€œapprove of enabling genocideā€, then I bet you any money thereā€™s at least 2 more out in the US. ā€œPerhaps more than that!ā€

            I called you on your bad-faith accusation that Democratic voters ā€œapprove of enabling genocideā€, and nothing in your reply to me reduces the accuracy of what I called you on. Youā€™re just getting into the weeds arguing politics now.

            If you want, Iā€™d be happy to join that conversation as well. As soon as you concede that the ā€œapprove of enabling genocideā€ thing was excessive and bad faith.

            • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              arrow-down
              1
              Ā·
              1 year ago

              Itā€™s a fact that the tack Biden is taking amounts to enabling genocide. Whether you know that or not, saying you approve of his handling of the situation is saying that you approve of enabling genocide no matter if you know it or not.

              In other words:

              1. Bidenā€™s plan is objectively enabling genocide

              2. Some people who donā€™t consider themselves in favor of enabling genocide support Biden

              3. The thing that those people say they support is enabling genocide, no matter how ignorant of reality or in denial they are.

              • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                Ā·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Curious who made Viking Hippie the sole arbiter of truth. How many experts disagreeing with you makes it less ā€œweā€™re all objectively enabling genocideā€?

                What if I think Viking Hippie is ā€œobjectively enabling genocideā€? Itā€™s a fact (ok, itā€™s just a thought experiment). That means I get to say anyone that agrees with you is ā€œobjectively enabling genocideā€, right?

                • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  Ā·
                  1 year ago

                  3 days to come back with ā€œyouā€™re wrong because itā€™s arrogant to be confident that youā€™re youā€™re right when people are paid to be wrongā€? Damn, youā€™re really bad at this! šŸ˜‚

                  • abraxas@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    Ā·
                    1 year ago

                    With all due respect, when your opinion is ā€œyour argument AND the supermajority is wrong because I said soā€, you donā€™t leave an opening for anything more constructive.

                    I donā€™t make a good Soyjak