The poll found 50% of Democrats approve of how Biden has navigated the conflict while 46% disapprove — and the two groups diverge substantially in their views of U.S. support for Israel. Biden’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.

    • njm1314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      31
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Its possible, but how smooth brained would someone have to be to vote for Trump over this?

      • Roboticide@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Many just won’t vote.

        Which is still absolutely absurd, because any Democrat who doesn’t vote for Biden is implicitly granting his Republican opponent a vote. This opponent may be Trump, but even if it isn’t, it’s still a Republican whose position on Israel and the conflict will make Biden’s response look measured.

        Many people are angered by Biden’s response, but for pro-Palestinian supporters it’s cutting off your nose to spite your face to not vote this cycle for Biden. You’re actively allowing an even worse option.

        • havokdj@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          To go against voting is to go against democracy itself. It blows my mind that democrats don’t want to vote when republicans will.

          • Roboticide@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Democrats can be really dumb sometimes. Too many would rather stick to idealistic principles because at least then when they lose they can claim the high road and a persecution complex.

            Maybe it’s not much of a “complex” when that persecution actually then happens (like the Dobbs decision), but if Democrats would just shut up and vote with the best option available instead of not voting at all, maybe we’d win more. Trump wouldn’t have been elected in 2016 if Democrats had turned out in the same numbers they did in 2008 but instead 4 million Dems just didn’t show up.

            If Democrats won more, we could at least start to implement changes like Instant-Runoff Voting or doing away with the Electoral College. Republicans don’t want any of those changes, because they know it weakens their position. But so many liberals just refuse to vote because there’s no “good” option and refuse to vote for the option that even enables a “good” choice, while any conservative will do anything they can to vote for anyone willing to put an ® next to their name. It’s so fucking juvenile and I’m still ashamed to admit I once used to believe it too.

            • havokdj@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Don’t get me wrong, both the AOC and the GOP are pure evil and there are both good and terrible people in those organizations, but when people say that “a vote is a waste” it makes my sight turn red.

              The only reason not to vote is if no candidate has even a single policy that you agree with, otherwise, vote ffs.

              And another thing, the voting mentality of the states is the reason we are stuck in a duopoly here. If someone truly does not want to vote for either party, at the very least vote for a third option so that party may potentially get seats and actually partake in the next election. As I said, the only way to waste a vote is precisely to not vote, and all a party needs to get seats is 5% of the popular vote.

      • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        As much as the democrats want to believe this, it isn’t the only alternative. Maybe it will just make some people stay home on election day

        • abraxas
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          “Silence is Violence”

          Anyone who doesn’t vote for Biden could be complicit in a 2024 Trump Regime. Don’t like that? Get him primaried by someone who will also be able to beat Trump.

          Now is not the time to be an accelerationist.

          • OccamsTeapot@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah I get it. But “get the incumbent president primaried by someone who goes on to still win the election” is not a fantastic option for a potential voter is it? If you just don’t want to support someone who is standing by while what you consider to be a genocide is happening, this is your only viable option?

            It is shit. The best solution is for Biden to take action before the number of dead mounts even more. Call out Israeli crimes as strongly as you call out those from Hamas. This is what any self respecting progressive president would have to do on this situation.

            But if that doesn’t happen? No consequence. People are supposed to dutifully line up and say “more please” because the political system is so fundamentally broken.

            I’m not American, but if I was obviously I would still vote for Biden. I just don’t like to see the demonization of this quite understandable (imo) position. If you can’t stomach doing that, the problem isn’t you so much as the whole system. You should vote Biden and then the VERY NEXT DAY be out on the street demanding electoral reform.

            Apologies for the length but I think this sums up my point: what would Biden have to do to make it not worth voting for him? What could he get away with?

            • abraxas
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              But “get the incumbent president primaried by someone who goes on to still win the election” is not a fantastic option for a potential voter is it?

              Short of something Trump-level, Biden is going to win the Primary. There’s no maybe on that. The incumbency advantage might be beatable in the General, but it’s monumental. Quite certainly him representing the **majority ** Democratic take on the Israel war is not going to lose him the Primary.

              It is shit. The best solution is for Biden to take action before the number of dead mounts even more

              Israel was attacked by Palestine. They were attacked by Hamas, but Hamas rules Palestine. Based on internationally agreed-upon rules of engagement, they get to bloody Hamas back. We both know the problem isn’t Israel hitting back, it’s them not really caring about civilian damage and their desire to simply take over the West Bank. Anything we do strongly against Israel is going to be against most of our allied countries and cost us the Israel alliance. Interestingly, the running trend in the US has been isolationism, something both parties have started to agree on, and everyone’s favorite Bernie Sanders as well when he ran in 2016 and 2020. But now we’re mad Biden took a fairly Isolationist “but please don’t wipe them out” point of view?

              What do progressives want? Do we want isolationism or do we just want to pick and choose our wars based on personal opinion? I don’t like Israel, but we’re supposed to be committing to getting less involved in international politics. For some, that just seems like it means “let’s support our enemies and not our allies”. Why can’t we just support NEITHER side, like everyone has been demanding Democrats do?

              I’m assuming you don’t actively support Hamas, right?

              I’m not American, but if I was obviously I would still vote for Biden

              Ahhhh… I should’ve read before I started replying. You’re missing something. One of the few things Trump and Bernie agreed on in 2016 was the desire for the US to stop trying to police the damn world. Our progressive wing, until very recently, wanted us to stay out of the Middle East until we no longer have a choice. We thought that meant not supporting Israel, but if we’re being honest it means also not condemning them until they go well past “following the rules of engagement”.

              I just don’t like to see the demonization of this quite understandable (imo) position.

              The position of letting Trump win in protest for Biden doing what a majority of his voters want? He very much admonished Israel not to occupy Palestine and not to take action with excess civilian casualties. He’s insisting Israel hold to a stricter set of rules of engagement than most countries would if another country led an unprovoked attack against civilians. We cannot forget that Hamas is the ruling party of Palestine. At the very least, Israel is entitled to try to step in and replace Palestine’s leadership with someone who won’t attack Israel. Except we don’t trust Israel, and Biden doesn’t trust Israel, to do that in good faith.

              Apologies for the length

              I don’t think I could criticize the length of your reply considering my own :)

    • abraxas
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem with Presidency. More people approve of his decision than disapprove. Either choice would have fucked him next November.

      Lucky for him, Encumbants get a huge leg-up on the reelection bid and need to basically be guilty of treason not to win.

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        That’s what I’m saying, it doesn’t really matter what he does here. Unless he abandoned 70 years worth of American diplomacy, he simply cannot sell this as an appeal to the more progressive wing of his caucus (which he desperately needs). Progressives are already skeptical of his progressive bona-fides, and this is just another reminder that he’s a Neo-liberal democrat at heart.

        It really depends on how things shake out in the next year, but this is certainly the most likely thing (right now) that could sink him. Even if he doesn’t loose, it certainly makes things way harder down the ticket. He could either end up loosing house seats or he could have to contend with a far more polarized congress, and either way that’s bad news.

        • abraxas
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m not sure a progressive president would have done much better in this. Ultimately, we hope the President does what’s best for the United States first, then the world second. A large number of progressives aren’t isolationists, and Israel is a large part of our displomatic positioning in and around the Middle East. Not because they’re “the good guys”, but they’re the ones that don’t actively hate us. I’d like to see that change, and I think it could, but we’re not there yet.

          Agreeing that Israel is justified in attacking Hamas. Insisting diplomatically that Israel should limit its actions to enemy combatants. It’s a complicated situation. And ironically, if someone is isolationist enough to throw out our alliance with Israel, they woudl also be isolationist enough not to care about the Israel/Palestine conflict. It’s sorta lose/lose for us due to past decisions and actions.

          • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It depends on how you define progressive, but largely I agree not much else could have reasonably been done, regardless of how progressive they are.

            But Biden’s situation is unique to him and his campaign. A Bernie incumbent wouldn’t be needing to defend his progressive alignments and policies, but Biden is very much fighting an optics battle. He is pitching himself as “the most progressive president in a generation” because his survival depends on that demographic. Whatever your opinion is on what he’s actually done, his polling numbers clearly indicate that the progressive base does not believe he is sufficiently progressive. This conflict fucks his messaging, and the progressive caucus seems fairly animated by this issue particularly.

            Again, it would be pretty hard for him to loose reelection (though I would strongly caution against assuming so), but that doesn’t mean he can’t still be put way on his back foot for his second term.

            • abraxas
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              But Biden’s situation is unique to him and his campaign. A Bernie incumbent wouldn’t be needing to defend his progressive alignments and policies, but Biden is very much fighting an optics battle. He is pitching himself as “the most progressive president in a generation” because his survival depends on that demographic

              Is he though? This feels like everyone expected Obama to be a progressive despite years of media calling him a Moderate. Even Trump accused him of being a “radical moderate”.

              Biden agreed to give Progressives a small seat at the table, which is the best we’ve gotten since at least Clinton, if not Carter.

              Whatever your opinion is on what he’s actually done, his polling numbers clearly indicate that the progressive base does not believe he is sufficiently progressive

              I’ve learned from Trump that “how you poll” and “how well you’re doing” are two very different things. Trump should’ve polled a 0%, and yet he hit almost 50% on multiple occasions. And his highest approval was throughout 2020.

              I’m not speaking to whether Biden is winning progressive votes, only to whether he’s doing his part. I don’t think Bernie would be doing better than him on any of these things, but as you say, progressives would give him more lenience because he didn’t come in as a moderate.

              This conflict fucks his messaging, and the progressive caucus seems fairly animated by this issue particularly.

              Well yeah. Welcome to the president problem. You’re always making a lot of people mad, no matter what you do.

              Again, it would be pretty hard for him to loose reelection (though I would strongly caution against assuming so), but that doesn’t mean he can’t still be put way on his back foot for his second term.

              I never expected anything more than 4-8 years of back-leg after Trump, from any president. But we still have to support him if we don’t want Trump.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      If so, that’s fucking ridiculous. Jesus fucking Christ democracy will die because Joe Biden didn’t force Israel to stop their genocide and only told them to stop instead???

      Fuck this goddamn retarded existence just fucking kill me already Jesus fucking Christ

      FUCK THIS GODDAMN PLANET

      • DaBabyAteMaDingo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        18
        ·
        1 year ago

        Tankies aren’t humans. They hated voting for Biden the first time but did so because Trump was the literal devil. Now Hassan Piker has riled up his masses of dumbasses to completely turn on what is the best president we had since Obama (I’m only speaking economically, so shut up).

        Please vote. No matter what anyone tells you, vote. Get your idiot friends to vote. Remind them of what’s at stake.

          • DaBabyAteMaDingo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            Meh I use Tankies as a term for the “far right” of the left.

            Might not be the most accurate term but these Israel hating leftists are almost always Tankies. But the rest of the comment is pretty clear and I’m glad you were able to focus on something benign. Typical tankie.

              • DaBabyAteMaDingo@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                What is an “Israel hating leftist”

                A leftist that glosses over Hamas’ attack on the 7th

                I don’t care who you accept as human

                  • DaBabyAteMaDingo@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I’m sure hamas found retribution for Palestine in killing innocent civilians. I hope in 100 years when Israel exacts their revenge for the 7th, they’ll have some idiots defending them with claims of “dEcAdEs Of GeNoCiDaL” behavior.

            • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Benign, maybe in an irrelevant way? But certainly not benign by its content though, right?

              I just found it to be a strange usage because presumably the criticism being cast against Israel is for their judicious use of force against unarmed civilians, and as far as I know ‘tankie’ was originally used to describe people in support of the state’s judicious use of force against unarmed civilians.

              I would have thought the word would have been more appropriately used to describe Zionists in this situation, but I wouldn’t pretend to know.

    • GiddyGap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      How?

      The vast majority of American Jews are Democrats and seem to be supporting Biden’s response.

      Most pro-palestinian Democrats know that the Republican Party will not advance their cause in any way and not voting will only support the Republican Party.

        • Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s that antisemitic trope where people conflate all Jewish people with the apartheid state and then turn around amd call other people antisemitic if they ever criticize the many atrocities committed by the government enforcing the apartheid by committing genocide.

    • BarqsHasBite@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      There’s outrage but when people think about what Trump would do… Geezus. Trump would declare war on the whole Middle East.

      The question is will this event get the Republican voters out and keep Democrats voters home? Just for them to regret their protest non-vote again.

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Considering that the protest non voters have responded to Dobbs by answering criticism over it with “Well I wasn’t pandered to enough!” and “Rights are a fiction anyways!”

    • RagingRobot@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The other guy has a much worse record though and he’s counting on that.

      What I think will happen is trump will go to jail then the Republicans will pick someone else like Nikki Haley and Biden will be in trouble. I don’t like her but she’s much more palatable than Trump so she may have a chance.

    • stewsters@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah. And it would have been this way no matter if he did nothing, attacked Hamas directly, or bombed Israel.

      The conflicts in the Middle East is very devisive. Folks have been fighting over that area since before we have written history. No matter what you do someone is going to want you dead.

      I think his approach of guarding without direct invasion is probably the right one, but neither side will be happy with it.

      • abraxas
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Folks have been fighting over that area since before we have written history

        Sure, but things got a whole lot worse for world politics in the 20th century.

      • archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yup.

        People seem to think I’m saying he’s made the wrong choice and he’ll loose because of it, but really I’m speaking very broadly.

        What I think is unique to him in this election is his target voters. His caucus is significantly more progressive than they were even 12 years ago, which is why his whole message thus far has been ‘the most progressive president of a generation’. And the Palestinian conflict in particular has seen a huge swing in sentiment. It used to be that the Democrats could reliably run a pro-israel campaign and their base would at least tolerate it, but that’s not the case now.

        The Republican base could not be more different, and honestly I think someone like Trump could campaign on even an anti-zionist position and not loose much support.

        That the conflict flaired now is a disaster for him, because there is no way to handle it that will net him more votes. In particular, Biden would never be the one to change what has been the American diplomatic position for the last 70 years. And I think Netanyahu knows this, and will press the issue well into 2024 to rally support for his own goals.

      • skulkingaround
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        People also forget how brutal war is. Civilian casualties are the rule, not the exception, esp in urban engagements. Ceasefire is also a laughable proposition, if you think either side would actually do it I have a bridge to sell you.

        Really all we can do is see how this goes. And I know that even if the Israeli govt. is awful, if it’s a choice between them and Hamas controlling the area in the end, I’d rather see it be Israel.

    • katy ✨@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      i mean what do you want him to do? any action through the un would likely be vetoed by uk or france, he has no control over the israeli military, the media has taken the propaganda hook line and sinker, and congress controls monetary relief (unless you want him to withhold aid which has been apportioned for relief already which is exactly what trump did that got him (rightfully) impeached).

    • Yeller_king@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      I doubt international affairs affect many votes at all unless it’s something that involves significant deployment of American soldiers.

      Voters really only care about the things they think affect them.

    • JoeHill@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      8
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      “Progressives” will elect Donald “Muslim Ban” Trump then. Morons.