Yes, of course. But, using the numbers to show that Joe had 80+ million voters show support for him, is a skewed false view. When a majority of those voters only wanted Trump out of office, which were votes that were literally not a show of support for Joe. Like I said before: Facts matter.
Not quite. Trump won because he took on some of Bernie's populist stances (albeit a false populism on his part), while Hillary wouldn't go far enough left to get the voter support that she needed to win. Trump was actually left of Hillary on some of his, mostly false, stances. That was a bad look for Hillary, as well as the left. Two of the most hated people ran for president in 2016. Somehow the most hated candidate won. If that election had been about which candidate wanted to be kept out of office more, Trump shouldn't have won since he was the most disliked at the time. 2016 was more about policy issues, while hatred of the two candidates played a lesser role.
In any election there are those who vote for a candidate they like, vote for candidate they aren't crazy about but figure is best available, and vote against the other person. A fact is Biden has higher approval than the former guy ever did and his proposals are popular across the board.
I'm on the fence. Dogs are always up your butt about something. Can't keep that nose out of places they shouldn't be putting it.
Election experts are split on whether voters today are most motivated by positive excitement (I love my candidate and want him/her in charge because I think they'll do a great job) or negative excitement (I detest the opposition, they symbolize all that's wrong with the world and I support anyone who isn't them). Candidates and their campaign teams go back and forth on whether it's more important to put out a positive message about themselves or to portray their opponent negatively. In the end, they usually split the difference and try to do some of both--but it's long been a question of which type of campaigning is more effective per dollar to win an election. And you may say that if Biden won due to negative excitement, he's in trouble for 2024 because (most likely) Trump won't be his opponent. But every year, the nation grows more tribal and polarized, which makes voters amenable to the idea that whomever is the candidate of the opposing party is awful. If I were to guess, I would say that positive excitement has generally been more important to Democratic candidates and negative excitement has generally been more important to Republican candidates. Those on the left tend to be more idealistic and want to believe in something and a leader who evokes those ideals. Republicans (as conservatives) have generally brought the message that change is risky and radical change is frightening and potentially devastating. That's where the famous saying, "The left falls in love while the right falls in line" comes from. From an electoral standpoint (and arguably from a philosophical standpoint, though it depends on what you value), this can be seen as a knock on both sides. However, I think that's changing. I think the era of intense polarization and the confrontational nature of a social media driven Internet has caused both sides to focus more on anger and dislike of the other side, left or right. Politics these days is about anger.
The candidate Trump supports to replace Liz Cheney got a 14 year old girl pregnant when he was 18. He calls it a Romeo and Juliet. And like Juliet, the raped girl killed herself.
