e; I wrote a better headline than the ABC editors decided to and excerpted a bit more

According to the poll, conducted using Ipsos’ Knowledge Panel, 86% of Americans think Biden, 81, is too old to serve another term as president. That figure includes 59% of Americans who think both he and former President Donald Trump, the Republican front-runner, are too old and 27% who think only Biden is too old.

Sixty-two percent of Americans think Trump, who is 77, is too old to serve as president. There is a large difference in how partisans view their respective nominees – 73% of Democrats think Biden is too old to serve but only 35% of Republicans think Trump is too old to serve. Ninety-one percent of independents think Biden is too old to serve, and 71% say the same about Trump.

Concerns about both candidates’ ages have increased since September when an ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 74% of Americans thought Biden – the oldest commander in chief in U.S. history – was too old to serve another term as president, and 49% said the same about Trump.

Archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20240214133801/https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/poll-americans-on-biden-age/story?id=107126589

Part that drew my eye,

The poll also comes days after the Senate failed to advance a bipartisan foreign aid bill with major new border provisions.

Americans find there is blame to go around on Congress’ failure to pass legislation intended to decrease the number of illegal crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border – with about the same number blaming the Republicans in Congress (53%), the Democrats (51%) and Biden (49%). Fewer, 39%, blame Trump.

More Americans trust that Trump would do a better job of handling immigration and the situation at the border than Biden – 44%-26% – according to the poll.

So that bipartisan border bill stunt was terrible policy, and it doesn’t seem to have done anything for the Democratic party politically

Can we please stop trying to compromise with fascists now?

  • Wrench@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    I was refuting that open debate against the incumbent president would be good for the Dems. That the DNC funding alternate candidates would be a net positive. My argument is that it could only result in division, and would greatly improve the GOP’s position.

    • stoly@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Well at this point, it certainly would. We’re too far into the process. But for next time, this needs to be done differently.

      • Wrench@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Agree when there’s no incumbent, and there’s no MAGA nazi front runner. And if the Dems run clean campaigns without dragging their fellow Dems through the mud.

        For the time being, the stakes are too high to give the GOP any ammo, at all.

          • pjwestin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            10 months ago

            That’s not true. Sure, you can’t criticize presidents in their first year, since their just finding their footing. And obviously, you can’t criticize them in their second year, because the midterms are coming up, and you need to be positive to get Democrats elected. But after the midterms, progressives are free to criticize the president as a much as the want…for about two weeks. A month tops. After that, we’re getting into reelection season, and criticism will only help the GOP.