Macron's approval rating in France is the same as Biden's: 42%ish.
Today, Macron crushed his m/ga-style opponent 59-41.
Put that in your red hat for a couple years.
To be fair, Marie Le Pen's support for Putin even exceeds Trump's. That's why she lost.
But to your larger point, it does show that a low approval rating doesn't mean defeat when you are up against someone disgraceful. I don't think Le Pen exceeds Trump's disgracefulness.
If it's Trump vs. Biden again, Biden wins easily -- again.
He didn't win easily the first time even with the fraud....
It looks like there was voter fraud in France. Only Le Pens ballots were tampered with, none for Macron.
🇫🇷
The video shows how the ballots for Marine Le Pen are already in specially sealed voting bags, which are already torn, which automatically recognizes them as unsuitable for counting.@QtimeNetworkpic.twitter.com/iVvVbET79C
If it's Trump vs. Biden again, Biden wins easily -- again.
Have any of you liberals stepped below the Mason-Dixson Line? There is no way in hell that Biden beats Trump in 2024. I was in Tennessee this week and the t-shirts I saw on my fellow Americans paint a story of continued adoration.
To be fair, Marie Le Pen's support for Putin even exceeds Trump's. That's why she lost.
But to your larger point, it does show that a low approval rating doesn't mean defeat when you are up against someone disgraceful. I don't think Le Pen exceeds Trump's disgracefulness.
If it's Trump vs. Biden again, Biden wins easily -- again.
He didn't win easily the first time even with the fraud....
Macron beat Le Pen by 30 points last time around.
Biden "won" in 2020 by 42,000 votes.
Biden won by 74 electoral votes in 2020. Trump won by 77 electoral votes in 2016.
Trump declared that he won in a landslide in 2016.
Given that, I have no trouble saying that Biden won easily.
He didn't win easily the first time even with the fraud....
Macron beat Le Pen by 30 points last time around.
Biden "won" in 2020 by 42,000 votes.
Biden won by 74 electoral votes in 2020. Trump won by 77 electoral votes in 2016.
Trump declared that he won in a landslide in 2016.
Given that, I have no trouble saying that Biden won easily.
Neither election was won in a landslide. In 2016, three states where the margin of victory was less than 1% was what pushed Trump over 270: Michigan (16 EVs) where he won 47.50% of the votes to Hillary's 47.27%, Pennsylvania (20 EVs) where he won 48.18% of the votes to Hillary's 47.46%, and Wisconsin (10 EVs) where he won 47.22% of the votes to Hillary's 46.45%. The largest margin there, in Wisconsin, was a whopping 0.77% difference. That's not a landslide by any reasonable measure.
In 2020, it was again three states where the margin of victory was less than 1% pushed Biden over 270: Georgia (16 EVs) where he won with 49.47% to Trump's 49.24%, Arizona (11 EVs) where he won with 49.36% to Trump's 49.06%, and Wisconsin (10 EVs) where he won with 49.45% to Trump's 48.82%. The largest margin there, once again Wisconsin, was a whopping 0.63% difference. Yet again, not a landslide by any reasonable measure.
I find it interesting that you feel the need to agree with the terms Trump uses. I think most people understand why Trump does such things (he's an egomaniac that isn't all that intelligent), but why do you?
"So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have because we won the state."
what a gullible rube you are.
Aren't all rubes gullible?
Fair point.
but claiming you are a champion of 'election integrity' while supporting the single biggest threat to election integrity this country faces...because you believe the word of one of the world's most egregious liars....is right at the max limit of gullibility, verging on...on....
Biden won by 74 electoral votes in 2020. Trump won by 77 electoral votes in 2016.
Trump declared that he won in a landslide in 2016.
Given that, I have no trouble saying that Biden won easily.
Neither election was won in a landslide. In 2016, three states where the margin of victory was less than 1% was what pushed Trump over 270: Michigan (16 EVs) where he won 47.50% of the votes to Hillary's 47.27%, Pennsylvania (20 EVs) where he won 48.18% of the votes to Hillary's 47.46%, and Wisconsin (10 EVs) where he won 47.22% of the votes to Hillary's 46.45%. The largest margin there, in Wisconsin, was a whopping 0.77% difference. That's not a landslide by any reasonable measure.
In 2020, it was again three states where the margin of victory was less than 1% pushed Biden over 270: Georgia (16 EVs) where he won with 49.47% to Trump's 49.24%, Arizona (11 EVs) where he won with 49.36% to Trump's 49.06%, and Wisconsin (10 EVs) where he won with 49.45% to Trump's 48.82%. The largest margin there, once again Wisconsin, was a whopping 0.63% difference. Yet again, not a landslide by any reasonable measure.
I find it interesting that you feel the need to agree with the terms Trump uses. I think most people understand why Trump does such things (he's an egomaniac that isn't all that intelligent), but why do you?
Dems cheat so much if an election is remotely close the Republican won in a landslide.
You're missing the part where there are no issues where the Democrats ideas are better...
Nothing Democrats want to do works in reality.
are you simply going to deny that the economy has done far better under Dem presidents than R presidents?
Just skim on by that, ignore it, fingers in ears, etc? cool, cool, cool.
I agree with you that the economy has tended to do better under Democrat presidents (not by a huge margin, but enough where it may *possibly* be worth noting ... maybe not, but possibly.)
However, it can also easily be argued that the economy has tended to do better under GOP-controlled legislature, and by a much larger margin than the difference between who was president.
So, if we agree that the economy does better under Democrat presidents, can't we also agree that the economy does better under GOP-controlled legislature?
It's almost like neither party is inherently better than the other, but the country does best when both sides are represented and neither totally get their way...
Neither election was won in a landslide. In 2016, three states where the margin of victory was less than 1% was what pushed Trump over 270: Michigan (16 EVs) where he won 47.50% of the votes to Hillary's 47.27%, Pennsylvania (20 EVs) where he won 48.18% of the votes to Hillary's 47.46%, and Wisconsin (10 EVs) where he won 47.22% of the votes to Hillary's 46.45%. The largest margin there, in Wisconsin, was a whopping 0.77% difference. That's not a landslide by any reasonable measure.
In 2020, it was again three states where the margin of victory was less than 1% pushed Biden over 270: Georgia (16 EVs) where he won with 49.47% to Trump's 49.24%, Arizona (11 EVs) where he won with 49.36% to Trump's 49.06%, and Wisconsin (10 EVs) where he won with 49.45% to Trump's 48.82%. The largest margin there, once again Wisconsin, was a whopping 0.63% difference. Yet again, not a landslide by any reasonable measure.
I find it interesting that you feel the need to agree with the terms Trump uses. I think most people understand why Trump does such things (he's an egomaniac that isn't all that intelligent), but why do you?
Dems cheat so much if an election is remotely close the Republican won in a landslide.
Both sides cheat IMO. That's why there is a need for better election laws, to make it harder to cheat and the results of the election can be better trusted.
are you simply going to deny that the economy has done far better under Dem presidents than R presidents?
Just skim on by that, ignore it, fingers in ears, etc? cool, cool, cool.
I agree with you that the economy has tended to do better under Democrat presidents (not by a huge margin, but enough where it may *possibly* be worth noting ... maybe not, but possibly.)
However, it can also easily be argued that the economy has tended to do better under GOP-controlled legislature, and by a much larger margin than the difference between who was president.
So, if we agree that the economy does better under Democrat presidents, can't we also agree that the economy does better under GOP-controlled legislature?
It's almost like neither party is inherently better than the other, but the country does best when both sides are represented and neither totally get their way...
apparently when you adjust for which party has control of congress, the result is the same - the economy does materially and substantially better under Democratic presidents.
So no, your claim is not correct, from what I've seen.
Honestly, much of this is probably just luck but it's getting hard to explain since one R president after the next leaves the WH with the US economy in the dumpster.
I agree with you that the economy has tended to do better under Democrat presidents (not by a huge margin, but enough where it may *possibly* be worth noting ... maybe not, but possibly.)
However, it can also easily be argued that the economy has tended to do better under GOP-controlled legislature, and by a much larger margin than the difference between who was president.
So, if we agree that the economy does better under Democrat presidents, can't we also agree that the economy does better under GOP-controlled legislature?
It's almost like neither party is inherently better than the other, but the country does best when both sides are represented and neither totally get their way...
apparently when you adjust for which party has control of congress, the result is the same - the economy does materially and substantially better under Democratic presidents.
So no, your claim is not correct, from what I've seen.
Honestly, much of this is probably just luck but it's getting hard to explain since one R president after the next leaves the WH with the US economy in the dumpster.
Based on what metric?
My statement was based on comparing the increase of median income vs. the inflation (using CPI). For presidents, IIRC, since the 60s the GOP saw a greater increase in income a little less than half of the time (45% I think?) and the Dems saw a greater increase a little more than half of the time (around 55% I think). For congress, Dem controlled congress saw an increase less than half of the time (around 40% I think) and GOP controlled congress saw an increase much more than half of the time (around 66% I think). The average, and not just the likelihood, of increase wasn't notably different for presidents but a little better for Dems than GOP, and the difference in congress was larger but still not that huge.