Joe Biden has led the most progressive Administration in the nation’s history, investing in social justice, environmental programs, curtailing abuses by corporations and predatory institutions, stood with workers (both on the picket line and in the halls of government), developed initiatives and instituted policies to combat racial injustice, staved off a nuclear power’s assault on a weaker neighbor, overseen the largest growth in real wages in over a half century, passed keystone legislation which committed the largest investment ever into green policies and programs while also committing the largest investment ever into revitalizing the nation’s infrastructure, put more federal judges on the bench in his first term than the last two presidents combined, weathered the highest levels of inflation in generations so well that US fared markedly better than peer nations, guided the economy through that inflationary period without the need for a Volcker Shock, expanded trans rights in every corner of the federal government, oversaw the largest reduction in childhood poverty in the nation’s history, reduced pharmaceutical prices for Medicare users by over 20% on average and brought the cost of insulin down to less than $30, and that’s just off the top of my head.

It’s trendy for the terminally online to knock Biden, but he’s gotten more done in three years than any President in recent history has in eight. I’m not ceding this ground to low-information voters like the commenters here seem to perpetually be. I’m excited to vote for the President who has achieved more leftist goals in three years than any other American elected official has over their entire career.

s it always been this bad in US presidential elections?

Nope. I've been following politics since Nixon and Biden is the best president we've had in the last 50 years.

The problem is the first past the post system which heavily encourages a two-party outcome. A ranked choice system would drastically improve the chances of new candidates or parties to emerge with meaningful results.

But since that hurts the current holders of power, it's pretty unlikely to be enacted anytime soon.

To be blunt, do you genuinely believe that the population of the US is capable of agreeing on better candidates?

If so, again to be blunt, how many people would it take to sway this decision, and why can't this number of people strategically ensure that their candidate is chosen?

Admittedly, I'm old enough to remember when Digg tried to make Ron Paul a thing, and when that went hilariously wrong, they shifted to Obama and made out that he was their candidate all along. I'm not saying that it's easy, but mainly trying to say that I imagine that it's actually quite difficult to get 300m people to agree on anything that isn't an incredible compromise.

There's actually a lot more bad choices but you never know about them because nobody cares.

Not this bad but yeah

Because the people don’t choose their options, just from the options chosen for them. The rich are one team, and our options are just to give us the illusion of choice and to pit us against each other as if it were left v. right and not haves v. have-nots. Notice the options are always deeply rooted in the “haves” camp…

From the outside looking in (not American, but Canada has similar problems) it looks transparently theatrical. But then I look around in Canada with that same “outsider” perspective and, yeah, it’s just as bad here. Our Premier of Ontario is a slightly less embarrassing version of Trump. Claims to be “for the people” but gives little-to-no fucks whatsoever based on his actions.

Anyway… Ready whenever others are to burn this all down…