Biden did support the crackdowns and arrests of about 3000 pro Palestinian protesters, including a law to label the protests as antisemitic and target universities that ‘tolerate’ the (peaceful) protests. He didn’t deport any protesters. He did back both that law and the law that can label any pro-palestinian (and any pro- marginalized group) organization as’ supporters of terrorism’ to revoke federal funding and add tax penalties, both of which fit into Project Esther, the plan Trump is currently enacting as part of Project 2025

Under pressure from donors and legislators, many universities cracked down on pro-Palestine activities on campuses. As many as 3,000 student protesters were arrested at the height of the protest movement in 2024.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/2/4/advocates-warn-trumps-threat-to-deport-pro-palestine-students-harms-all

That is a federal anti-discrimination law that bars discrimination based on shared ancestry, ethnic characteristics or national origin. Adding IHRA’s definition to the law would allow the federal Department of Education to restrict funding and other resources to campuses perceived as tolerating anti-Semitism.

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/5/1/us-house-passes-controversial-bill-that-expands-definition-of-anti-semitism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._National_Strategy_to_Counter_Antisemitism

The US House of Representatives on Thursday passed a bill that would grant the Treasury Department the power to revoke the tax-exempt status of any non-profit it deems to be a “terrorist supporting organisation”, which could put many pro-Palestinian groups critical of Israel’s war on Gaza in danger.

https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/us-house-passes-bill-targeting-charities-and-pro-palestine-groups

Wow, great analysis. Dispute the substance of the sources or quit trolling.

No, they aren’t “opinion pieces” just because you don’t agree with them; they are all backed by a significant amount of data.

The difference in support between the ACA and Obamacare is the difference rhetoric and messaging can make. And even then it still remains popular because of how the policy positivity benefits people’s material conditions.

The conversation that envelops the ACA has moved out of Washington and into the public domain. Opponents of the ACA, who call it “Obamacare,” regularly only emphasize what they perceive as negative aspects of the bill: that doctors will become overwhelmed by an influx of patients, that people will lose control over who their health care providers are and health insurance carrier is. The ACA’s supporters, who remember to call it the Affordable Care Act, tout what they see as highlights: that people will no longer be denied coverage based on preexisting conditions and that children can remain on their parents health insurance until age 26.

https://harvardpolitics.com/aca-vs-obamacare-american-people/

Messaging matters. Policy matters.

https://blueprint2024.com/polling/harris-poll-positive-message-8-8/

https://blueprint-research.com/polling/distance-biden-ads-message-test-10-15/

Again, not true. I’ve already provided sources that show exactly how policy can gain or lose voters.

Policy support is irrelevant

It’s obvious not irrelevant, as the first three links show. Policy matters significantly. You saying policy “doesn’t matter” does not make it true. Policy affects people’s material conditions in tangible ways, and with fascist policies it affects them in violent ways.

Meant to reply to where you said

Bernie Sanders supporters are a small minority of the Democratic party. The overwhelming majority are centrists.

Which is not true when you look at policy support