politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles. Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have comments or posts removed, weaponize reports, or violate the code of conduct, will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
How many black candidates lost to white candidates in a post-primary presidential race?
That's right, zero.
How many female candidates have lost to male candidates in a post-primary presidential race?
Two, or in other words, all of them.
You can make an argument to say that there was racist gatekeeping back when Obama was running, and that was absolutely true, but we never actually had a situation where a political party fronted a black man and lost. We actually do have data that shows that America rejected a female presidential candidate twice. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that America simply isn't socially developed enough to be capable of looking past the misogyny and we should take that into consideration if our goal is to win.
So we should run only run black men since your shitty understanding of statistics dictates they have a 100% chance to win.
I never said that, but have fun arguing with the strawman you worked so hard to build up.
Ar... Are you really going to use Samples N=1 and N=2 as some sort of statistical relevance? Wtaf?
This logic is most asinine. By that logic, the vast majority of Presidential losses were of white men, and my sample is higher!
Two non-charismatic inauthentic candidates lost, and race and gender had little to do with it because the bigots already coalesce under the maga banner; the problem was that their lack of vision, charisma, authenticity led to the reachable swing-voters either sitting on the couch, or voting for Trump on failed perceptions that he was better for the economy.
When your logic is absolutely ignoring entire swaths of reality, I think its interesting for you to try to attack someone elses logic.
Quaint deflection.
So I guess your excuse if AOC or whatever female candidate the DNC happen to trot out next loses to the next guy, be that JD Vance, some other MAGA nutjob, or even Trump taking a shot at a third term, is that she isn't charismatic or authentic, is that right?
No, no, it couldn't possibly be because America has a misogyny problem. I mean, never mind the fact that black men earned the right to vote before any woman did, that's not relevant at all. History never repeats itself. I'm sure those basement dwelling neckbeards and macho-man wanna-bes will TOTALLY sign on to canvas for AOC. I'm sure her being a woman will not be a factor at all, people will be so enamored with her great policy that they will forget about it entirely!
I think it's hilarious that if we put Tim Kaine or Biden himself (who was losing by a larger margin than Harris in polling) in, they would've lost just the same if not more so... Yet you wouldn't be here saying, "Golly gee-wizz, I think people are sexist and tired of old white men! I mean, the majority registered voters ARE women after all!" — Therein revealing one's own gatekeeping sexist dogma.