• Furbag@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    11 hours ago

    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.

    • Zaktor@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 hours ago

      So we should run only run black men since your shitty understanding of statistics dictates they have a 100% chance to win.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 hours ago

        I never said that, but have fun arguing with the strawman you worked so hard to build up.

    • lennybird@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      11 hours ago

      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.

      • FarmTaco@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 hours ago

        When your logic is absolutely ignoring entire swaths of reality, I think its interesting for you to try to attack someone elses logic.

      • Furbag@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        11 hours ago

        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!

        • lennybird@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          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.