506
submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Hux@lemmy.ml 77 points 3 months ago

Kinda depends on how you are measuring it.

It sounds like you are just going by elected presidents, but quite a few were multiple-term presidents, and those presidents had multiple elections with different opponents.

And sometimes, a losing opponent would go on to win a later election.

Also, no one ran against George Washington, twice.

Out of 59 elections (if you include Washington), I think there have been 49 white guys and one white lady who have lost a US Presidential election at least once (and may or may not have gone on to be President in a later election).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_presidential_elections_by_popular_vote_margin

I am exactly as fun at parties as you would imagine.

[-] Shiggles@sh.itjust.works 34 points 3 months ago

It’s also technically a lot more if you remember that we do in fact have several marginalized parties running in every general election.

[-] grue@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

And multiple candidates per party who lose during the primary stage.

[-] Modva@lemmy.world 42 points 3 months ago

I like Kamala. You have a real shot at taking Trump out with her. The stakes could not be higher. Maybe for the world. He is a truly dangerous person.

I wonder if I can get the next statement out without venom coming back at me, but I'll say it anyway:

I think you guys should try hard to steer the rhetoric away from anything polarizing (race or gender), and do everything you can to create inclusion (from anyone). I'm seeing a lot of things like that, and I don't think it plays out into more support. And there's nothing more important now than maximizing support.

[-] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 14 points 3 months ago

I feel similarly, but my whole life Democrats keep thinking "maybe if I compromise with the right wing and move right, I'll get more votes" and saying aw dang better luck next time when the right wing's dwindling base votes red down the whole ticket, while party insiders actively sideline Democrats who win big on left wing messaging. So when I hear Harris striking a tone of inclusion and unity, I'm glad because I feel it's laudable, but I'm also not thrilled because I've heard this song before.

[-] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 5 points 3 months ago

The problem isn't appealing to centrist moderates. The problem is getting leftists excited to vote. Polarising is good.

[-] Maalus@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

"polarising" is how you lose elections.

[-] MindTraveller@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago

Funny, I thought it's how the Republicans won 2016

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Carighan@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

She's the first candidate in a while where I feel she might genuinely be good as a president, not just "not bad".

[-] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 33 points 3 months ago

Only if you only count two parties.

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 23 points 3 months ago

Dude....I'm 40. I probably don't have the energy for ONE party tonight. Let alone TWO!!!

UGGGGHHHHHH........

slaps own face really hard, chugs 750ml of whiskey, and splashes some water on my face

OK.....LETS DOOOO THISSSSSS!!!!! RAAAAWWWWRRRRRRR!!!!!

[-] southsamurai@sh.itjust.works 9 points 3 months ago

Middle aged rave up in here! Woooooot

Okay, I'm spent, going to bed now

[-] Burninator05@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

I'm already there.

[-] sxan@midwest.social 3 points 3 months ago

a few moments later

Zzzzzzzzzzz.....

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Vinny_93@lemmy.world 7 points 3 months ago

Someone said to me that even if the majority would now vote for a third party, they wouldn't get anything done because the Senate Ave Congress are still all dems and reps.

I don't know enough about how US elections work though

[-] themurphy@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 months ago

It's just an excuse.

They will be hard to deal with, but for the first time ever, they need to learn compromise.

It also opens up for legitimate third part candidates in next Senate election.

[-] ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml 26 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Trump has also never won the general election for POTUS against a man but is undefeated against women so far, so let's hope that changes. For America, and the rest of the world, he better not win.

[-] DontTreadOnBigfoot@lemmy.world 11 points 3 months ago

Beating women does seem to be on-Brand for him...

[-] itsnotits@lemmy.world 5 points 3 months ago

he'd* better not win

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] callouscomic@lemm.ee 24 points 3 months ago

I have also never lost an Olympics, or lost a Formula 1 race, or lost a fight against Mike Tyson, or lost the Super Bowl.

[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 10 points 3 months ago

This is your year dude, good luck in Paris!

[-] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 23 points 3 months ago

Ignoring how meaningless the statement is in the first place, obligatory XKCD.

https://xkcd.com/1122/

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Interestingly, if Kamala wins, that last streak will still hold true.

[-] reddig33@lemmy.world 20 points 3 months ago

I know she didn’t make it all the way to the general election, but I’d like to take a moment to remind everyone about Shirley Chisholm.

https://www.history.com/news/shirley-chisholm-career-milestones

[-] ChihuahuaOfDoom@lemmy.world 18 points 3 months ago
[-] jeffw@lemmy.world 12 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

facepalm thanks, fixed the titled

Edit: I’m still wrong. But this was a shower thought. There’s a reason this community isn’t called “well thought out comments”

[-] Cuberoot@lemmynsfw.com 10 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Don't correct that. He's wrong. It's way more than 46, most multi-term presidents defeated several different contenders.

Edit: I got 63 white men and 1 white woman, not counting pre 12th amendment elections, not counting minor candidates who didn't win any states electors. There's a lot more if you include minor candidates, but then one of them would be Cynthia McKinney who is a black woman.

[-] snooggums@midwest.social 6 points 3 months ago

Also a lot of people ran in the general election that weren't members of the two major parties.

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 4 points 3 months ago

And I raaaan. I ran so far awaaaay.

I just ran.

I ran all night and daaaay!!!

........I couldn't get away.

[-] Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world 2 points 3 months ago

I voted for Aunt Jemima in 1978, after I was born at age 6 without a face in 1983.

[-] CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.work 3 points 3 months ago

That's right.

load more comments (7 replies)
[-] ByteJunk@lemmy.world 17 points 3 months ago

I get the feeling in OPs post, but for those unfamiliar, there are more people on the ballot other than the 2 main picks. This even varies by state, as they can have different criteria for defining who makes it to the ballot.

So perhaps a black woman has at some point ran for president (as in, made it to the ballot at least)?

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Hell, at least one, Shirley Chisholm, campaigned to be on the Democrat ballot in 1977. That counts as running for president, even if they don't win the primary right?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[-] redrumBot@lemmy.ml 16 points 3 months ago

From wikipedia:

Charlene Alexander Mitchell (June 8, 1930 – December 14, 2022) was an American international socialist, feminist, labor and civil rights activist. In 1968, she became the first Black woman candidate for President of the United States.[1][2]

Charlene Alexander Mitchell

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 13 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Way more people than that have lost in the general election (hundreds, if not thousands), including Cynthia McKinney in 2008 as the most successful black female loser, but plenty of other black women have lost the general election.

[-] Vinny_93@lemmy.world 13 points 3 months ago

What really bugs me is that both sides are just attacking the other rather than talking about why they are the right choice. US elections are always about smear campaigns

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 4 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

I remember the first election I was old enough to vote in (the 2004 election) paying close attention to all the political ads I saw and, at least for that election, only the Republican ads were focused on "other guy bad, so vote me." The opposing side's ads were entirely focused on their own platform and never even mentioned the other side.

[-] halvar@lemm.ee 3 points 3 months ago

From what I see most elections always are.

[-] Vinny_93@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

It's not what I'm used to in the Netherlands. There are personal attacks sometimes, but mostly by guys who don't have the best reputation in the first place.

[-] Tlaloc_Temporal@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago

This is most of my memory of Canadian elections too. I wish even mentioning other parties wasn't allowed in campagin material, like how in some parts of government politicians can only refer to each other by title and not by name.

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Nollij@sopuli.xyz 2 points 3 months ago

There was a time, a few decades ago, when there was a real demand to get away from the negativity of most campaigns. Everyone says they wanted it, polls clearly showed it, etc.

But then there was another study which analyzed the effectiveness of campaigns (i.e. if they won) vs how negative they went.

Negativity was clearly proven to be the winning tactic.

[-] Etterra@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago

Sample size too small, please try again in 1000 years.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

It’s equally valid to say that a black woman has lost the election every time.

Edit: Vacuous truth

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Jul 2024
506 points (89.8% liked)

Showerthoughts

29522 readers
1106 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.

Rules

  1. All posts must be showerthoughts
  2. The entire showerthought must be in the title
  3. Avoid politics (NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out)
  4. Posts must be original/unique
  5. Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS