Leftists talk about it all the time because we’re forced to defend ourselves against disingenuous “electability” concerns from a political faction that lost twice to a rapist and pedophile with the mental acuity of a 6-year-old. The typical centrist Democrat is historically unelectable and yet they still feel like they’re in a position to lecture progressives on electability, when it should be the other way around.
But women have gotten many, many more votes than leftists in presidential elections so far so the average voter is definitely more interested in voting for a woman than a leftist.
I know that the amount of sexism with democrats and leftists (just look at the reactions here to the Graham Platner scandal) definitely played a part in Clinton and Harris losing but Biden winning.
But women have gotten many, many more votes than leftists in presidential elections so far so the average voter is definitely more interested in voting for a woman than a leftist.
But there was a point where women had no votes for president, was that a reason for them not to run? Do you really not see the error?
Let’s keep those goalposts where they are for a little longer: are you still saying that because any given subset of people haven’t been in past presidential elections, they shouldn’t run for president? I think it’s important to grasp what that does to the pool of people that are considered suitable for the presidency.
You didn’t ask me the question, but it’s not a useful question to ask.
I’m trying to help you understand the flaw in your reasoning; to see that this exact reason would have only straight white Christian male landowners ever be president. I am fairly confident that’s not what you want, so I’m hoping you’ll be open to acknowledging the flaw in what you’re implying.
The most electable Democrat in US history was FDR, who ran on a platform with far more in common with the DSA platform than the modern Democratic party. The DSA is employing an entryist strategy to restore the Democratic party to its former glory during the rollout of the New Deal. The recent wave of DSA-backed candidates are fully cognizant of the fact we have an entrenched two-party system and are acting accordingly.
Enough time for the Democratic party to completely abandon the economic populism that once made it so popular they had to create term limits to put a stop to it.
Biden got the most votes of any presidential candidate ever and you’re telling me about democratic electability vs leftists who have gotten a maximum of like two percent of the popular vote?
If you were arguing in good faith you wouldn’t use a statistic that is deliberately misleading due to not being adjusted for population growth. You’re also moving the goalposts; we were talking about progressives running on the Democratic party ticket and you’re bringing up vote percentages for third parties, after we’ve already established that we have an entrenched two-party system that makes third parties unviable.
Leftists talk about it all the time because we’re forced to defend ourselves against disingenuous “electability” concerns from a political faction that lost twice to a rapist and pedophile with the mental acuity of a 6-year-old. The typical centrist Democrat is historically unelectable and yet they still feel like they’re in a position to lecture progressives on electability, when it should be the other way around.
Democrats get the presidency roughly fifty percent of the time.
What’s the leftist percentage?
This logic suggests that women need not apply for presidential elections, after all, men have won them 100% of the time.
Is that really the rationale you want to lean on?
I think we can do better than that, myself.
But women have gotten many, many more votes than leftists in presidential elections so far so the average voter is definitely more interested in voting for a woman than a leftist.
I know that the amount of sexism with democrats and leftists (just look at the reactions here to the Graham Platner scandal) definitely played a part in Clinton and Harris losing but Biden winning.
But there was a point where women had no votes for president, was that a reason for them not to run? Do you really not see the error?
The women also had a lot of people in lower offices so they had put in the ground work too.
Let’s keep those goalposts where they are for a little longer: are you still saying that because any given subset of people haven’t been in past presidential elections, they shouldn’t run for president? I think it’s important to grasp what that does to the pool of people that are considered suitable for the presidency.
Actually what I originally asked was:
But you keep dodging that question.
It kind of sounds like you’re setting up to try to equate leftists and the struggles of black americans.
You didn’t ask me the question, but it’s not a useful question to ask.
I’m trying to help you understand the flaw in your reasoning; to see that this exact reason would have only straight white Christian male landowners ever be president. I am fairly confident that’s not what you want, so I’m hoping you’ll be open to acknowledging the flaw in what you’re implying.
That statistic implies nothing except a confirmation of our deeply entrenched two-party system.
Unfortunately it is our reality for the foreseeable future and it would be for the best of everyone to be able to recognize that fact.
The most electable Democrat in US history was FDR, who ran on a platform with far more in common with the DSA platform than the modern Democratic party. The DSA is employing an entryist strategy to restore the Democratic party to its former glory during the rollout of the New Deal. The recent wave of DSA-backed candidates are fully cognizant of the fact we have an entrenched two-party system and are acting accordingly.
FDR was president almost a hundred years ago.
Enough time for the Democratic party to completely abandon the economic populism that once made it so popular they had to create term limits to put a stop to it.
Biden got the most votes of any presidential candidate ever and you’re telling me about democratic electability vs leftists who have gotten a maximum of like two percent of the popular vote?
If you were arguing in good faith you wouldn’t use a statistic that is deliberately misleading due to not being adjusted for population growth. You’re also moving the goalposts; we were talking about progressives running on the Democratic party ticket and you’re bringing up vote percentages for third parties, after we’ve already established that we have an entrenched two-party system that makes third parties unviable.