this post was submitted on 12 Aug 2026
20 points (95.5% liked)

politics

30739 readers
2566 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. 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 another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. 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.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple 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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 0 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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.

[–] joe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago (1 children)

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?

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 0 points 45 minutes ago (1 children)

The women also had a lot of people in lower offices so they had put in the ground work too.

[–] joe@lemmy.world 3 points 41 minutes ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 1 points 32 minutes ago* (last edited 30 minutes ago) (1 children)

Actually what I originally asked was:

Democrats get the presidency roughly fifty percent of the time.

What’s the leftist percentage?

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.

[–] joe@lemmy.world 1 points 13 minutes ago (1 children)

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.

[–] SatansMaggotyCumFart@piefed.world 1 points 12 minutes ago (1 children)

You responded directly after that question and still you are dodging it.

[–] joe@lemmy.world 1 points 1 minute ago

There's nothing to dodge; the answer is obvious. It's exactly why I asked about women in the same framing.

I'm beginning to think you're not interested in understanding your mistake.