• @ByteJunk@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    174 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)?

  • @Vinny_93@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    134 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

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️
      link
      fedilink
      English
      4
      edit-2
      4 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.

      • Tlaloc_Temporal
        link
        fedilink
        24 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.

          • Tlaloc_Temporal
            link
            fedilink
            14 months ago

            Debates and actually adressing the problems.

            You can’t say “Party X just wants your money”, try “Our party will help you keep your money”, or even “Unlike some parties today, we will put your taxes to good use”.

            It’s a lot harder to make a compelling attack without a concrete focus. “Some parties are corrupt” is so trivially true that’s it embarassing, but “Party X is corrupt” is a rallying cry.

            It won’t prevent lies by any means, but since specific claims can only be nade about your own party it gives an advantage to talking about your own party instead of every ad being incredibly negative claims one step off of a flame war. Hopefully that leads to building a strong case and then defending that case during debates, but at least the ads will have less direct negativity.

            • @Feathercrown@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              14 months ago

              It would be more positive, but potentially less accurate. A party that does a lot of very specific and bad stuff but has some vaguely good policies to point towards would beat a neutral party, even if they shouldn’t.

              • Tlaloc_Temporal
                link
                fedilink
                24 months ago

                Maybe if you only see the political ads of a single party. It would still be better because you would know of even a single stance of one party.

                Last election, I can’t remember a single actual stance taken by any party based on political ads. They were all attack ads. Without discussion you couldn’t separate the resonable accusations from the trash anyway.

                Basing your politocal opinions purely on ads is a terrible stance anyway, and the party best at fearmongering will win there. There aren’t any restrictions on ads that can fix people forming opinions only on ads anyway, we’d need to encourage public political debates and discourse instead.

      • @Vinny_93@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        64 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.

    • @Nollij@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      24 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.

    • @John_McMurray@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Oh hey just remembered there was an incident like that in 1880 or so. White woman kicked off the ballot but still ran depending on definition

  • @Hux@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    774 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
      link
      fedilink
      344 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.

    • Flax
      link
      fedilink
      English
      24 months ago

      Bold of you to think the yanks will have a good enough sample size in 1000 years

    • @jeffw@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      12
      edit-2
      4 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
        link
        fedilink
        10
        edit-2
        4 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.

    • Nomecks
      link
      fedilink
      1
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Statistically it probably wasn’t 45 men by today’s definition.

        • @bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          44 months ago

          what are you talking about? racist? I think they’re saying that since ~2% of the population identifies as trans and more are probably eggs, we likely had one trans president before, but they weren’t out to the public, or perhaps even themselves.

          • @Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            -14 months ago

            I read it as him making a reference to black people being legally considered to be 3/5ths of a man back when the united states was founded. So if you go by those definitions, Obama wouldn’t have added up to “1”.

            Which is why I said thats pretty racist.

            • ඞmir
              link
              fedilink
              24 months ago

              But he said by today’s definition, and today the 3/5ths thing is in the past

    • @Vinny_93@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      74 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
        link
        fedilink
        34 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.

    • @Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      234 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
        link
        fedilink
        94 months ago

        Middle aged rave up in here! Woooooot

        Okay, I’m spent, going to bed now

        • @JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          4 months ago

          As someone whose almost 40…hyep.

          I remember one night me and a friend passed a handle of gin back and forth and drank the whole thing right from the bottle. What the hell happened? That was only like 15 years ago.

          • @Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            24 months ago

            You ever heard of Bacardi 151? It was an alcohol that was 151 proof. 75% alcohol by volume.

            My friend used to buy this $80 bottle. It was huge. Bought it every week. We’d do shots from 7pm, until ???. We’d wake up the next day, bottle empty, no clue what happened past 10pm, but we’d always find evidence we were up until at least 6am.

            They don’t even MAKE that stuff anymore because they said it was too dangerous.

            Now I drink like 6-8 beers and I’m thinking its getting late.

            • @nomous@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              1
              edit-2
              4 months ago

              They still make and sell 151. Hell I can buy Everclear (190 proof) at Walmart where I live.

              edit: I stand corrected they stopped making 151 in 2016, though Everclear is still on the market.