politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
She should have been honest and told us she was going to lose all along.
"Losing is our strategy!" - Dems
True. They only won in 1992, 1996, 2008, 2012, and 2020. That's only 5 of the last 9 Presidential elections! And of course they lost 3 in a row from 1980 to 1988.
Democrats definitely are good at losing Presidential elections. The only party with a similar record is the Republican party.
lol, 1992 was 32 years ago. Also the last time the ~~Redskins~~ Commanders won a Superbowl. 1996 was 28 years ago. Gen Z had not even been born.
Obama won 2008 and 2012 on a campaign of Hope for Change. A populist platform. That the Dems then squandered.
Biden didn't win 2020, people voted against Trump. And then the Biden admin squandered the high ground. And then failed to provide for the processes to select a new Democratic leader, and instead anointed his successor, who failed spectacularly.
But, if you can look at the last 32+ years, and rationalize it to yourself, nothing I have to add will sway your decision.
This is some insane rationalization. 5 of the last 9, but the first 2 don't count because they were a long time ago, and then the next 2 don't count because it was a populist, and the last one didn't count because the other guy was worse.
Yeah, I guess if you look at it that way, the Democrats do nothing but lose....
You cherry picked 9. Republicans won 11 of the last 19. See, everyone can do that.
And? 11 of the 19 is not "losing is our strategy." It's close to even (9.5 of 19).
But you forgot that none of the 8 Democratic wins count because of reasons.
8/19 vs 11 of 19. 42 to 58 percent. A 16 point difference seems "close to even" to you?
Well OK-- that explains how we came to the last election loss after we were assured the race was "close to even".
I'd hate to see your conclusions in a stats class.
A guy who cherry picked his population data so it seems to support his hypothesis wants to pretend he's using stats? thats very cute.
My claim was that Democrats aren't consistent losers, and it's ridiculous to treat them as such because of the result of the last election. Your counterexample fails to dispute that. 5 wins out of 9 or 11 losses out of 19 are not differentiable from a coin toss. Same with 1 loss out of 1, 1 loss out of 2, 2 losses out of 3, 2 of 4, 2 of 5, 3 of 6, 4 of 7, 4 of 8, 4 of 9, 5 of 10, 6 of 11, or even 7 of 12 (going back to first Reagan win).
Unless, of course, you discount some or all of the wins post hoc with silly excuses.
My point regarding stats: If you flip a coin 19 times and you get 8 heads, there is a 16 point spread between the frequency of heads and tails. Should we conclude the coin is unevenly weighted?
And there you go again equating coin flips to elections. They are not even close to the same thing.
Its not even apples and oranges, its apples and horses. Time to use the old block button-- it has not been a pleasure.
A coin flip is an analogy for both sides having equal probabilities of winning. The original comment argued Democrats were consistent losers in Presidential elections. If their win rate could easily be accomplished by coin tosses, that's obviously not true.
You weren't reading what I was writing all along, so the block doesn't really make a difference.
lol, ok