It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?

  • @jordanlundM
    link
    92 months ago

    Because if they were interested in voting for Trump, they’d be voting for Trump. When the choice is Trump vs. Not Trump, Not Trump wins. Even in 2016 that was true.

    • @lunarul
      link
      72 months ago

      What the other person is saying is that you are splitting voters in three categories: pro-Trump, pro-Harris, anti-Trump. But that third group obviosuly doesn’t like either of the two main candidates, not just Trump. And if forced to vote for one of them, there’s no reason to assume all will pick Harris.

      • @jordanlundM
        link
        12 months ago

        Nope. Harris doesn’t enter into it. There are two sides, Pro Trump and Anti Trump.

        If you want Anti Trump to win, you have to pull behind one candidate. Splitting it 5 ways guarantees Anti Trump cannot win.

        There is only one candidate who happens to be at the same level as Trump, the Democratic candidate.

        Which means holding your nose and voting for Harris, failing to do so gets you Trump. You don’t have to be Pro Harris at all, you just have to hate Trump more.

        • @lunarul
          link
          3
          edit-2
          2 months ago

          Ok, I get what you are saying, but it sounds biased the way you’re wording it. You could’ve just as well said Pro Harris and Anti Harris. Trump is the only one who can realistically beat Harris, so if you’re Anti Harris you should vote Trump, even if you’re not Pro Trump.

          So yeah, if you’re Anti Trump you should vote Harris and if you’re Anti Harris you should vote Trump. If you’re Anti both of them then tough luck because the electoral system in the US doesn’t care about you. One of them will be president no matter what you do, so if you want any control over which one, then vote for one of them even if you hate both.

          • JuergenOP
            link
            fedilink
            32 months ago

            Agreed.

            Would it be nicer if we lived in a multi party system? Probably. Do we? No. Voting as though we are is not useful (maybe unless you live in a state that you are 100% certain can not be flipped).

            If you hate one candidate even slightly less than the other, for example because the former has not yet stated that they want to punish colleges that allow pro Palestine demonstrations, vote for that first one.

          • @jordanlundM
            link
            22 months ago

            Harris isn’t the threat to the American system of government that Trump is.

    • voiceofchris
      link
      32 months ago

      A poll in which “First choice is someone other than Trump” beats “Trump” would indicate that “Trump” has less than 50% of the vote. The same can be said of Harris.

      A poll in which “Anybody but Trump” beats “Trump” would indicate that third party voters do indeed favor Harris over Trump.

      Do we have any polling of the second type? I am not able to find any. This type of polling would be exactly what i’ve been asking for in this thread.

      • @davidagain
        link
        02 months ago

        Trump has stronger negative polling in the general population than Harris so it’s not as absurd as you’re making out. Trump is also much more strongly polarising and always has been.

        • voiceofchris
          link
          22 months ago

          I am not saying it’s absurd. I am asking for data.

          • @davidagain
            link
            -12 months ago

            You’re using an over-used debating technique where you cast doubt on others by demanding proof of any claims you don’t like but letting statements you agree with stand unchallenged.

            It’s not so far away from trumps habit of calling anything that he doesn’t like fake news.

            You’re painting yourself as a neutral who is just asking for information, when in fact you’re heavily partisan. It’s misleading.

            • voiceofchris
              link
              12 months ago

              You’re using an over-used debating technique where you cast doubt on others by demanding proof of any claims you don’t like but letting statements you agree with stand unchallenged.

              Actually what i’m doing is pointing out a glaring logical flaw in the article that is the subject of this post. The fact that others are willing to accept the conclusions drawn by the unsupported claim of this article is worrisome. It speaks to a lack of critical thinking and a wiillingness accept illogical arguments simply because they fit with ones world view. It is fairly absurd to me that i need to spell this out.

              And i have reaponded to you elsewhere with plenty of data that supports me. Unfortunately no one else in this thread has attempted to do the same in support of the article’s claim. Not one single person.

              You’re painting yourself as a neutral who is just asking for information, when in fact you’re heavily partisan. It’s misleading.

              I would be entertained to hear how exactly you think i am partisan. I am, in fact, one of these braindead third party voters that everyone in this thread is raging against. About as far from a partisan as one can get.

              And you, and everyone else here, has had ample time and opportunity to provide any bit of data that you like to show that i am wrong. But y’all consistently turn to attacks against me or my character instead. And that right there, my friend, is a true Trump tactic.

              If you are right then show the data.

              • @davidagain
                link
                02 months ago

                Me:

                You’re using an over-used debating technique where you cast doubt on others by demanding proof of any claims you don’t like but letting statements you agree with stand unchallenged.

                You: condescending waffle and deflection. Also you:

                If you are right then show the data.

                When I point out your asymmetric proof demands you just repeat them.

                • voiceofchris
                  link
                  12 months ago

                  I have responded in good faith to each of your criticisms. I have provided polling data when you asked. I have not once waffled… what do you think that means, exactly?

                  I continue to await anyones data driven response to my initial question. “Why are we assuming that all of the third party votes would go to Harris if they were forced to choose between her and Trump?”

                  If you have no real input to add then just stop responding.

                  • @davidagain
                    link
                    02 months ago

                    If you are right then show the data.

                    When I point out your asymmetric proof demands you just repeat them.

                    I continue to await anyones data driven response to my initial question.

                    …and there it is.