Like everything you’ve ever said here, that makes no sense.
Dems are concerned she’ll be a spoiler candidate whose votes will help Trump win (and they’re right about that), not that Stein would be a viable candidate— this has been explained to you. You’re conflating the two.
And, more faulty logic:
If there weren’t lots of people disagreeing with you and voting third party, then you’d have nothing to worry about
Once again, Dems aren’t worried she would win or that she’s popular (as neither are true). And it doesn’t take “lots” to spoil the election, just “enough”.
Single-digit percentages - a tiny fraction - does not constitute “a lot” nor “popular”.
Again, your refusal to accept reality does not make you correct. It doesn’t even make you popular.
Like everything you’ve ever said here, that makes no sense.
Dems are concerned she’ll be a spoiler candidate whose votes will help Trump win (and they’re right about that), not that Stein would be a viable candidate— this has been explained to you. You’re conflating the two.
And, more faulty logic:
Once again, Dems aren’t worried she would win or that she’s popular (as neither are true). And it doesn’t take “lots” to spoil the election, just “enough”.
Single-digit percentages - a tiny fraction - does not constitute “a lot” nor “popular”.
Again, your refusal to accept reality does not make you correct. It doesn’t even make you popular.
They are worried that enough people don’t agree with them and will vote third party. They even made an ad about it. Thank you! :)
So? That certainly doesn’t explain your nonsense logic.
Well there are enough people who believe in my “nonsense logic,” that it’s causing Democrats to be scared. Oh well. Thanks! :)
Argument as populum— being popular does not make you correct. Neither does your refusal to accept reality.
Again, what led you to the conclusion you made? The facts don’t support it.
I stand by what I said. Thank you! :)
Which was flawed logic and not based on facts.
Why would you do that?