How is it only and always a vote for the worst candidate, and not a vote for the better candidate? Like, couldn’t Republicans also argue that by not voting, you’re actually voting for Harris? From an objective standpoint, who would be correct?
Because historically the Republicans have had better turnout in swing states. Anger and hyperbole are great motivators, regardless of topic. Democrat-leaning folks tend not to be as angry, scared, and swayed by cult-like leaders, so tend to be more complacent. It’s a matter of trying to even the behavioral playing field. Not to mention the gerrymandering fuckery that has made it even harder for democrats to be fairly represented in crucial geographic areas. Finally, consider where the underhanded tactics are coming from, and rather than sink to that level, an OVERWHELMING and unquestionable show of support is needed for those tactics not to be successful.
It entirely depends on who you would vote for if pushed to vote for the viable candidates. If you would vote for Harris but don’t vote, it helps Trump because that’s one less vote he needs to beat. If you would vote for Trump but don’t vote, it helps Harris because that’s one less vote she needs to beat. So it’s true for every individual’s worst candidate.
When campaigns/people use this message, they’re usually pretty confident them and the person they’re talking to agree on who is the worst.
If you’re siding with the more extremist candidate, then you’ve probably made up your mind to vote.
If you haven’t made up your mind yet, then you’re probably doubting about the more moderate candidate. The post is about setting aside those doubts and vote anyway.
But that’s not the campaign. This is citizens telling other citizens that not casting a vote IS voting - for the obviously worse candidate.
Which you guys have been doing for decades and it has resulted in leftists NEVER getting anything they want.
Honest question…
How is it only and always a vote for the worst candidate, and not a vote for the better candidate? Like, couldn’t Republicans also argue that by not voting, you’re actually voting for Harris? From an objective standpoint, who would be correct?
Because historically the Republicans have had better turnout in swing states. Anger and hyperbole are great motivators, regardless of topic. Democrat-leaning folks tend not to be as angry, scared, and swayed by cult-like leaders, so tend to be more complacent. It’s a matter of trying to even the behavioral playing field. Not to mention the gerrymandering fuckery that has made it even harder for democrats to be fairly represented in crucial geographic areas. Finally, consider where the underhanded tactics are coming from, and rather than sink to that level, an OVERWHELMING and unquestionable show of support is needed for those tactics not to be successful.
It entirely depends on who you would vote for if pushed to vote for the viable candidates. If you would vote for Harris but don’t vote, it helps Trump because that’s one less vote he needs to beat. If you would vote for Trump but don’t vote, it helps Harris because that’s one less vote she needs to beat. So it’s true for every individual’s worst candidate.
When campaigns/people use this message, they’re usually pretty confident them and the person they’re talking to agree on who is the worst.
It’s person by person. A trumper helps Harris if they stay home.
IF you have a preference between the two major candidates
AND you stay home or vote third party
THEN you have helped the major candidate you dislike
Any vote not cast will strengthen the side which is likely to assert a win no matter how badly they lose.
If you’re siding with the more extremist candidate, then you’ve probably made up your mind to vote.
If you haven’t made up your mind yet, then you’re probably doubting about the more moderate candidate. The post is about setting aside those doubts and vote anyway.