A whole swath of GOP voters appears firmly committed to not voting for Trump in November.

Donald Trump has a problem no matter what happens in New Hampshire on Tuesday night: There’s a whole swath of the Republican electorate and a good chunk of independents who appear firmly committed to not voting for him in November if he becomes the nominee.

It’s an issue that became starkly apparent in polling ahead of the Iowa caucuses, when an NBC News/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll of voters in that state found that fully 43 percent of Nikki Haley supporters said they would back President Joe Biden over Trump. And it’s a dynamic that has been on vivid display as the campaign shifted this week to New Hampshire.

“I can’t vote for Trump. He’s a crook. He’s too corrupt,” said Scott Simeone, 64, an independent voter from Amherst, who backed Trump in 2016 and 2020. “I voted for him, and I didn’t realize he’s as corrupt as he is.”

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -4410 months ago

    I understand our voting system. None of what you said mathematically proves anything.

    But if you want to be ignorant and spout falsehoods that is your right.

    I already pointed out 3 false ‘facts’, and I agree with your overall point. Just make it without the psuedo facts. Your point would be much more convincing without them.

    • @surewhynotlem
      link
      1910 months ago

      Assume 100 votes. Assume 49 people like Trump, 46 like Biden, and the remaining 4 dislike Trump.

      If those four people do nothing, the person they dislike wins.

      That’s just one example. If you want a more detailed analysis watch this https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo?si=0SGrFoSVvAPwG8QA

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -1210 months ago

        If 2 of the people in your example, who dislike trump, decide to not vote(while everyone else does); It is misleading to say that they are supporting trump by not voting. The only people supporting Trump are those who vote for him. Ditto for Biden.

        I understand the problems with first past the post. I regularly encourage people to support alternative voting systems like RCV through local initiatives like ballot measures. Represent.us is a great org that pushes for democracy reforms such as RCV, campaign finance reforms, and independent redistricting.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1210 months ago

          You seem to be confusing “helping” and “supporting”. They mean two different things, especially when put in context.

          When did anyone say they were supporting Trump? They said it would be helping Trump. Are you saying their votes, or lack thereof, didn’t matter? That their choice to stay home and not vote made no difference?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -710 months ago

            In what way are they two different thing? Support could be a more specific form of help but that’s about the only difference imo. They have essentially the same meaning to me. I don’t really want to quibble over semantics.

            Are you saying their votes, or lack thereof, didn’t matter? That their choice to stay home and not vote made no difference?

            I never said that. Not voting is not supporting anyone. Voting for Biden is supporting Biden. Voting for Trump is supporting Trump. Any claims that not voting supports a certain candidate are political rhetoric. Trying to conflate an individual not voting with supporting a certain candidate is nonsense.

            I don’t deny that there are organized actors who are trying to convince certain people not to vote and that some people saying that may be a part of such a campaign.

            I also don’t deny that on a national scale not voting does harm democrats, but that is entirely different than on the individual scale. It is a political trend in our current culture not a fact.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              510 months ago

              They have essentially the same meaning to me.

              Support: giving assistance to someone

              Help: making it easier for someone to do something

              Your lack of understanding doesn’t have any bearing on this discussion. That is your failing, and not my responsibility.

              I never said that. Not voting is not supporting anyone.

              This is why understanding what is being talked about is important. No one is saying a person not voting is supporting anyone. They are saying that it helps another individual by doing so. And you yourself are saying so, when you admit that those individuals not voting are effecting the outcome of the election, and because they didn’t vote, it helped the individual they didn’t want to be elected to win the election.

              I don’t really want to quibble over semantics.

              It’s ironic you say this when your entire argument is “they didn’t intend to support anyone so they aren’t helping anyone win.”

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                010 months ago

                Pasting the two definitions does not clarify what I was asking. You claim that they are two different things. In what way are they different to you?

                No one is saying a person not voting is supporting anyone. They are saying that it helps another individual by doing so. And you yourself are saying so, when you admit that those individuals not voting are effecting the outcome of the election, and because they didn’t vote, it helped the individual they didn’t want to be elected to win the election.

                Actually the OP explicitly said that. “Every single person who doesn’t vote for Joe Biden and could is supporting Donald Trump”

                Once again, I agree with the main idea of the OP. It is their false claims that are embedded within it that I am challenging. I do agree that not voting in some cases is helping Trump. But saying it is a mathematical fact is misleading. There is nothing mathematical about it.

                It’s ironic you say this when your entire argument is “they didn’t intend to support anyone so they aren’t helping anyone win.”

                Nice strawman. I did not say that.

        • @surewhynotlem
          link
          810 months ago

          They “support” (i.e. provide assistance to) Trump by lowering the bar to his success.

          Not all support is explicit.

    • @MegaUltraChicken
      link
      1810 months ago

      We don’t have to agree, that’s fine. You haven’t refuted a single thing I’ve said, just that you dont like it. I’ve very clearly explained my point and supported it with pretty simple logic. Last time: decreasing the number of votes in a pool lowers the votes needed to win. This benefits the minority because they now need less votes to win. The GOP is the minority. Thus, not voting benefits the GOP. I truly don’t know how to explain that clearer.

      There really isn’t anything left to discuss at this point. Best wishes!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      1210 months ago

      I understand our voting system. None of what you said mathematically proves anything.

      So, once they DO prove it you just refuse to listen.

      I’ve tried to debate this type of person. Eventually people just stop wasting their time and spread the word that it’s pointless. Watch for a situation you may misinterpret as no one wanting to challenge you because of your debate skills; you’re only half right.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -910 months ago

        You seem nice. I at no point refused to listen.

        I stated I agree with their overall point in all my comments. In general their point that not voting helps republicans is true. But it is not always true, therefore, it is not a ‘mathematical fact’. What I disagree with is their false claim that it is a mathematical fact. It is not certain and provable that voting for a not voting for a candidate or voting for a third party helps Republicans. There is no mathematical evidence for it provided.

        A single republican who previously voted for Trump voting for a third party or declining to vote in 2024 ‘helps’ Biden. That disproves the original claim that not voting or voting third party helps republicans.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -1210 months ago

        What do you claim I am wrong about or don’t understand? If I clearly don’t understand it then why did you feel the need to point that out?

        I value what you say and would not laugh at you for expressing your beliefs. :P

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -410 months ago

            The only reason you are calling it sea lioning is because it is massively downvoted. If this same discussion was upvoted you wouldn’t care.

            Sea lioning

            Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.

            Asking someone to explain their claim that I don’t know what I’m talking about is not a request for evidence. And I’m not feigning ignorance on this matter, I am explaining why the original claims in question were false.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              I applaud your attempts at getting people to understand your point. Nothing frustrates me more than seeing a point made, that might even be wrong, but every goddamn reply is just “hurdur you’re dense, you don’t get it. You are dumdum. Get with program buddo.”

              If they’re wrong, or don’t agree, EXPLAIN IT WITHOUT AD HOMENIN B.S

              Ughh…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -5
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Exactly that is exactly my point. Calling something a mathematical fact is in essence claiming it is always true. Which in this case is false. But at this point, some people are just following acceptable groupthink and not actually listening.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        110 months ago

        That is a good humorous example of a first past the post voting system and it flaws. I like the bit where Bobby is a pigeon.

        In any democratic zero-sum system, removing votes for one party passively enables another.

        No, actually not in any democratic system. In our current first past the post voting system, it is applicable (minus the electoral college). But (ranked choice voting)RCV or (Score then Automatic Runoff)STAR based systems the outcome would likely be different in some cases. That scenario also ignore the most common scenario where people simply don’t vote. In your scenario, everyone is required to vote. In real life, of the 25 bobby votes some would sit out, some would vote third party and some would vote for a ‘major’ candidate like Biden or Trump.