If you’re an unhappy voter and want other unhappy voters to hold their noses and vote for the major candidate they least dislike, think about the Golden Rule.
It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?
It doesn’t matter how many candidates third parties pull from.
If no candidate gets 270 votes, the election is decided by the House. That’s at the electoral college level, but see jordan lund’s breakdown above and how a majority “not Trump” votes will be split among candidates but Trump still wins the state because the “not Trump” voters couldn’t get their shit together and coalesce around a single candidate.
And if the election goes to the House, Assuming Republicans maintain control, take one guess who they’re going to elect?
And why is everyone assuming that all of the third party voters would be Harris voters if they were forced to choose between the two main candidates? This is where the logic goes south. It assumes that the third party voters are some homogenous bloc of disenfranchised “not Trump” voters.
Thats not how this works. The one making the claim provides some evidence.
The article makes an unsubstantianted claim that the 3rd party voters are all Harris > Trump. I asked for some sort of proof of this. And you have responded by asking me for proof refuting their claim. Burden of proof is not on me. I am just asking you, or anyone else to back up these claims, because the authors did not
You’re not paying attention at all. I am not the one making an argument. This article is making an argument. This article makes no attempt to support it’s claims with any evidence. I am bringing that deficit to light and asking that you, the article authors, or anyone else provide some backing for the claim it makes. That’s just how logical debate is done. There’s an awful lot of people in this thread ready to argue, throw mud, brush me off…pretty much everything except provide the proof i have asked for.
If anyone is blindly following an argument without any logical backing then i’d implore them dig a little further. If you feel that there is some obvious support for the claims the article makes that i am simply ignoring, then, by all means, shut me up by pointing towards the data.
It doesn’t matter how many candidates third parties pull from.
If no candidate gets 270 votes, the election is decided by the House. That’s at the electoral college level, but see jordan lund’s breakdown above and how a majority “not Trump” votes will be split among candidates but Trump still wins the state because the “not Trump” voters couldn’t get their shit together and coalesce around a single candidate.
And if the election goes to the House, Assuming Republicans maintain control, take one guess who they’re going to elect?
And why is everyone assuming that all of the third party voters would be Harris voters if they were forced to choose between the two main candidates? This is where the logic goes south. It assumes that the third party voters are some homogenous bloc of disenfranchised “not Trump” voters.
Aren’t they though?
No.
Got any evidence of all these right-leaning 3rd party supporters?
Thats not how this works. The one making the claim provides some evidence. The article makes an unsubstantianted claim that the 3rd party voters are all Harris > Trump. I asked for some sort of proof of this. And you have responded by asking me for proof refuting their claim. Burden of proof is not on me. I am just asking you, or anyone else to back up these claims, because the authors did not
Lol okay then I’ll assume you’re pulling this whole argument from your ass. Rofl. “Burden of proof” lol what a copout.
You’re not paying attention at all. I am not the one making an argument. This article is making an argument. This article makes no attempt to support it’s claims with any evidence. I am bringing that deficit to light and asking that you, the article authors, or anyone else provide some backing for the claim it makes. That’s just how logical debate is done. There’s an awful lot of people in this thread ready to argue, throw mud, brush me off…pretty much everything except provide the proof i have asked for.
If anyone is blindly following an argument without any logical backing then i’d implore them dig a little further. If you feel that there is some obvious support for the claims the article makes that i am simply ignoring, then, by all means, shut me up by pointing towards the data.