" in multiple battleground states that Biden won with thin margins last time, a growing chorus of community leaders say his handling of the war in Gaza and Islamophobia at home jeopardize his path to victory in the Electoral College, with many Muslim American and Arab American voters saying they plan to either stay home next November, vote for a write-in or a third-party presidential candidate, or simply leave the top of the ticket blank."
Not voting for Biden isn't the same as voting for Trump. If it was, then not voting for Trump would mean that they were defacto voting for Biden.
Votes are earned, otherwise people are just hostages. If Biden, and Democrats at large, care about their votes, they'll earn them.
In a 2 party system, not voting for a party that does not rely on voter suppression, is giving a vote to a party that does.
Conservatism needs disenfranchised votes, they always benefit from lower voter turn out.
No, a +1 for Candidate A and a -1 for Candidate B is a swing of 2. A -1 for Candidate B is a swing of 1. 1 =/= 2.
Mathematically yes, you are correct. Politically, no. Conservatism needs low voter turnout to win. More voters = Higher likelihood of a more centrist/progressive victory. There is a reason conservative governments all over the planet are pushing for disenfranchising voters.
Disenfranchising disproportionately affecting one party over another is not the same as “Not voting for X is a vote for Y.”
Were that actually true, Trump would have easily won the 2020 election with 154 million votes, since we’re counting the 80 million nonvoters as votes for him.
Disenfranchising reduces the total number of votes required to get a majority, so not voting for Biden helps whatever republican he ends up going against. Remember how McCarthy only got in the house speakership because Gaetz marked himself as present instead of voting for him? It's the same thing.
So Trump got 80 million extra votes last election and won in a landslide?
No, but Biden could've had an extra 80 million votes were it not for a lot of people being unable to vote.
So nonvoters were not voters for Trump, but instead simply voters who didn’t vote Biden?
Who knows?
Yes, I read the article before posting it...
And, yes, in a 2-party, winner-take-all system, not voting is the same as voting for Trump.
On election day, I think most Muslims know that not voting or voting for Trump or any other Republican is directly against their interests.
Votes are earned, otherwise people are just hostages.
Whole lotta Stockholm syndrome in this thread.
And they’re proud of it! This is a whole lot of “if I just love them the right (pun intended) way, they’ll love me back!”
They’re not earned and people are voluntary hostages like their so noble for it.
Did you read the article?
" in multiple battleground states that Biden won with thin margins last time, a growing chorus of community leaders say his handling of the war in Gaza and Islamophobia at home jeopardize his path to victory in the Electoral College, with many Muslim American and Arab American voters saying they plan to either stay home next November, vote for a write-in or a third-party presidential candidate, or simply leave the top of the ticket blank."
Not voting for Biden isn't the same as voting for Trump. If it was, then not voting for Trump would mean that they were defacto voting for Biden.
Votes are earned, otherwise people are just hostages. If Biden, and Democrats at large, care about their votes, they'll earn them.
In a 2 party system, not voting for a party that does not rely on voter suppression, is giving a vote to a party that does.
Conservatism needs disenfranchised votes, they always benefit from lower voter turn out.
No, a +1 for Candidate A and a -1 for Candidate B is a swing of 2. A -1 for Candidate B is a swing of 1. 1 =/= 2.
Mathematically yes, you are correct. Politically, no. Conservatism needs low voter turnout to win. More voters = Higher likelihood of a more centrist/progressive victory. There is a reason conservative governments all over the planet are pushing for disenfranchising voters.
Disenfranchising disproportionately affecting one party over another is not the same as “Not voting for X is a vote for Y.”
Were that actually true, Trump would have easily won the 2020 election with 154 million votes, since we’re counting the 80 million nonvoters as votes for him.
Disenfranchising reduces the total number of votes required to get a majority, so not voting for Biden helps whatever republican he ends up going against. Remember how McCarthy only got in the house speakership because Gaetz marked himself as present instead of voting for him? It's the same thing.
So Trump got 80 million extra votes last election and won in a landslide?
No, but Biden could've had an extra 80 million votes were it not for a lot of people being unable to vote.
So nonvoters were not voters for Trump, but instead simply voters who didn’t vote Biden?
Who knows?
Yes, I read the article before posting it...
And, yes, in a 2-party, winner-take-all system, not voting is the same as voting for Trump.
On election day, I think most Muslims know that not voting or voting for Trump or any other Republican is directly against their interests.
Whole lotta Stockholm syndrome in this thread.
And they’re proud of it! This is a whole lot of “if I just love them the right (pun intended) way, they’ll love me back!”
They’re not earned and people are voluntary hostages like their so noble for it.