So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them

Juergen@lemmy.sdf.org to politics @lemmy.world – 201 points –
So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them
theconversation.com

It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?

259

You are viewing a single comment

I'll try to make it simple then:

They aren't pro-Harris, they're anti-Trump.

Problem: "Not Trump" is not a candidate, so splitting the not Trump vote allows Trump to win.

If people really, REALLY, REALLY do not want Trump, there's only one answer and that's to support the Democratic candidate who happens to be Harris.

Why Harris? Because she has more support than any other "Not Trump" candidate.

I do not think this makes it simpler. It just makes the same assumption over again. That assumption being that third party voters are largely anti-Trump (or pro-Harris; take your pick, it doesn't matter). My question remains. I'll rephrase it:

Why are we assuming that if all third party voters were to instead vote for one of the two main candidates that Harris would take more of those votes than Trump?

Because that, in essence is what the article assumes.

Because if they were interested in voting for Trump, they'd be voting for Trump. When the choice is Trump vs. Not Trump, Not Trump wins. Even in 2016 that was true.

What the other person is saying is that you are splitting voters in three categories: pro-Trump, pro-Harris, anti-Trump. But that third group obviosuly doesn't like either of the two main candidates, not just Trump. And if forced to vote for one of them, there's no reason to assume all will pick Harris.

Nope. Harris doesn't enter into it. There are two sides, Pro Trump and Anti Trump.

If you want Anti Trump to win, you have to pull behind one candidate. Splitting it 5 ways guarantees Anti Trump cannot win.

There is only one candidate who happens to be at the same level as Trump, the Democratic candidate.

Which means holding your nose and voting for Harris, failing to do so gets you Trump. You don't have to be Pro Harris at all, you just have to hate Trump more.

Ok, I get what you are saying, but it sounds biased the way you're wording it. You could've just as well said Pro Harris and Anti Harris. Trump is the only one who can realistically beat Harris, so if you're Anti Harris you should vote Trump, even if you're not Pro Trump.

So yeah, if you're Anti Trump you should vote Harris and if you're Anti Harris you should vote Trump. If you're Anti both of them then tough luck because the electoral system in the US doesn't care about you. One of them will be president no matter what you do, so if you want any control over which one, then vote for one of them even if you hate both.

Agreed.

Would it be nicer if we lived in a multi party system? Probably. Do we? No. Voting as though we are is not useful (maybe unless you live in a state that you are 100% certain can not be flipped).

If you hate one candidate even slightly less than the other, for example because the former has not yet stated that they want to punish colleges that allow pro Palestine demonstrations, vote for that first one.

Harris isn't the threat to the American system of government that Trump is.

A poll in which "First choice is someone other than Trump" beats "Trump" would indicate that "Trump" has less than 50% of the vote. The same can be said of Harris.

A poll in which "Anybody but Trump" beats "Trump" would indicate that third party voters do indeed favor Harris over Trump.

Do we have any polling of the second type? I am not able to find any. This type of polling would be exactly what i've been asking for in this thread.

Trump has stronger negative polling in the general population than Harris so it's not as absurd as you're making out. Trump is also much more strongly polarising and always has been.

I am not saying it's absurd. I am asking for data.

You're using an over-used debating technique where you cast doubt on others by demanding proof of any claims you don't like but letting statements you agree with stand unchallenged.

It's not so far away from trumps habit of calling anything that he doesn't like fake news.

You're painting yourself as a neutral who is just asking for information, when in fact you're heavily partisan. It's misleading.

You're using an over-used debating technique where you cast doubt on others by demanding proof of any claims you don't like but letting statements you agree with stand unchallenged.

Actually what i'm doing is pointing out a glaring logical flaw in the article that is the subject of this post. The fact that others are willing to accept the conclusions drawn by the unsupported claim of this article is worrisome. It speaks to a lack of critical thinking and a wiillingness accept illogical arguments simply because they fit with ones world view. It is fairly absurd to me that i need to spell this out.

And i have reaponded to you elsewhere with plenty of data that supports me. Unfortunately no one else in this thread has attempted to do the same in support of the article's claim. Not one single person.

You're painting yourself as a neutral who is just asking for information, when in fact you're heavily partisan. It's misleading.

I would be entertained to hear how exactly you think i am partisan. I am, in fact, one of these braindead third party voters that everyone in this thread is raging against. About as far from a partisan as one can get.

And you, and everyone else here, has had ample time and opportunity to provide any bit of data that you like to show that i am wrong. But y'all consistently turn to attacks against me or my character instead. And that right there, my friend, is a true Trump tactic.

If you are right then show the data.

Me:

You’re using an over-used debating technique where you cast doubt on others by demanding proof of any claims you don’t like but letting statements you agree with stand unchallenged.

You: condescending waffle and deflection. Also you:

If you are right then show the data.

When I point out your asymmetric proof demands you just repeat them.

I have responded in good faith to each of your criticisms. I have provided polling data when you asked. I have not once waffled.. what do you think that means, exactly?

I continue to await anyones data driven response to my initial question. "Why are we assuming that all of the third party votes would go to Harris if they were forced to choose between her and Trump?"

If you have no real input to add then just stop responding.

If you are right then show the data.

When I point out your asymmetric proof demands you just repeat them.

I continue to await anyones data driven response to my initial question.

...and there it is.

Are you pretending that you and i are not engaged elsewhere in this comment section where i continue to post data and you continue to post none? Of course i continue to await your data. What else can i do?

I do this in the interest of an open discussion, despite the absurdity of a) an article giving bold directives to a group of people which are completely based an assertion made within the same article, b) the article giving zero support for this assertion, c) me asking for someone to please back up the assertion, and then d) you and others retorting with "no, you first."

If you are right then show the data.

When I point out your asymmetric proof demands you just repeat them.

I continue to await anyones data driven response to my initial question.

…and there it is.

Of course i continue to await your data.

This actually made me chuckle. It's like you can't help yourself.

i continue to post data

It's silly to boast about data that doesn't even add up! It's nonsense data! You claim 3.5% of the country are non-Democrat Trump haters, and conclude that they must all be Republicans because there are 8.5% of the country who are Republican Trump haters!

Each non-Democrat Trump haters is three Republican Trump haters so the third party voters can't hate Trump?!?!

This is the data you're so proud of quoting! It's so obviously BS because, and I'm surprised that I have to point it out to you a third time, one people can't be three people. Your math isn't mathing.

10 more...
10 more...
10 more...
10 more...
10 more...
10 more...
10 more...
10 more...
10 more...
10 more...
10 more...
10 more...
10 more...