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

  • Admiral Patrick@dubvee.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    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?

    • voiceofchris @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      23 days ago

      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.

            • voiceofchris @lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              22 days ago

              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

              • Cryophilia@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                4
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                22 days ago

                Lol okay then I’ll assume you’re pulling this whole argument from your ass. Rofl. “Burden of proof” lol what a copout.

                • voiceofchris @lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  4
                  ·
                  22 days ago

                  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.

                  • davidagain@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    2
                    ·
                    21 days ago

                    But earlier in this very chain you made a simple claim, with the word “no”, that it’s untrue that third party voters don’t want Trump to win. Where’s your evidence? Where’s your data? How does your data account for trumps high disapproval rating nationally (much higher than Harris’s) despite pretty good approval amongst registered republicans? How is that possible without the disapproval of non-democrats? Your talking point makes no sense.

                    You love to tell other people to prove their statements but you’re happy to make your own evidence-free claims that don’t fit with real world data.