voiceofchris @ voiceofchris @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

51

Joined

2 yr. ago

So now it's sarcastic tirade and more personal attacks. Ok, you hold your end of the conversation the way you like. I'll attempt to continue to be respectful and stick to a logical discussion. You're welcome to join me there.

No, i am not voting for Trump. I find him to be repulsive and dangerous. I am, in fact, one of those third partiers that you and most others here seem to think define all third partiers. That is to say that if i were forced to choose between Kamala and Donald i would choose the former. But i am not all third partiers. I happen to understand that third partiers are, like all political subdivisions, a nuanced group. More nuanced than most since we have taken everything from communists to anarcho-capitaliats to environmentalists and thrown them into one catch all group.

I am pleased that you have now taken the requisite time to understand the math. But a tongue in cheek mischaracterization of my stance does not refute the math or advance your case (whatever that might actually be; at this point i'm fairly convinced that your only stance is attempting to discredit me).

all of those non Democrats who dislike Trump have to be republicans,

I never claimed this. Instead i claim that the 8.5% of voters who are Trump-hating Republicans is more than enough to account for at least 2% of total voters who are non-Democrat Trump Haters. For if 2% out of the 3.5% non-Democrat Trump haters are Republican, then only 1.5% can be third partiers. And, since 1.5% is half of all the third partiers (3%), then if greater than 2% of total voters are Trump hating Republicans the article is debunked.

So all i need is less than one quarter of the anti-Trump Republicans to remain anti-Trump in a national all-voter poll and the implication is that third party voters do not swing Democratic.

Now, look, there are some perfectly valid arguments against this. You could claim that disapproving of Trump in an all Republican poll somehow doesn't translate to disapproving of Trump in an all-voter poll. Or you could show that in-party and/or out-of-party disapproval ratings do not translate to negative voting booth results. Maybe you could provide polling that uses some other mteric. Or, heck, maybe you could find a poll that polls only third party voters directly and thus silences all debate in one fell swoop. I would welcome any of these results. I am not interested in my current stance being proven correct. I am interested in the correct stance being borne out with evidence.

I still patiently await any amount of data that proves me wrong.

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.

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.

So you took the people who disapprove of trump, subtracted the republicans who disapprove of Trump, and the Democrats who disapprove of Trump, and then you went ahead and said that the remaining ones are all Republican?

No.

I took the total percent of voters who disapprove of Trump (52.5%) and subtracted the percent of those voters who are Democrats (49%). The remaining 3.5% is therefore the percentage of voters who disapprove of Trump who are not Democrats.

I then showed that there are a full 8.5% of voters who are Republicans that dissapprove of Trump, therefore refuting the claim the the 3% of voters who are not Dem or Rep must all dissaprove of Trump.

My math is just fine, thank you. You just don't like the answer.

third party voters are some homogenous bloc of disenfranchised "not Trump" voters.

This is what i said "no" to.

And again, the burden is not on me. I am notthe one using unsupported claims to support a conclusion. That's the author of the article doing that. But you know what? Just for fun, i will do what not one single other commentor has done. I WILL give you some data. Maybe by me doing so, some others can see how it is done and can provide some data of their own instead of resorting to personal attacks and speculation to support their beliefs.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/ 52.5% Trump's disapproval among both parties.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/r/ 80.4% Trump's favorability among Republicans. 17.8% unfavorable.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2024/04/09/the-partisanship-and-ideology-of-american-voters/ Republicans account for 48% of registered voters. Dems 49%.

So, 17.8% (unfavorable) of 48% (Republicans) means that 8.5% of the registered voting population is, in fact, Republicans who dissaprove of Trump.

Now let's look at the 52.5% of the registered voting population who dissaprove of Trump. Assuming that all Democrats (49%) dissaprove of him, we only need to find another 3.5% somewhere. You COULD look to the 3% of the registered voters who are presumably registered third party or independent. But you should be looking at the other group, whom we already know to dissaprove of Trump, and which is nearly three times (8.5%) larger than third party voters. That would be the Republicans themselves.

If you or anyone else would care to explain how this data points to third party voters unanimously preferring Harris over Trump, or would like to provide some other data to support that claim, then please do. I am all ears.

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

I mean, i'd like to believe that you make that case in good faith. But you have to realize that third party voters are admonished by the status quo voters every single presidential election. Every one. So, while this may be the first time you personally have argued that a third partier should vote for your candidate, third partiers have heard it over and over again. You know all those other elections that didn't have a Trump in them? Yeah, we heard it then too. So, i'm sorry but the whole "this is the most important election in history" schtick just doesn't warrant any consideration when you're hearing it for the umpteenth time.

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.

That depends entirely on the impact you hope to achieve. I am under no dilusion that my choice will win in 2024. That is not the purpose of my third party vote.

I find it to be quite the opposite.

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

Don't use being on the spectrum as an insult. It is unbecoming.

I don't think hypothetical means what you think it means. Either that or you are misunderstanding or misrepresenting what the article is arguing.

The article is implies that 3rd party voters are all Harris > Trump voters if it came down to a choice between the two. That is not a hypothetical, that is an unsubstantianted assumption.

No.

Dumbass, huh? I'll just leave you alone, then.

So this election cycle it's climate and the Supreme Court for you. That's great. If you feel Harris will help fix those things then have it. The policies I'm voting for will absolutely help with those issues. Every 4 years there are going to be major major things that folks think their particular guy or gal is going to fix. And then they won't. And then there'll be another (or the same) set of things in another four years. I'm gonna go ahead and vote for some real change instead.

I disagree. Third party votes do quite a bit to move political platforms. No one wants to leave 10% of the vote on the table when that's all it takes to seize victory. So they move their platforms to encompass what the 10% are voting for.

if you actually want to have a say in which of these two wins,

That's just it. I, and many others do not value having a say in which of these two gets elected as highly as we value promoting 3rd parties, speaking our hearts with our votes, and edging towards a better political situation for the next generation.

But yes, the electoral system is broken. And ending first past the post will be the single biggest savior of US politics.

I mean.. thanks for the input, but you're just one person. I too would choose Harris over Trump if i was forced to choose between the two. But your and my personal choices to not a general consensus make. I wouldn't argue that the majority of 3rd party voters would do likewise without some proof.

.. none of this addresses that third party voters may find it more important to vote against BOTH parties than to vote against their least favorite of the two, either.. but i've raised that point elsewhere.

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.

Well, i would agree that "it's not going to start with a presidential election" so long as you define "start" as "the first election win for a third party candidate." You shouldn't vote 3rd party in only national elections and expect to be reeping the benefits of a viable third party presidential candidate any time soon.

But there are other ways to define "start". There are goals for voting third party other than to see your candidate win. And there are argumeunts to be made that we are way past the starting phase and are now in strong need of drastic course correction, such as cannot be offered by either party.

For one example, third party candidates move policy. If 5% of the electorate are in favor of something that currently only a 3rd party candidate represents you better believe one or the other of the two parties will attempt to incorporate that thing into into their platform to grab those voters. This may not be a "start" toward a viable third party, but it can be a "start" toward better policy, and that's a win.

At the end of the day though i think there is a strong misconception amongst main party voters that says that 3rd party voters are just offering up limp protest and would be better served by voting against the candidate they hate more. But the truth is different. Neither party serves them better. A 3rd party voter most likely despises both of the two parties and sees the differences between the two as just window dressings on what are two parties both bent on statist, war mongering, imperialistic oppression. Both parties are so very far from what we believe to be possible and right that a distinction between the two parties becomes laughable in comparison to a distinction from the two parties. I am not voting against Trump or Harris when i cast a 3rd party vote. Am voting against BOTH. They are both truly awful and yet i will have to endure one or the other. But at least i did my small part (in elections both big and small) to move things closer to what i belive to be a better situation for future generations.

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.