2
So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them
(theconversation.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
2 points (100.0% liked)
politics
19102 readers
2631 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
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.
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.
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? And you're the one who claims to be factual? You're math isn't mathing.
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.
Oh, silly me! You're right of course! Of course you're passionate that third party voters can approve of Trump and want him elected, because you're one of them! It was staring me in the face! Why else would you be on lemmy advocating for left leaning folk to vote third party instead of democratic! Here was me believing that there were third party voters who disapprove of Trump, but you've proved it mathematically for me! They don't exist!
I understand your math now that you explained it more clearly, too! 8.5% of voters are republicans who think Trump is a disaster, but only 3.5% of non Democrats dislike Trump but 3.5% < 8.5%, all of those non Democrats who dislike Trump have to be republicans,
In fact your math shows that every single one of them has to be three republican voters! Otherwise the numbers don't add up! Truly your math is better than mine and your logic is flawless.
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).
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.
Your own data proves you wrong:
The only possible conclusion from your own data is that every non-Democrat voter who disapproves of Trump is three Republicans who disapprove of Trump.
Like I said, your math isn't mathing and you don't seem to understand that you contradicted yourself.
You'll be waiting forever, because your confirmation bias is so strong that you can't see it even when you're told it multiple times.
And? Do you think that there is a flaw in the data? Do you distrust the source? Do you interpret it another way that you'd care to share. Do you think that 538 is an unreliable source? Do you have any polls, data, sources .. literally anything that shows a different understanding of the situation?
Are you dismissing my entire stance outright because two different meta-analysis polls don't perfectly total to 100%? Because, that's not how polling works.
Here's another all-voter unfavorability poll with similar results.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/650774/favorable-ratings-harris-trump-remain.aspx
Here's one that shows only 9% of Republicans (4.3% of all voters) with an unfavorable view of Trump. That's a tighter margin for me to work with to try to state that Republicans account for more than 2% of the 3.5% of all voters who view Trump disfavorably, but still mathematically sound. In fact, since you are insisting that the percentages add up perfectly across two separate meta-analysis polls this smaller percentage of unfavorably voting Republicans actually helps my case.
But guess what? None of that really matters because this same poll shows that a significantly higher percentage of independents favor Trump over Harris (44% vs 35%). Which is a direct measure of the question at hand.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/650774/favorable-ratings-harris-trump-remain.aspx
FFS, one person can't be three people! How is this not obvious to you? Explain to me how 3.5% of people can fill 8.5% of the population without treble counting! It's really, really absurd. So you just not understand the problem or something?
You also completely ignored the most recent poll i provided you which bypasses all the math and gets right to the question of who do third party voters prefer more. Guess what? It wasn't Harris.
Did you look at that one? Do you have anything to say about that one?
I'm not going to engage with your gish gallop.
Do you have anything to say about your conclusion that one non Democratic voter equals three Republican ones?
Admit you were wrong and that I might have sensible points to make if you want me to engage with more of your insane and impossible conclusions from your bad takes on opinion polls.
I don't know what you mean by gish but I'd be happy to discuss any other polls that you are more comfortable with... But you'd have to provide some for me to do that.
I addressed your 1 = 3 already.
I will admit to being wrong just as soon as you make a compelling case. I'm sorry but you have not done so. All you have managed to do so far is throw a bunch of personal attacks and then zero in on this one = three which just not the gotcha that you think it is. Make a case. Instead of just criticizing me, perhaps. You don't like my polls? Provide your own. Come on, get involved.
Then look up gish gallop.
Hahahahha. That's rich. I have presented you with a grand total of 4 polls; all intimately relevant to the discussion at hand. That's too much for you to handle?
At no point have you made a coherent argument based on them, though.
Don't switch your criticisms mid stream. Have i presented you with too much data or not? Am I actually guilty of gish gallop or was that just your excuse for ignoring 25% of the data i gave you?
E: conveniently it is the exact bit of data (the only bit provided anywhere yet) that directly addresses the question at hand: Do third partiers prefer Harris over Trump or do they not?
You're ignoring my answers and just repeating your "one person can't be three" gotcha. I'll continue to explain ad-nauseum if you like..
One person only needs to be three if you insist that two meta-analysis polls equal exactly a nice round 100%. There is simply no reason to expect that. In fact, if they did, they would be rather suspect.
There's only three options:
Now you can continue to insist that these two polls are meaningless because they don't perfectly agree with each other, but it's a weak argument. If you demand that the 8.5 and 3.5 number be closer together before you'll believe it you can take a peak at the other poll i provided you which, if i recall correctly, takes that 8.5 down to about 4.
I can agree that polls are unreliable and it's hard to draw consistent mathematical conclusions from them if you like, but that does undermine your overall position somewhat, and I don't find your fiddling of the numbers that you were previously quoting as gospel to frantically try and make them add up again terribly convincing, sorry.
You do realize that the only reason i posted polling data in the first place was because someone on your side of the argument stated that the polls show that there is too much favorability for Trump among Republicans for the all-voter unfavorability to be anything but due to third partiers, right? So, no, the general wishy-washiness of polling data does not, in any way undermine my position. Someone on your team used polls to prove something and i am simply reaponding to that claim with "hey, actually, the polls don't show that."
You can go back in the threads and check this if you doubt me.
I'm not quoting any one poll as gospel, either. Don't be silly. I used the first polls i found from a reliable source and posted them. If anyone from "your side" was inclined to enter into this debate with their own data i would have happily dug deeper for some other options sooner, but no one has taken up that task on "your side" of things.
Says the person who did arithmetic with poll data from different polls that made no logical sense whatever.
Out of interest, whose side do you think I'm on?
One more time for the people in the back: this is the type of data that was referenced by someone claiming that third partiers are all Harris supporters. Did you want me to disprove them by using some other unrelated data? I looked up the types of polls that THEY rferenced and ahowed that those polls do not show what they claimed.
You seem to have decided that third partiers favor Harris. So i am referring to you as being on "that side" of the argument. Is this not what you believe?
I don't recall anyone saying they were Harris supporters. Why would they vote third party if they supported Harris?! No, the people you're arguing with just said that they dislike Trump. I honestly don't know why you find that hard to believe.
You're joking right? I mean, at this point you must be joking. The entire premise of the article in this post was that third partiers are, to large extent, Harris over Trump supporters. This is the exact premise i am calling into question. Nothing else. Here's my exact quote: "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."
I never claimed that anyone thinks that third partiers secretly prefer Harris over their own third party candidates. Where do come up with this?
I'm sorry, but you're mistaken. The article is specifically stating that third partiers prefer Harris over Trump. In all of my original comments i call this assumption into question. And all commenters after that follow (or should have followed) that train of thought. If they don't, then i have no quarrel with them because i am here to argue one thing and one thing only: the assumption that third partiers largely prefer Harris over Trump is a baseless claim. That's it.