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
2983 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
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.