A whole swath of GOP voters appears firmly committed to not voting for Trump in November.
Donald Trump has a problem no matter what happens in New Hampshire on Tuesday night: There’s a whole swath of the Republican electorate and a good chunk of independents who appear firmly committed to not voting for him in November if he becomes the nominee.
It’s an issue that became starkly apparent in polling ahead of the Iowa caucuses, when an NBC News/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll of voters in that state found that fully 43 percent of Nikki Haley supporters said they would back President Joe Biden over Trump. And it’s a dynamic that has been on vivid display as the campaign shifted this week to New Hampshire.
“I can’t vote for Trump. He’s a crook. He’s too corrupt,” said Scott Simeone, 64, an independent voter from Amherst, who backed Trump in 2016 and 2020. “I voted for him, and I didn’t realize he’s as corrupt as he is.”
False, If it is a mathematical fact prove it.
Also false. You are relying on the faulty assumption that there either candidate is entitled to your vote.
False. You are not forced to vote for anyone.
I agree with your overall point, but could you make your point without spouting blatantly false information that is just the party line?
In what world does : Not voting = voting for someone else.
We operate in a first past the post voting system. This means you vote for a single candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins the election. A non-vote or 3rd party vote mathematically benefits the minority party by decreasing the number of votes needed to win. The minority party in our electorate is the Republican party.
Nothing is false about what I said, you just don’t like it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the party line. If I had my choice Biden wouldn’t be the nomination. No candidate is entitled to your vote, but your influence will affect the race whether you want it to or not.
I understand our voting system. None of what you said mathematically proves anything.
But if you want to be ignorant and spout falsehoods that is your right.
I already pointed out 3 false ‘facts’, and I agree with your overall point. Just make it without the psuedo facts. Your point would be much more convincing without them.
Assume 100 votes. Assume 49 people like Trump, 46 like Biden, and the remaining 4 dislike Trump.
If those four people do nothing, the person they dislike wins.
That’s just one example. If you want a more detailed analysis watch this https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo?si=0SGrFoSVvAPwG8QA
If 2 of the people in your example, who dislike trump, decide to not vote(while everyone else does); It is misleading to say that they are supporting trump by not voting. The only people supporting Trump are those who vote for him. Ditto for Biden.
I understand the problems with first past the post. I regularly encourage people to support alternative voting systems like RCV through local initiatives like ballot measures. Represent.us is a great org that pushes for democracy reforms such as RCV, campaign finance reforms, and independent redistricting.
You seem to be confusing “helping” and “supporting”. They mean two different things, especially when put in context.
When did anyone say they were supporting Trump? They said it would be helping Trump. Are you saying their votes, or lack thereof, didn’t matter? That their choice to stay home and not vote made no difference?
In what way are they two different thing? Support could be a more specific form of help but that’s about the only difference imo. They have essentially the same meaning to me. I don’t really want to quibble over semantics.
I never said that. Not voting is not supporting anyone. Voting for Biden is supporting Biden. Voting for Trump is supporting Trump. Any claims that not voting supports a certain candidate are political rhetoric. Trying to conflate an individual not voting with supporting a certain candidate is nonsense.
I don’t deny that there are organized actors who are trying to convince certain people not to vote and that some people saying that may be a part of such a campaign.
I also don’t deny that on a national scale not voting does harm democrats, but that is entirely different than on the individual scale. It is a political trend in our current culture not a fact.
Support: giving assistance to someone
Help: making it easier for someone to do something
Your lack of understanding doesn’t have any bearing on this discussion. That is your failing, and not my responsibility.
This is why understanding what is being talked about is important. No one is saying a person not voting is supporting anyone. They are saying that it helps another individual by doing so. And you yourself are saying so, when you admit that those individuals not voting are effecting the outcome of the election, and because they didn’t vote, it helped the individual they didn’t want to be elected to win the election.
It’s ironic you say this when your entire argument is “they didn’t intend to support anyone so they aren’t helping anyone win.”
Pasting the two definitions does not clarify what I was asking. You claim that they are two different things. In what way are they different to you?
Actually the OP explicitly said that. “Every single person who doesn’t vote for Joe Biden and could is supporting Donald Trump”
Once again, I agree with the main idea of the OP. It is their false claims that are embedded within it that I am challenging. I do agree that not voting in some cases is helping Trump. But saying it is a mathematical fact is misleading. There is nothing mathematical about it.
Nice strawman. I did not say that.
They “support” (i.e. provide assistance to) Trump by lowering the bar to his success.
Not all support is explicit.
Supporting Trump and getting Trump aren’t the same thing. If you don’t vote for Biden, YOU’RE GETTING TRUMP.
We don’t have to agree, that’s fine. You haven’t refuted a single thing I’ve said, just that you dont like it. I’ve very clearly explained my point and supported it with pretty simple logic. Last time: decreasing the number of votes in a pool lowers the votes needed to win. This benefits the minority because they now need less votes to win. The GOP is the minority. Thus, not voting benefits the GOP. I truly don’t know how to explain that clearer.
There really isn’t anything left to discuss at this point. Best wishes!
So, once they DO prove it you just refuse to listen.
I’ve tried to debate this type of person. Eventually people just stop wasting their time and spread the word that it’s pointless. Watch for a situation you may misinterpret as no one wanting to challenge you because of your debate skills; you’re only half right.
You seem nice. I at no point refused to listen.
I stated I agree with their overall point in all my comments. In general their point that not voting helps republicans is true. But it is not always true, therefore, it is not a ‘mathematical fact’. What I disagree with is their false claim that it is a mathematical fact. It is not certain and provable that voting for a not voting for a candidate or voting for a third party helps Republicans. There is no mathematical evidence for it provided.
A single republican who previously voted for Trump voting for a third party or declining to vote in 2024 ‘helps’ Biden. That disproves the original claim that not voting or voting third party helps republicans.
You obviously do not understand.
What do you claim I don’t understand?
The simple mathematical proof has been laid out for you three or four times.
And you clearly have no idea what a mathematical proof is.
You clearly don’t understand what’s being explained to you. Be humble, admit you’re wrong, and correct. This is how we become better people.
What do you claim I am wrong about or don’t understand? If I clearly don’t understand it then why did you feel the need to point that out?
I value what you say and would not laugh at you for expressing your beliefs. :P
Do you seriously think I’m unaware of your sea lioning here? Get more experience before taking your show live, kiddo.
The only reason you are calling it sea lioning is because it is massively downvoted. If this same discussion was upvoted you wouldn’t care.
Sea lioning
Asking someone to explain their claim that I don’t know what I’m talking about is not a request for evidence. And I’m not feigning ignorance on this matter, I am explaining why the original claims in question were false.
I applaud your attempts at getting people to understand your point. Nothing frustrates me more than seeing a point made, that might even be wrong, but every goddamn reply is just “hurdur you’re dense, you don’t get it. You are dumdum. Get with program buddo.”
If they’re wrong, or don’t agree, EXPLAIN IT WITHOUT AD HOMENIN B.S
Ughh…
That’s exactly what you’re doing.
Just using the word “mathematical” doesn’t make you smart and insightful.
Exactly that is exactly my point. Calling something a mathematical fact is in essence claiming it is always true. Which in this case is false. But at this point, some people are just following acceptable groupthink and not actually listening.
Okay maybe I can help spell it out for you.
Lets say Timmy, Ryan, and Bobby are running for class president. Timmy wants to increase recess time by half an hour, but supports an increase in pop-quizes. Ryan wants to lynch the teachers and burn the school down. Bobby is a pigeon.
Lets say there are 101 students to vote, where the person with the most votes wins.
Lets say there are 40 children who are all about lynching teachers and burning down the school. If the campaign were only Ryan v Timmy, Ryan wouldn’t have enough support to win.
Lets now say there are 25 children that are not “actively” pro-teacher-lynching, but are so absolutely pissed about the idea of more homework, that they refuse to vote for Timmy. Therefore, they all decide to vote for Bobby.
Our final count becomes:
Timmy: 36 Ryan: 40 Bobby: 25
Ryan has now won the election and the 61 children who did not vote for Ryan are now forced to watch him and his followers destroy the school.
It becomes more complicated with the electoral college involved, but the core concept remains: in any democratic zero-sum system, removing votes for one party passively enables another.
That is a good humorous example of a first past the post voting system and it flaws. I like the bit where Bobby is a pigeon.
No, actually not in any democratic system. In our current first past the post voting system, it is applicable (minus the electoral college). But (ranked choice voting)RCV or (Score then Automatic Runoff)STAR based systems the outcome would likely be different in some cases. That scenario also ignore the most common scenario where people simply don’t vote. In your scenario, everyone is required to vote. In real life, of the 25 bobby votes some would sit out, some would vote third party and some would vote for a ‘major’ candidate like Biden or Trump.
Okay, you’re right about ranked choice changing the math of the situation. That was an oversight on my part.
The 25 Bobby votes were meant to be just anybody who didn’t vote for a ‘major’ candidate (Timmy and Ryan were supposed to be Biden and Trump, respectively), so sorry if I wasn’t clear. The actual votes themselves, whether they sat out the vote or voted 3rd party (Bobby), doesn’t change the math, so I just left that possibility out.
You need to take into account that instead of not voting, you could have voted for the other candidate.
Simple example:
7 voters, 2 candidates, A and B. 3 will vote for A no matter what, 4 oppose A. If 1 voter doesn’t vote, there will be a tie of 3-3. If 2 don’t vote, A will win 3-2. If everyone votes, B will win 4-3.
Exactly, voting for someone is helping them get into office. Therefore, voting for candidate C is helping Candidate C. It does not help Candidate A or B. Similarly, voting for candidate B does not help candidate C or A.
In your first example with a tie, 3 voters chose to help candidate A, 3 voters to help candidate B. 1 person chose to help no one by not voting. That 1 person did not help A or B. Trying to argue otherwise is nonsense. It’s like saying by not downvoting a post with a misleading headline I am supporting it.
I would agree that not voting does usually hurt the democratic party, but that doesn’t mean it is always the case.
Ehat a weird hill you choose to die for.
Ok, I didn’t take third party voting into account, the example only works if the options are A, B or not voting. But if there was a third option with any chances of winning, things would look different anyway.
The case with the tie is included for the sake of completeness but it’s unlikely to happen, especially if there is more than one person choosing not to vote.
“But if there was a third option with any chances of winning, things would look different anyway.”
Aye, there’s the rub.
ROFL! Hilarious!
Holy shit this guy is dense af.
hmm, kinda seems like a personal attack. I wonder if the rules say anything about that.