Project 2025's unpopularity continues to grow: New poll shows 57% with unfavorable views of it compared to only 4% favorable
Project 2025's unpopularity continues to grow: New poll shows 57% with unfavorable views of it compared to only 4% favorable
According to an NBC News poll published on Sunday, 57 percent of voters view The Hertiage Foundation's document as unfavorable.
You're viewing part of a thread.
It's true, they do. But not always. It depends on how many there are in any given post, spam-upvoting each other. And... it depends on how successful their divisive arguments are. As far as they're concerned, it doesn't matter if 99% of the time they fail to get traction. They're going for that 1%, that one susceptible person who can be convinced to throw their vote away on a third-party candidate in a FPTP election where that vote has a 0% chance of electing that third-party candidate.
Personally, I don't think you're one of the Russian trolls. I think you're one of their victims.
Personally, I don’t think you’re one of the Russian trolls. I think you’re one of their victims.
Friend, I've been voting since the 1988 election. Almost always third-party. Based on my social connections and third parties and groups I have met and protested with.
And before that--even when in grade school--I never liked the idea of two main political parties running things.
I've been doing this long before "Russian propaganda" was a thing. We didn't even have internet when I started questioning things.
The truth is, it’s the system designed by those in power that ensures third parties never get a fair shot, not the fault of those of us trying to break free. Every vote for a third party is a step toward tearing down the walls built by the ruling class, and you’d better believe that’s a vote well spent.
Personally, I don’t think you’re a Duopoly worshipper. But I do think you’re one of their victims.
I want to ask you something. Don't answer immediately, stop to really think about the answer and what it means.
How many politicians have you voted for that either won or got second place? In our FPTP system, those are the only outcomes that matter. Winning means you got into an elected position. Second place means you may still have a political future.
If you've been voting mostly third-party your entire adult life, there is a very good chance you have literally never had any effect on any election whatsoever. You and every single other voter who voted for your preferred candidates could have stayed home on election day and not only would the winner have remained the same, the person who came in second would have stayed the same.
I'm willing to bet that if you stop and add up every single time your preferred candidate won or got second place, and every single time that person was running as either a Democrat or a Republican, you'll find that it's the same number.
Let’s break this down. Seems like you’re saying that unless my candidate wins or places second, my vote doesn’t matter.
But if the vast majority of people are convinced that only the "top two" matter, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Why? Because everyone keeps voting for who they think'll win instead of who actually represents them.
This mindset locks us into the exact duopoly that keeps the same tired system in place. The moment we accept that third-party candidates don’t matter, we’re giving more power to the existing system that thrives on limiting our choices. Voting isn’t just about winning today, it’s about showing that people do want alternatives, and that sends a signal that can’t be ignored forever. I vote for who best represents my values. I don't just vote for who I think will win.
Let’s break this down. Seems like you’re saying that unless my candidate wins or places second, my vote doesn’t matter.
YES. That's exactly what I'm saying. In a FPTP election system, that's literally how it works.
I'm not a fan of it. I'd love for a vote that goes to a third party to actually count in some way. But in the current system we all live under, that's not what happens. Instead, at best you get a Ross Perot - someone who pulls votes from both parties. He became a media darling for a while because of it. But you know what? All his voters may as well have stayed home, because he got neither first nor second place. We had Bill Clinton, we had Bush the Elder as a one-termer, and both Perot and his independent party faded into obscurity.
That won't change until we get rid of FPTP elections. That's a prerequisite for third-party votes mattering.
Until then, you have literally thrown every vote you've ever cast for a third-party candidate away. It didn't matter. And it even helped the candidate you were most ideologically opposed to.
If you dispute that, you dispute math.
And by you being so adamant about it, and trying to pressure people not to vote for third party, you are actually contributing to the problem.
You're actually reinforcing the very system that we're stuck with. Instead of allowing space for new voices and genuine alternatives, that pressure discourages change and keeps the duopoly alive.
I'm voting third party. Proudly. I don't care how many people try to pressure me or bully me. I'm sticking with the Socialist party. Thank you!
What you really mean here is that you don't care about facts and that you want other people to adopt that same attitude.
I'm not being "adamant" about it, just realistic. Until we do away with FPTP voting, I will continue to encourage voters to pick the candidate that is furthest to the left and also has a good chance to win, because that's the pragmatic solution and the only route to viable third-party candidates.
Until we do away with FPTP voting
Which neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want to change. I will continue to encourage voters to pick the candidate that best fits their values, regardless of political party.
unless my candidate wins or places second, my vote doesn’t matter.
Right because that's absolutely and inarguably true.