So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them

theconversation.com So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them

If you’re an unhappy voter and want other unhappy voters to hold their noses and vote for the major candidate they least dislike, think about the Golden Rule.

It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?

United States | News & Politics @midwest.social

fukhueson @lemmy.world

4mo ago

So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them

theconversation.com /so-you-dont-like-trump-or-harris-heres-why-its-still-best-to-vote-for-one-of-them-240632

-3 0

You're viewing part of a thread.

Show Context

267 comments

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.
- Your own data proves you wrong:
  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
  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.
  I still patiently await any amount of data that proves me wrong
  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.
  
  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.
  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
  
  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.
  And? Do you think that there is a flaw in the data? Do you distrust the source?
  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'm not going to engage with your gish gallop.
  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.
  Do you have anything to say about your conclusion that one non Democratic voter equals three Republican ones?
  I addressed your 1 = 3 already.
  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 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.
  
  I’m not going to engage with your gish gallop.
  I don’t know what you mean by gish
  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:
  The two polls show that there are NOT enough anti-Trump Republicans to account for at least half of the 3.5% anti-Trump non-Democrats. (Hint: the polls do not show this. But if they did it would be an argument for third partiers prefering Harris)
  There are exactly the right number of anti-Trump Republicans to account for precisely the 3.5% anti-Trump non-Democrats. (The polls do not show this either, and it would be suspiciously convenient if they did).
  There are MORE than enough anti-Trump Republicans to account for at least half of the 3.5% anti-Trump non-Democrats. (This is what they show).
  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.
  
  I’m not quoting any one poll as gospel, either.
  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?
  
  Says the person who did arithmetic with poll data from different polls that made no logical sense whatever.
  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.
  
  I don't recall anyone saying they were Harris supporters
  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?
  No, the people you're arguing with just said that they dislike Trump.
  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.

267 comments