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

  • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    Whether they would prefer Harris or not is irrelevant, they don’t want Trump. There is only 1 candidate who can beat the Republican candidate and it’s not an Independent/Libertarian/Green candidate.

    • voiceofchris @lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 month ago

      I don’t understand your response. I asked why we are assuming these voters prefer Harris over Trump and you responded by saying that their preference for Harris is irrelevant, because they don’t want Trump.

      This doesn’t make any sense.

      “don’t want Trump” in this context MUST equate to a preference for Harris over Trump. And my whole question is “why are we assuming these voters hold that preference?”

      • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        I’ll try to make it simple then:

        They aren’t pro-Harris, they’re anti-Trump.

        Problem: “Not Trump” is not a candidate, so splitting the not Trump vote allows Trump to win.

        If people really, REALLY, REALLY do not want Trump, there’s only one answer and that’s to support the Democratic candidate who happens to be Harris.

        Why Harris? Because she has more support than any other “Not Trump” candidate.

        • voiceofchris @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 month ago

          I do not think this makes it simpler. It just makes the same assumption over again. That assumption being that third party voters are largely anti-Trump (or pro-Harris; take your pick, it doesn’t matter). My question remains. I’ll rephrase it:

          Why are we assuming that if all third party voters were to instead vote for one of the two main candidates that Harris would take more of those votes than Trump?

          Because that, in essence is what the article assumes.

          • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            Because if they were interested in voting for Trump, they’d be voting for Trump. When the choice is Trump vs. Not Trump, Not Trump wins. Even in 2016 that was true.

            • voiceofchris @lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              A poll in which “First choice is someone other than Trump” beats “Trump” would indicate that “Trump” has less than 50% of the vote. The same can be said of Harris.

              A poll in which “Anybody but Trump” beats “Trump” would indicate that third party voters do indeed favor Harris over Trump.

              Do we have any polling of the second type? I am not able to find any. This type of polling would be exactly what i’ve been asking for in this thread.

              • davidagain@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                Trump has stronger negative polling in the general population than Harris so it’s not as absurd as you’re making out. Trump is also much more strongly polarising and always has been.

                  • davidagain@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    0
                    ·
                    1 month ago

                    You’re using an over-used debating technique where you cast doubt on others by demanding proof of any claims you don’t like but letting statements you agree with stand unchallenged.

                    It’s not so far away from trumps habit of calling anything that he doesn’t like fake news.

                    You’re painting yourself as a neutral who is just asking for information, when in fact you’re heavily partisan. It’s misleading.