Looks like I’m not the only one on Lemmy who’s not voting for the Duopoly. This is an awesome thread. Thanks for posting, OP!
I wish we’d yell at the non-voters at least as equally as the 3rd party voters.
Exactly. It’s the apithetic and doomer non-voters that are the real issue in US elections. Voter turn out is usually abhorrently low.
People can have all the fights they want about third party votes for president and other high offices, but third parties have great potential to make local/regional change. Sometimes it feels like people forget there is more than just a president in this country.
Right?!
I don’t get it…why would you even vote for Stein at this point? She’s not going to win, she’s not going to break the threshold for federal election funding, and I don’t see a substantial distinction between her policy and Harris.
Brain worm at least had a 1 in 1000 of breaking the funding threshold. Jill has what, less than a chance of finding the winning lotto ticket in the middle of the desert?
The only result of that vote is boosting Donald’s chances.
Why…why would you even vote for her at this point? What’s the end game?
Because I don’t care. Neither party actually listens to the average American either way my bills are getting more expensive and my dollar worth less.
Yep! That’s why I’m voting third party. Dems and Repubs don’t care about us.
For the editor and anyone else who does not understand math: people voting for Trump means Trump gets a vote.
A vote for Jill Stein means Trump does not get a vote.
Would you rather have someone vote third party or vote Trump?
For industryStandard and whoever else may not understand FPTP: a vote for Kamala is a vote against Trump
A vote for Jill Stein is not a vote against Trump, and in fact hurts Kamala’s chances the same way a Republican voting for RFK hurts Trump’s chances
Would you rather have someone vote to stop Trump or throw away their vote?
Exactly! I’ll share your downvotes…but you’re right.
For industryStandard and whoever else may not understand FPTP: a vote for Kamala is a vote against Trump
A vote for Jill Stein is not a vote against Trump, and in fact hurts Kamala
Would you rather have someone vote to stop Trump or throw away their vote?
The whole thing feels like an argument intended to push people away rather than rally support.
I’ve noticed a LOT of Lemmy’s seem to want to push people away rather than welcome or rally support when it comes to uncommitted voters or third-party voters… Very surprising to me.
Corporate says spot the difference here.
Ah yes, I remember how protest voting went in 2016
Let’s break down this bullshit: A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Jill Stein. The election clerks count ballots marked for Stein and report the vote totals that Stein received. A vote for Jill Stein is literally a vote for Jill Stein.
The statement that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump is, of course, metaphorical. It’s asserting that a vote for Stein is morally equivalent to a vote for Trump by the speaker’s moral reckoning. It’s a rhetorical shortcut. This shortcut rests on the notion that either the voter would have voted for Harris, or that it is a moral imperative to stop Trump above all else.
That’s a moral judgement call. Other people may judge differently. Flatly stating that a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump so vehemently and absolutely elides any possibility of discourse and clearly tells the Stein voter that the speaker will not listen to or consider any of their views, or reasons to vote for Stein.
Fine, you believe that, but when has telling people more or less directly that you do not have any intention of considering their political beliefs won them over to your side? How is that a good tactic? If it worked, then why not employ it on Trump supporters? Go ahead, tell them that the party you support will ignore what they think and want, and demand they vote for your candidate.
If it doesn’t work on them, why should it work on Stein voters?
Great post!
Well said, not horse shit.
What a bunch of horseshit.
At best, third party voting has led to splitting votes and Woodrow Wilson winning despite having only 41% of the votes and at worst, it’s done absolutely nothing.
This is why a vote for third party is a vote for trump. Because no trump supporter is gonna vote third party. If you’re voting third party, it means one less vote for Harris which means less smaller chance of her winning which means higher chance of trump losing. Anyone saying otherwise is either dumb as fuck or is purposefully trying to split the votes to help trump win.
More accurately, a vote for Stein is a vote for whichever major party candidate the voter wouldn’t have voted for. In most cases, someone voting for the Green Party would vote for Harris, so it’s a vote for Trump.
That isn’t a moral judgement, it’s the facts of a two party system. -1 vote for Harris = +1 vote for Trump, no other votes matter.
And that’s not telling someone you don’t consider their political beliefs. Considering their political beliefs, they should vote for the major party candidate that they agree with the most, or they will effectively be voting for the one they agree with least.
That’s not the approach with Trump supporters because Trump is the major party candidate they agree with most, by definition. If anything one should try to get Trump supporters to vote 3rd party, Libertarian or for RFK or whoever.
Nailed it… Probably gonna catch a lot of down votes from lib shills… But fuck 'em, this is exactly right. Honestly, I think any of these bullshit articles that will clearly push people further away must be part of the plan to help Trump… Or are the libs really still just this stupid? Have learned absolutely nothing from all their time losing
I am soooo happy to see how many people are disagreeing with the “a vote for third party is a vote for Trump!” bs that usually so approved here. This discussion thread has made my day! lol
Thanks! I knew what kind of replies I’d get, and did. Essentially, doubling-down on the electoral calculus argument, and not considering that other people have different motivations.
Fucking thank you for saying it.
(and for saying it more eloquently than I have been able to.)
Right?! I need to use parts of his post for the endless people yelling at me for voting third party. lol
What a load of absolute garbage.
Yes, prima facie a vote for Stein is a vote for Stein. Good job moron.
No Trumper/conservative is gonna vote green, so that leaves the pool of Harris voters that Stein is taking from.
Pretty basic understanding here.
If a Stein voter won’t be swayed, then this discourse isn’t for them so why even state it here? If someone is thinking of voting for Stein and can be swayed, let me simply say that if they vote for Stein they will get Trump. Remember, Steiners come from the lefty pool, not the righty pool.
Hope those self-righteous voters spend as much energy in off years protesting and making change locally, otherwise they’re hypocrites.
I mean doyee?
No one’s voting 3rd party because they think they’ll win, they’re just throwing away a vote for Harris. Their statement is that they have no issue with another 4 years of Trump because their demands aren’t being met anyway (cough genocide).
You can argue all day about the rationality and lack of utilitarianism, but it won’t change anything.
If MLK were alive, he’d probably vote Democrat because he believes there is a solution in comprise over time, and keeping Republicans out is beneficial to that. (He generally favored the more progressive party).
If Malcolm X were alive, he’d probably be protesting just like the uncommitted group, but choose not to vote if his major demand wasn’t met, because his reasoning would be that any promised or hypothetical solutions would not come to fruition. (The Ballot or the Bullet)
Both have valid reasoning, and it can obviously depend on the situation, but it bugs me that 50 years later people still don’t understand why people choose to vote a certain way.
Fucking well said. And you have my upvote for mentioning my man, Malcom X. Great post!
“I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens’ Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to “order” than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection” - MLK
We just got finished fighting a year long battle with the tankies on Lemmy that making the genocide in Gaza their singular issue and abstaining from voting for Kamala is like handing Trump the presidency. It should be a duh doie moment, but sadly it isn’t.
Maybe Democrats need to work harder and be more welcoming.
Change won’t come overnight (at least without revolution). Like evolution, it requires constant pressure on the system. Changes that are too radical kill the organism.
A long as people think we can jump from Geoge H.W. Bush to Bernie Sanders in one election it’s going to continue to fail.
Votw Harris this time. Vote for the person slightly more liberal than her next time, etc. It’s a process.
But with the Democratic party, the conversation is ALWAYS “Vote us this time…” or “This election is too important!” They’ve been saying that for 50 years. Nah, friend. Now is the time for me to vote third party. Tired of waiting.
How is throwing your vote into a hole going to help exactly?
I’m voting for someone I believe in and who matches my values. If the duopoly has a problem with that, then they can work harder to welcome me rather than mock me for not voting for them.
So it “helps” because I’m voting for who I want to. As the system should be.
As it should be but not how it is.
That’s one of my issues though, Harris is less liberal than Obama. It went in the opposite direction.
I advocated that Biden step down and allow a primary. Instead they ran with the VP because the DNC is not interested in actually bringing a more liberal or leftist candidate.
Meanwhile Trump has made Bush look good in comparison, so even if he stops running, an equal or worse candidate will simply take his place, and then we’ll be faced with a similar problem.
It would take 20 years to make a grassroots movement work, but if we never start it’s never gonna happen.
I’m 60. I would argue that 20 years is not a long time. Keep pushing.
No one’s voting 3rd party because they think they’ll win, they’re just throwing away a vote for Harris.
Would you prefer people voting 3rd party not vote at all?
If Malcolm X were alive
Why Malcolm X’s Family Is Suing the FBI, NYPD, and CIA 58 Years After His Death
Do you seriously think X was pro-FBI? Why on earth would he support a candidate who was?
Did… did you even read what I wrote…?
My point was that he is exactly against the system and playing it by voting for a major party. His whole speech was literally about utilizing your status as a voter in key swing states to demand change from candidates by threatening your power as a voter to choose, regardless of whether you vote 3rd party or not at all.
My point was that he is exactly against the system and playing it by voting for a major party.
That’s not true.
His whole speech was literally about utilizing your status as a voter in key swing states to demand change from candidates by threatening your power as a voter to choose
That’s a wildly inaccurate interpretation
What does this mean? It means that when white people are evenly divided, and Black people have a bloc of votes of their own, it is left up to them to determine who’s going to sit in the White House and who’s going to be in the dog house.
A ballot is like a bullet. You don’t throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep your ballot in your pocket.
Straight from his speech lol.
You don’t throw your ballots until you see a target, and if that target is not within your reach, keep your ballot in your pocket.
That’s very different from
His whole speech was literally about utilizing your status as a voter in key swing states to demand change from candidates by threatening your power as a voter to choose
He was arguing to abstain from voting without a quality candidates on the ballot. Not to court mediocre candidates by promising them your vote.
Both have valid reasoning
I disagree.
Based on your downvotes, looks like more people disagree with you.
But hey, don’t fret, friend. I know what it’s like getting downvoted every comment. Doesn’t bother me. Hopefully it doesn’t bother you. :)
Ok
Comments turned off
The genocidal lib fears the well informed Jill voter.
Truth.
Hilarious. More like they don’t want to deal with the flood of nonsense from trolls, bots, and people that just turned 14.
trolls, bots, and people that just turned 14
-
Jill Stein voters are throwing their votes away.
-
Jill Stein voters don’t exist.
Which is it?
-
Being informed means knowing Stein will not win the election. At least if Harris wins Ukraine can be saved.
deleted by creator
Kiss me.
I don’t get it. What’s that a reference to?
It was a bad paste, sorry. Changed my mind anyway and deleted
They never have this energy for the millions of actual Trump voters.
Jill for president. <3
Bruh, I get downvotes just for posting articles about her. I can only imagine the drama you are gonna get for saying this right now. lol
I’m not voting for her, but I like her. So I support your support of her, friend.
Well… That would depend on how many people vote for a third party, doesn’t it?
I mean, I know Americans love telling other Americans that voting third party is a wasted vote, but that’s a self-fulfilling profacy. If everyone believes nobody is voting third party, then nobody will vote third party, so third parties never win, which will lead Americans to say that nobody votes for third parties.
Your first past the post system and your major news agencies who don’t have the decency to pretend to be impartial is really doing a number on your country.
Yep!
Our voting system fundamentally doesn’t allow for third parties to win the vote.
Even if we said “vote for a third party, there’s a statistically significant chance they might win!” this wouldn’t fix the issue, because Jill Stein doesn’t take votes from both sides equally.
Jill Stein leans left, which means people who are otherwise Democrat voters are going to be the largest demographic voting for her.
Our voting system is first past the post, which means this will actually decrease the chance of a left-leaning victory.
Let’s say Dems get 55% of the vote without Jill Stein, and Reps get 45%. Democrats win.
Then, we add in Jill Stein. A significant amount of voters switch over, even some Republicans. (which, in reality, would probably not at all, because Jill Stein’s policies are even further from their beliefs than even the Democrats are)
Dems get 35% of the vote. Reps get 40% of the vote. Jill Stein gets 25%. Democrats & Jill Stein lose, Republicans win.
If Jill Stein were entirely impartial, and took votes equally from each side, then we could have a vote like…
Dems get 45% of the vote. Reps get 35% of the vote. Jill Stein gets 20% of the vote. Democrats win in the same way they would have whether or not there was a third party.
The issue is that, obviously, Jill Stein isn’t taking equal parts of the vote, so this inevitably just reduces votes for Democrats, without reducing votes for Republicans.
It’s not an ideal system, (which is why we should advocate for Instant-Runoff or Rated voting) but it’s the option that will lead to the most left-leaning outcome, as opposed to a heavily fascist one.
It’s mathematically Impossible to have a 3rd party in the US, when are you people with other systems going to understand that?
It’s mathematically Impossible to have a 3rd party in the US
you’re making that up
You need 270 Electoral College votes to prevent the vote going to the states for the Presidency. There are 538 votes available. The only way to have more than two parties compete and have the election not go to the House is if one party is unified and has large public support against the other parties that do not. This essentially creates a single-party state.
Ergo, our system is designed to have two parties, each with roughly half the population behind them. Anything more mathematically ends in a single party state.
this is not a mathematical proof. it’s a story.
Don’t come to Lemmy for math proofs, particularly in a political conversation. What an obtuse statement.
Then why do they never win any votes in the electoral college? When is the last time a third party ever succeeded nationally in the US when it didn’t involve the dissolution of some other party that preceded it?
That’s not math. those are just questions.
You’re on a roll today. I just may love you a little bit!
Then I guess I’d like someone to explain the mathematical probability, because from an empirical standpoint I haven’t seen anything to disprove the claim being made above.
So practically speaking, there is no anti-genocide vote. There is no health care for everyone vote. There is no reduction in firearm caused deaths of children and teens vote. There is no anti corporate regulatory capture vote. These things just are not possible to achieve in America by voting.
Yes. This is correct. Kudos to you for reaching the correct conclusion. It’s difficult to admit the system is fucked beyond repair; the fundamental shortcoming of Jill Stein voters. The only hope is to continue voting for the most progressive of the two candidates and pressure the winner to change the system (if that is even possible)
The thing about the “muh genocide!” crowd, is that if they gave that much of a shit about issues within their own country, maybe Americans could get some nice things once in a while, above and beyond the run of the mill bread and circuses.
Accepting that you have limited power, choosing an issue, and acting locally has become a lost art. People would rather bitch about how it should be different.
Single-issue voting is a plague.
There is a vote for MORE or LESS of all of the above. It’s not like your vote doesn’t matter. Do you want more genocide, or less genocide? “No genocide” isn’t an option. So do you want more genocide, or less genocide?
Which is which? Like, seriously. Put the recent headlines about Israel’s actions against the other guy’s vague, contradictory statements and demonstrated lack of deep interest in foreign affairs. It’s not clear at all.
Put the recent headlines about Israel’s actions against the other guy’s vague, contradictory statements and demonstrated lack of deep interest in foreign affairs.
You’re comparing Netanyahu to Trump? I don’t understand.
For what it’s worth, I’m comparing what’s actually happening (genocide and the Middle East spiraling into war) with Democrats in office (tsk-tsking but providing material support to Netanyahu) to what history shows would likely happen with the other guy in office (hot air and bombast, but almost certainly not any greater material support).
You know Trump has called for the extermination of all Palestinians, right? If you think Trump will be soft on Palestinians…well, you don’t. You’re lying. If you’re saying Trump would (or even might) be easier on Palestinians than Biden or Harris, you’re just straight up lying. There’s no possible way to be ignorant enough to make an honest mistake there. It’s a lie, and probably propaganda, because why else would you say it?
More directly relevant, many members of Netanyahu’s government have also called for the extermination of all Palestinians, and they have the U.S. government providing political cover while they do it.
Why is that more relevant?
OK I want LESS.
I have been wanting less for a long time. Those things I want LESS of don’t seem to be reduced by much since I became eligible to vote. Voting’s not enough.
Awesome, vote Democrat.
Voting’s not enough.
Almost correct. There’s just not enough voting. Having a razor thin Democrat majority doesn’t net us any victories, it just prevents (most) catastrophe. You want progress, give us a 5-senator majority (enough to override the Manchins and Sinemas). You want major progress, give us 60 dems, to bypass the filiburster. Though, Democrats finally seem willing to end the filibuster rule, so at least we should see some progress on that front.
Stein refused to call Putin a war criminal, so yes. There is no anti genocide vote.
Ahahaha spoken like a true Nazi watching Jews being boarded on a train.
Edit: I dont know what the hell is going on with this person. I am for damn sure not a nazi.
They’re a troll.
Just wanna point out that calling someone a troll is against the civility rules in this sub. Thank you!
You’re a troll too.
Nope.
Ok
Who is this article for?
It doesn’t address the real problem here: That first past the post voting is a broken system and that main party candidates should make more effort to fix this glaring hole in the voting system.
Because fptp is garbage, third parties are little more than a method to undermine a candidates opposition (in the US in 2024 the green party is ironically propped up in part by the republican party)
By leaving out fptp it just sounds like anti democracy drivel.
I wish we had ranked choice voting, it just makes so much more sense
Yeah, and there are two major parties that don’t really want ranked choice voting. lol
Most all Harris voters agree things need to be changed.
We also agree that NOW is not the time for that. Just, let’s make sure the orange man stays out of power first before arguing what to change.
first past the post voting is a broken system and that main party candidates should make more effort to fix this glaring hole in the voting system.
The Democratic Party would rather lose to the Republican Party than change the rules to allow for a multi-party system.
That aside, the major parties don’t want to reform the system they have because it’s worked very well for them. Our parties are incredibly old by world standards. The Democrats have been around since the 18th century, and the Republicans have been around since the 1850s.
The Democratic Party would rather lose to the Republican Party than change the rules to allow for a multi-party system.
Exactly! I wish I could upvote you more than once, friend!
Some level of election reform will be on the ballot in 9 states this fall. Make sure you vote, if you can!
Also worth noting that these efforts are generally led mainly by democrats, with support from some moderate republicans. In contrast, 10 republican-led state legistatures have passed outright bans on RCV. One of these parties is not like the other!
https://www.npr.org/2024/06/05/nx-s1-4969563/ranked-choice-voting-bans
The democrats supported RCV in my state.
The Democratic Party would rather lose to the Republican Party than change the rules to allow for a multi-party system.
That’s a weird false dichotomy. Why are you painting those as the two options?
The problem is if you believe this entirely then there’s no mechanism to affect parties. Which is easy to disprove.
The overarching reality is that the parties are affected by things: culturally there’s been a long period (150 years) of slowly unrestricting people with lots of resistance. Then there’s also a economic right wing drift for decades, largely along capital accumulation lines.
I buy the idea that the parties are hard to affect but the idea they are impossible to affect seems ahistorical.
Lol there’s definitely a way to affect them.
Two actually.
One is $$$$
The other one you aren’t allowed to propose.
?There’s several ways to affect politics
-
Corruption - largely the higher corruption is the more advocates to lower taxes for their donors. This is driven by capital accumulation.
-
Bottom up struggles - largely if a number of states do a thing the federal politicians will pick it up. Voting rights, marijuana legalization etc fall into this. Realistically this is probably the way to pick up votes.
-
Media driven - Trump is primarily influenced this way with scares, fear, bullshit. The last 40 years are driven heavily by media scares funded by right wing billionaires. Factual information sometimes breaks through here: I would argue the obamacare ban on pre-existing conditions was the outcome of a media cycle. Usually these are bad rather than good.
-
Personal affectations of politicians. Cheney’s daughter caused him to be sensible on gay rights, McCain’s stance on torture was a result of his time as a POW. George Bush’s daddy issues about Iraq lead to millions of people dying. If enough people shoot at trump I do see him passing gun legislation (not encouraging it, just speculation)
Indeed politics is a tea kettle in the Lagrange zone between the earth and the moon.
But I was suggesting methods for affecting political parties.
-
In California, it doesn’t matter because the results are already known. In other states the calculus is a bit different.
Online rhetoric sways voters in swing states. Your vote may not change the outcome, but your words might.
Good!
I must have really pissed you off huh?
Not at all.
That’s absolutely true, especially for a paper like the LA Times. I am dubious that there is any appreciable effect when it comes to random blogs and so forth.
Right? Imagine believing there are enough conscientious progressives / leftists to flip CA red because of third party voting. Sure, Jan.
Voting for Jill Stein is only “taking a vote away” from Harris if you assume that the voter would’ve voted for Harris without Stein in the race.
That’s a big assumption and I don’t think there’s any good reason to make such an assumption.
Voting for a minor party in terms of the effect on the outcome is approximately equivalent to not voting.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Exactly what I’ve been saying. Democrats are clearly making a choice to die on and sacrifice our democracy to the hill of imagined centrist voters that make perfect, unquestioning and loyal followers for their party. If they lose for it then they alone are responsible for their loss and they should be the ones we direct our anger at for leaving voters on the table in what they themselves call a close and existentially important race.
If they would rather lose elections than court progressive voters, if they would like to win without us as they so clearly do; because we are less convenient to their bottom line than the aforementioned loyal centrist; then that should be laid bare for the world to see. We shouldn’t let them pass their strategic failures off on voters for having morals and sticking to them.
Agreed, friend! You get my upvote.
I mean those perfectly loyal clown fearing pineapple pizza hating plastic people are clearly here in the comments with us. They would have voted for a dementia addled corporate goon if he hadn’t literally gone silent for 30 seconds during a debate. They will throw our “privilege” in our faces, and claim that we don’t care about minorities so we aren’t doing everything in our power to bend the arc of history away from Trump. Not even realizing that their own cowardly groveling is the fucking reason he ever got a spot on the ballot.
The residents of Ohio and Pennsylvania who are undecided aren’t here. They’re undecided because they can’t be bothered to look. Or they’re so disillusioned with the concept of representative government they ignore it as a defence mechanism.
Awesome post!
I mean those perfectly loyal clown fearing pineapple pizza hating plastic people are clearly here in the comments with us. They would have voted for a dementia addled corporate goon if he hadn’t literally gone silent for 30 seconds during a debate.
Right, and every one of those “vote blue no matter who” folks already voted for Biden in the last election and barely eeked out an electoral college win. It’s a dice roll if they can do it again. If democrats want to widen that margin then all they have to do is offer literally anything at all to progressive voters.
Agree with everything you’re saying. The white moderate (re:MLK) is willing to throw anyone under the bus to save their own asses. They will not stand up for what’s right if it comes at the risk of losing their seat, so all you have to do is threaten that seat and they will all collectively sit nice and pretty.
those perfectly loyal clown fearing pineapple pizza hating plastic people
Is this like the MTG space laser lizard Jews?
To be fair, while I’d be like whoa lets not say centrists don’t exist, someone going “Hm idk Donald Trump’s policy of … lets just let cops go wild and kill anyone they want for one day sounds pretty rational and good lets weigh that with Harris’ policy.” is uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh not a fucking centrist.
You think…centrists are imaginary?
My friend, you might be in a bit of a social bubble. Like someone in the deep South who only ever sees Trump yard signs and thinks “everyone” supports Trump.
Nope, didn’t say that. I said the perfect voters they are courting instead of progressive voters are imaginary.
Oh, well that’s still pretty stupid. Centrist voters are by definition less loyal, since they have to be courted in the first place. Democrats don’t expect centrist voters to be unquestioningly loyal, or else they wouldn’t even advertise to them.
No, I’d say they’re pretty loyal to republicans (else you’d be correct, Democrats wouldn’t be courting them with republican policy) and they don’t question the status quo or capitalism, which gives Democrats plenty of room to maintain loyalty to their donors.
Based on which party they’re registered as? That doesn’t mean much, it doesn’t mean they’d definitely vote for the D candidate if there wasn’t another option. You’re assuming that the D candidate otherwise has that vote locked down just by being a democrat.
You can’t “steal” a vote because no one owns that vote except the individual voter and the individual voter is not being robbed when they decide to vote 3rd party.
Great deduction skills there.
Sure, you can’t literally steal a vote, but either you’re unfamiliar with American colloquialisms or being deliberately obtuse. It’s a term that describes exactly what you’re doing here - actively trying to convince people to vote against something using deception.
Yes, you’re being deceptive by trying to drive democratic voters to split their vote so the right wins. I have yet to see you make a single good faith argument here.
In reality a not insignificant portion of them would probably vote for Trump to “own the libs” honestly.
A not insignificant portion of them will vote for Donald because they are MAGAs cosplaying about wanting a third party.
