201
So you don’t like Trump or Harris – here’s why it’s still best to vote for one of them
(theconversation.com)
this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
201 points (81.9% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3438 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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
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 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.
I addressed your 1 = 3 already.
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.
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?
No, this is exactly the same criticism! It's exactly the gish galloper's technique - make a series of nonsense claims, firing salvo after salvo of nonsense into the argument. There's no point me engaging with any of your other claims until you accept that you were talking nonsense with the first. We don't have a basis for discussion unless we agree what counts as sane or rational points to make from data. I think that any points that require one non-democrat to be three republicans can't possibly have merit, and for a fleeting moment I thought you had accepted that your argument on that specific point was erroneous, but I just now read that you don't recant that assertion at all. Why would I engage with other data if you can't agree that that didn't make sense?
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:
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
I think you should re-read the article. I don't think it says what you think it says. I think it says that they dislike Trump and they dislike Harris and that they might be mistaken in their belief that they dislike both equally, and that they should figure that out and vote to stop the one they dislike the most by voting for the other one. It doesn't at any point claim that third party voters support Harris.