Really you don't need to read more than one chart:
If you vote for anyone other than Harris, you're voting for Trump:
certain lemmy users around these parts absolutely frothing at the mouth seeing this graph
this post was submitted on 12 Sep 2024
218 points (87.3% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4533 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
A similar article will be posted every time Monk posts one supporting a 3rd party spoiler from now on.
so you're gonna have to find like 20 articles a day.... also don't forget to copy paste a 6 paragraph defense of "I swear I'm not Russian I just post the articles" in the comments of every post
I do have the time... :)
Genuine question: why has he not been banned? To me he seems to repeatedly violate the rule about arguing in good faith, and - to be honest - his passive aggressive civility feels at times more hostile than straight up attacks.
We've talked about it amongst ourselves with the mods and admins and have concluded that having a shitty opinion is not infringing.
They do post legitimate sources with legitimate opinions. They're BAD opinions, but you aren't going to get banned for having a bad opinion.
I don't much have an issue with the material they chose to post - the nature of a link aggregator will sort them to the bottom regardless due how how voting works and as you say, they're legitimate sources.
My issue is more regarding their conduct in the comment sections.
load more comments
(4 replies)
It's not the opinion, it's the JAQ energy and baiting.
If they just posted articles, that's one thing.
They legitimately try to bait people into being heated about things. Afterwhich, they cry victim
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(23 replies)
You are correct, albeit for the wrong reasons :D
Oh God I didn't even realize how badly proportioned the pie charts were. They didn't even generate new ones they just copy pasted an image and changed the percentage number. Aghhhhhhhh I hate this I hate this I hate this
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(29 replies)
If Americans want a third choice support ranked choice voting
^ THIS ^ - As I said elsewhere... Jesus, if ALASKA can do it...
There are two states where ranked choice exists apparently. Are these the states that the third parties are spending money in? They'd be the most likely places for them to win and show they are viable in any way.
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Im glad you posted this, but no both-sides smoothbrain will be convinced by it, since they are either lost on the plot, a bad faith actor, or unable to engage in real world politics.
Still saving it, just to have one more post to bash them over the head with.
It's not about convincing a both-sidser.
It's about convincing someone who reads an article posted by a both-sidser and goes "Hmmm... maybe they're on to something..."
They aren't, they really, really aren't.
Another good one here:
"Don’t Fall for the Third-Party Trick
A progressive who stays home on Election Day — or backs Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Cornel West, or No Labels — is voting for Donald Trump."
"Progressives should not make the same mistake that Ernst Thälmann made in 1932. The leader of the German Communist Party, Thälmann saw mainstream liberals as his enemies, and so the center and left never joined forces against the Nazis. Thälmann famously said that “some Nazi trees must not be allowed to overshadow a forest” of social democrats, whom he sneeringly called “social fascists.”
After Adolf Hitler gained power in 1933, Thälmann was arrested. He was shot on Hitler’s orders in Buchenwald concentration camp in 1944."
I thought Kennedy dropped out to support Trump? Maybe I’m wrong I’m not American, but thought I heard that.
But yeah I agree. It’s just splitting the vote, the same thing happens in the UK. For a long time until this most recent election we only had the Conservatives on the right, whereas on the left you had Labour, Lib Dem’s and Greens, yet the Conservatives kept getting back in because the left wing vote was split, they wouldn’t work together to step down in certain seats to let the party most likely to be beat the Conservatives stand.
Thank god, in a weird way, for Reform UK, massively splitting the right wing vote this time around. Allowing Labour to win. If Labour don’t change the voting system to proportional representation now that they’ve finally got the chance after a 15 year wait, then they are truly mugs. They won’t though I’m sure. They are hopefully supposed to be letting 16 year olds vote which should help.
But yeah, that Hitler story gave me the shivers lol. Apparently we aren’t allowed to call Trump a fascist because it pisses off Republican voters and caused that assassination attempt (even though I swear the guy was a republican voter??)
But like; he is literally a fascist. For me personally, if someone said, “we can stop Trump from ever being elected, but the price is you have to cancel the election and just say that George Bush won and let him have another term”. I’d take that deal. I genuinely think Trump is so dangerous, it shouldn’t be a republican vs democrats thing, it should be an Americans for Democracy thing.
load more comments
(6 replies)
I have given up talking to these people. I really can't with Rule 3 because I do not believe they deserve any form of civility, and since I can't call them out directly, I'll ignore them while destroying their points.
The targets of my takedowns of the 'Imma Vote Jill Stein!111one!1one!!''s articles are the undecided and wavering voters who REALLY aren't sold on Harris/Walz, but really don't like Donald Trump. That's where the 'a vote for anyone but Harris/Walz just makes it easier for Donald Trump to steal the election' line comes in. The 'lost the plot/bad faith actor/naive poster' people can't be convinced, but we don't have to, fortunately.
I know of a couple of Lemmy users who frequently hype third party candidates, and who will not like this analysis at all, lol.
As do I, I see the reports all the time. :)
load more comments
(4 replies)
The underlying fallacy, IMO, is that people think the purpose of elections is to send a message to the government, instead of choosing the government (and that all political problems can be solved by sending the right message).
The best way to approach an election is to determine the most likely scenario in which your vote would actually decide the outcome (which in practice means a choice between the two frontrunners in a FPTP system), and then consider what difference that would make in terms of actual policy (rather than symbolism).
And recognize that this alone won’t fix all the problems with government—that will require other types of involvement beyond voting.
Unfortunately, too many radicals on both sides have over-inflated senses of their own self importance. "We're sending a message!" Yeah, no, no you aren't. You're actively doing nothing in order to make yourself feel good. That's it.
On the nose. The ones screaming the loudest about Democrats supporting genocide. Or saying something stupid like blue Maga, trying to deflect from the fact that they themselves are the most maga like of any on the left. Culturally slave to Virtue signaling no matter how much it hurts them. Get an instant down vote.
If we're going to send them a message. We should be running against them at the local level across the nation. Or better yet, coopting the party and make our candidate theirs. 3rd party presidential candidates are an exercise in pyrrhic self flagellation.
load more comments
(1 replies)
I feel like the most viable path to a third party at this point:
- Ranked choice somehow becomes national law (and while we're at it, other election reform)
yes, already very unlikely here, although it'd help Dems with reelection so under them it's possible if they get rid of the filibuster. Gop would never. 2) Splinters make a better third party, I'm thinking the "RINO"s or MAGA folk. Maybe the progressive wing of Democrars. The current third parties are pretty bad as they are given they don't seem to target places they could actually win. 3) Said faction gets more traction and the model gets tested for a few elections until it's more normal. New paries emerge, etc.
It ain't happening mostly cause of 1, either because the political capital would be too expensive or because it's not ultimately in their interest. The only way 1 can happen is if it becomes a major issue and they've got much more lower hanging fruit, even in election rules (I'd be happy just having electrical college changed to popular vote).
National Election Reform would be great, but that would require we actually have national elections, which we don't. :)
It's not even a matter of 50 state elections... each election precinct is essentially it's own little fiefdom at this point, with officials who BELIEVE they're free to say "I aint gonna certify!" even if the State Secretary of State will put the screws to them if they do.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Funny how third parties always rear their heads at election time but remain almost entirely quiet the rest of the term. Where does the money come from?
We are a two party system.
Yup, at least outside Alaska we are...
Who would have thought ALASKA would have the most progressive statewide voting system?
Can we get that going elsewhere?
https://www.elections.alaska.gov/election-information/#RankedChoice
"In accordance with Alaska law, all general elections will be conducted by Ranked Choice Voting (RCV). RCV allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference. Only the top four candidates who received the greatest number of votes for any office in the primary will appear on the general election ballot. There will still be a space for write-in candidates except for Presidential races. For a candidate to win, they must receive a majority (50% + 1) of total votes cast. If no candidate receives a majority of 1st choice votes in the 1st round of counting, more rounds of counting continue until a candidate reaches a majority."
We're working on it here in Colorado, but the two entrenched parties are fighting us tooth and nail. and don't forget, Alaska has a measure on the ballot to repeal that this election.
Were working on it in Oregon too, ballot measure in November. Our democrats are partially on board with it but all the conservative counties are fighting it for obvious reasons. I'm optimistic though. Oregon has a good track record on average of being forward looking.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 election was not due to any erosion in support for Donald Trump. Rather, not only did Trump’s raw vote total increase, but in the key states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan, Trump’s share of the vote actually increased.
Still mind-boggling and a source of great personal disgust while being a national disgrace. One can only hope that enough people have soured on him since then, after countless displays of racism, xenophobia, sexism, authoritarianism, bigotry, and incompetence. A twice impeached loser felon grifter that's clearly a russian asset should not stand a chance, yet here we are. Makes me sad.
Between the people trying to give you healthcare and secure your job, and the people trying to let your miscarrying wife bleed out in the parking lot of a for-profit hospital, some morons prefer the latter. Why? "because he's racist like me!" seems to be the deciding factor. Yes, that is why my parents are voting for him. and my mom is a poll-worker 🤦♂️
view more: next ›