204
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
204 points (82.5% liked)
politics
19096 readers
3380 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
This actually made me chuckle. It's like you can't help yourself.
It's silly to boast about data that doesn't even add up! It's nonsense data! You claim 3.5% of the country are non-Democrat Trump haters, and conclude that they must all be Republicans because there are 8.5% of the country who are Republican Trump haters!
Each non-Democrat Trump haters is three Republican Trump haters so the third party voters can't hate Trump?!?!
This is the data you're so proud of quoting! It's so obviously BS because, and I'm surprised that I have to point it out to you a third time, one people can't be three people. Your math isn't mathing.
I've addeessed this every time you've stated it. Rather than continue two threads i am going to link to my response from the other one where i adress it once again. https://lemmy.world/comment/12887849
No, you've repeated it every time once stated it. You require proof of statements you disagree with and are uncritical of statements you agree with. It's called confirmation bias and it's very, very normal.
The difference with you is that you act like you think that believe what you believe because you carefully and neutrally analysed the data and drew only logical conclusions from it. [But we saw where you concluded that 3.5% of Americans were trump hating non democrats and that since 8.5% of Americans were trump hating republicans and that number is bigger, all the trump hating non democrats must be republicans and none of them could possibly be third party, and once you finally understood that you had made a big mistake (because each of the non democrats had to be approximately three republicans), you didn't admit that your argument was flawed, you didn't reconsider your position, you doubled down and just edited the numbers for one and found another poll that was slightly less inconsistent because it only requires 7 non democrats to be 8 republicans which for some reason you now think is logical because, what? 7 and 8 are so close?]
So no, you're not deciding what you believe is true from what the data tell you, you're frantically trying to find data, any data, that looks even slightly consistent with your pre-conceived opinion, and not even applying basic critical thinking whilst doing it.
So no, I don't respect your call for proof because your double standards on what constitutes proof are stark and no amount of data or logical thinking can ever cause you to rethink. It's a fools errand for me to start engaging with your logic-free gish gallop.
You sound like you're scared that you won't be able to find any good data that supports you.
This is a mischaracterization of the conclusions i made. I have made it clear that i only need to argue for it being possible that half or more of the 3% third partiers could be in favor of Trump over Harris. Of course many of them favor Harris. You find me where i said otherwise. I double dog date you. Im fact, it was the original article that made the preposterous unsupported claim that almost all third partiers are closet-aupportera of one side or the other. My argument this entire time has been that this claim is BS unless someone can provide support for it.
Since you keep skipping over all of my points in order to get to the part where you criticize me as quickly as possible i am going to ask you exactly one question this time. Please answer.
What exactly is the range of percentages for anti-Trump Republicans that you would accept to be in support of my conclusion?
Well, I'm going to ask you a question that you have been ducking for over twelve hours: can one person be three, or were your reasoning, logic, and conclusions based on misuse of inconsistent and unreliable polling data?
Your attempt to get me to take part in a rehash of the same logic with different data is futile. Your logic is nonsense.
So you're not willing to answer my question?
I have answered all of yours and responded in good faith to each of your less than civil comments. In fact, i have already answered the very question you just re-asked.
Are you willing to answer my question, or should we let it drop?
Are you willing to admit that polling data is unreliable and that it's nonsense to do arithmetic on results from separate pools? If not, there's no basis for engaging with you because you'll just repeat the same nonsense with poll after poll until you luck out on one that is less obviously misleading.
How on earth did you miss the part where i just explained in detail that making claims about what the polls show was something presented by someone on your side of the argument. I am literally here showing how the polls, whether you think they are wortheless or not, do not show what that person was claiming. If your complaint is with polls in general why are you huffing and puffing at me and not at that person. Could it be because that person just so happens to be arguing something that you'd like to be true and i am not?
Because the other person didn't do insane arithmetic between polls in a way that counted some people as three people then defend it three times before backing down, and then refuse to admit for another 24 hours that their logic was flawed.
The other person did no arithmetic at all. Nor did they provide any data at all. But you know what they did do? They claimed that the polling data supported the idea that third partiers support Harris over Trump. And they claimed that a couple very specific types of polling data supported this claim. You know which types? Yep, the exact ones i pulled polling data for. So, critisize the choice of those specific polls all you want, and go on about how i shouldn't compare two polls of disparate groups of people (which was one of my own points before you latched onto it, you're welcome), but in the end you're only making my case for me that the commenter who said the polls support their claim is wrong.
Since then you have: A) misinterpretted my original comment in which i linked the polls, B) repeated your "1 = 3 = magical math" argument, and most recently, C) cast aspersions on all polling data.
We are past (A). I have addressed (B) multiple times and until you answer my question about the exact percentage range that you would accept as proof, i will consider your argument defeated. Now (C) i am in complete agreement on, but polling data being unreliable only helps my argument. I.e. if polls are unreliable then why was the other commenter stating that polling data would prove them right? If polling is unreliable then what basis does the article have for claiming that third partiers prefer Harris over Trump?
No, no, no. I have asked you a very specific question which you have refused to answer. This is not what me backing down looks like.
Oh, sorry, I thought you had backed down from this:
I mean initially you stood by it, then you said the data was approximate then you found another survey where the numbers were closer (4% rather than 8.5%, but still with a magical 7 non-democrats being 8 republicans), then I thought you accepted that you couldn't do arithmetic with data from different polls, but here you are recanting your admission?
Lol. "Give me a precise percentage to use in my meaningless poll arithmetic or you're definitely wrong." isn't as convincing as you think it is. I shall not participate in your illogical nonsense.