A whole swath of GOP voters appears firmly committed to not voting for Trump in November.

Donald Trump has a problem no matter what happens in New Hampshire on Tuesday night: There’s a whole swath of the Republican electorate and a good chunk of independents who appear firmly committed to not voting for him in November if he becomes the nominee.

It’s an issue that became starkly apparent in polling ahead of the Iowa caucuses, when an NBC News/Des Moines Register/Mediacom poll of voters in that state found that fully 43 percent of Nikki Haley supporters said they would back President Joe Biden over Trump. And it’s a dynamic that has been on vivid display as the campaign shifted this week to New Hampshire.

“I can’t vote for Trump. He’s a crook. He’s too corrupt,” said Scott Simeone, 64, an independent voter from Amherst, who backed Trump in 2016 and 2020. “I voted for him, and I didn’t realize he’s as corrupt as he is.”

  • centof@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    62
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Not voting/third party voting helps the Republican party. This is a mathematical fact.

    False, If it is a mathematical fact prove it.

    Every single person who doesn’t vote for Joe Biden and could is supporting Donald Trump.

    Also false. You are relying on the faulty assumption that there either candidate is entitled to your vote.

    There is no “sitting out” option. It does not exist.

    False. You are not forced to vote for anyone.

    I agree with your overall point, but could you make your point without spouting blatantly false information that is just the party line?

    In what world does : Not voting = voting for someone else.

    • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      57
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      9 months ago

      False, If it as a mathematical fact prove it.

      We operate in a first past the post voting system. This means you vote for a single candidate and the candidate with the most votes wins the election. A non-vote or 3rd party vote mathematically benefits the minority party by decreasing the number of votes needed to win. The minority party in our electorate is the Republican party.

      Nothing is false about what I said, you just don’t like it. It has absolutely nothing to do with the party line. If I had my choice Biden wouldn’t be the nomination. No candidate is entitled to your vote, but your influence will affect the race whether you want it to or not.

      • centof@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        48
        ·
        9 months ago

        I understand our voting system. None of what you said mathematically proves anything.

        But if you want to be ignorant and spout falsehoods that is your right.

        I already pointed out 3 false ‘facts’, and I agree with your overall point. Just make it without the psuedo facts. Your point would be much more convincing without them.

          • centof@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            9 months ago

            If 2 of the people in your example, who dislike trump, decide to not vote(while everyone else does); It is misleading to say that they are supporting trump by not voting. The only people supporting Trump are those who vote for him. Ditto for Biden.

            I understand the problems with first past the post. I regularly encourage people to support alternative voting systems like RCV through local initiatives like ballot measures. Represent.us is a great org that pushes for democracy reforms such as RCV, campaign finance reforms, and independent redistricting.

            • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              You seem to be confusing “helping” and “supporting”. They mean two different things, especially when put in context.

              When did anyone say they were supporting Trump? They said it would be helping Trump. Are you saying their votes, or lack thereof, didn’t matter? That their choice to stay home and not vote made no difference?

              • centof@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                9 months ago

                In what way are they two different thing? Support could be a more specific form of help but that’s about the only difference imo. They have essentially the same meaning to me. I don’t really want to quibble over semantics.

                Are you saying their votes, or lack thereof, didn’t matter? That their choice to stay home and not vote made no difference?

                I never said that. Not voting is not supporting anyone. Voting for Biden is supporting Biden. Voting for Trump is supporting Trump. Any claims that not voting supports a certain candidate are political rhetoric. Trying to conflate an individual not voting with supporting a certain candidate is nonsense.

                I don’t deny that there are organized actors who are trying to convince certain people not to vote and that some people saying that may be a part of such a campaign.

                I also don’t deny that on a national scale not voting does harm democrats, but that is entirely different than on the individual scale. It is a political trend in our current culture not a fact.

                • KairuByte@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  9 months ago

                  They have essentially the same meaning to me.

                  Support: giving assistance to someone

                  Help: making it easier for someone to do something

                  Your lack of understanding doesn’t have any bearing on this discussion. That is your failing, and not my responsibility.

                  I never said that. Not voting is not supporting anyone.

                  This is why understanding what is being talked about is important. No one is saying a person not voting is supporting anyone. They are saying that it helps another individual by doing so. And you yourself are saying so, when you admit that those individuals not voting are effecting the outcome of the election, and because they didn’t vote, it helped the individual they didn’t want to be elected to win the election.

                  I don’t really want to quibble over semantics.

                  It’s ironic you say this when your entire argument is “they didn’t intend to support anyone so they aren’t helping anyone win.”

                  • centof@lemm.ee
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    9 months ago

                    Pasting the two definitions does not clarify what I was asking. You claim that they are two different things. In what way are they different to you?

                    No one is saying a person not voting is supporting anyone. They are saying that it helps another individual by doing so. And you yourself are saying so, when you admit that those individuals not voting are effecting the outcome of the election, and because they didn’t vote, it helped the individual they didn’t want to be elected to win the election.

                    Actually the OP explicitly said that. “Every single person who doesn’t vote for Joe Biden and could is supporting Donald Trump”

                    Once again, I agree with the main idea of the OP. It is their false claims that are embedded within it that I am challenging. I do agree that not voting in some cases is helping Trump. But saying it is a mathematical fact is misleading. There is nothing mathematical about it.

                    It’s ironic you say this when your entire argument is “they didn’t intend to support anyone so they aren’t helping anyone win.”

                    Nice strawman. I did not say that.

            • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              ·
              9 months ago

              They “support” (i.e. provide assistance to) Trump by lowering the bar to his success.

              Not all support is explicit.

            • Pratai@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Supporting Trump and getting Trump aren’t the same thing. If you don’t vote for Biden, YOU’RE GETTING TRUMP.

        • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          20
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          We don’t have to agree, that’s fine. You haven’t refuted a single thing I’ve said, just that you dont like it. I’ve very clearly explained my point and supported it with pretty simple logic. Last time: decreasing the number of votes in a pool lowers the votes needed to win. This benefits the minority because they now need less votes to win. The GOP is the minority. Thus, not voting benefits the GOP. I truly don’t know how to explain that clearer.

          There really isn’t anything left to discuss at this point. Best wishes!

        • corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          I understand our voting system. None of what you said mathematically proves anything.

          So, once they DO prove it you just refuse to listen.

          I’ve tried to debate this type of person. Eventually people just stop wasting their time and spread the word that it’s pointless. Watch for a situation you may misinterpret as no one wanting to challenge you because of your debate skills; you’re only half right.

          • centof@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            9 months ago

            You seem nice. I at no point refused to listen.

            I stated I agree with their overall point in all my comments. In general their point that not voting helps republicans is true. But it is not always true, therefore, it is not a ‘mathematical fact’. What I disagree with is their false claim that it is a mathematical fact. It is not certain and provable that voting for a not voting for a candidate or voting for a third party helps Republicans. There is no mathematical evidence for it provided.

            A single republican who previously voted for Trump voting for a third party or declining to vote in 2024 ‘helps’ Biden. That disproves the original claim that not voting or voting third party helps republicans.

        • Pratai@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          You clearly don’t understand what’s being explained to you. Be humble, admit you’re wrong, and correct. This is how we become better people.

          • centof@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            16
            ·
            9 months ago

            What do you claim I am wrong about or don’t understand? If I clearly don’t understand it then why did you feel the need to point that out?

            I value what you say and would not laugh at you for expressing your beliefs. :P

            • Pratai@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              9 months ago

              Do you seriously think I’m unaware of your sea lioning here? Get more experience before taking your show live, kiddo.

              • centof@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                5
                ·
                9 months ago

                The only reason you are calling it sea lioning is because it is massively downvoted. If this same discussion was upvoted you wouldn’t care.

                Sea lioning

                Sealioning (also sea-lioning and sea lioning) is a type of trolling or harassment that consists of pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity (“I’m just trying to have a debate”), and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.

                Asking someone to explain their claim that I don’t know what I’m talking about is not a request for evidence. And I’m not feigning ignorance on this matter, I am explaining why the original claims in question were false.

                • Asafum@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  9 months ago

                  I applaud your attempts at getting people to understand your point. Nothing frustrates me more than seeing a point made, that might even be wrong, but every goddamn reply is just “hurdur you’re dense, you don’t get it. You are dumdum. Get with program buddo.”

                  If they’re wrong, or don’t agree, EXPLAIN IT WITHOUT AD HOMENIN B.S

                  Ughh…

          • centof@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            9 months ago

            Exactly that is exactly my point. Calling something a mathematical fact is in essence claiming it is always true. Which in this case is false. But at this point, some people are just following acceptable groupthink and not actually listening.

          • centof@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            That is a good humorous example of a first past the post voting system and it flaws. I like the bit where Bobby is a pigeon.

            In any democratic zero-sum system, removing votes for one party passively enables another.

            No, actually not in any democratic system. In our current first past the post voting system, it is applicable (minus the electoral college). But (ranked choice voting)RCV or (Score then Automatic Runoff)STAR based systems the outcome would likely be different in some cases. That scenario also ignore the most common scenario where people simply don’t vote. In your scenario, everyone is required to vote. In real life, of the 25 bobby votes some would sit out, some would vote third party and some would vote for a ‘major’ candidate like Biden or Trump.

    • nao@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      9 months ago

      You need to take into account that instead of not voting, you could have voted for the other candidate.

      Simple example:
      7 voters, 2 candidates, A and B. 3 will vote for A no matter what, 4 oppose A. If 1 voter doesn’t vote, there will be a tie of 3-3. If 2 don’t vote, A will win 3-2. If everyone votes, B will win 4-3.

      • centof@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        23
        ·
        9 months ago

        Exactly, voting for someone is helping them get into office. Therefore, voting for candidate C is helping Candidate C. It does not help Candidate A or B. Similarly, voting for candidate B does not help candidate C or A.

        In your first example with a tie, 3 voters chose to help candidate A, 3 voters to help candidate B. 1 person chose to help no one by not voting. That 1 person did not help A or B. Trying to argue otherwise is nonsense. It’s like saying by not downvoting a post with a misleading headline I am supporting it.

        I would agree that not voting does usually hurt the democratic party, but that doesn’t mean it is always the case.

        • nao@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 months ago

          Ok, I didn’t take third party voting into account, the example only works if the options are A, B or not voting. But if there was a third option with any chances of winning, things would look different anyway.

          The case with the tie is included for the sake of completeness but it’s unlikely to happen, especially if there is more than one person choosing not to vote.

          • not_again@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            “But if there was a third option with any chances of winning, things would look different anyway.”

            Aye, there’s the rub.