Scratch a anti-harm reductionist and a fascist bleeds
Scratch a anti-harm reductionist and a fascist bleeds
60 comments
-
And that is a problem, not a forgivable quirk.
And you're outnumbered by these people 100 to 1 and you think you're going to vote harder than them.
trying to ensure the LESS pro-oligarch candidate wins
No you're right I'm sure the oligarchs hate it when you vote for one of the two candidates they hand picked for you. Nice primaries by the way.
Do you... do you know what Harris lost by?
31 states. 86 electoral votes. That's 16 percent of 538. A wider margin than 4 of the 7 presidents elected this century.
In such a system, not voting or protest voting is effectively a half-vote contribution to whomever the eventual winner is
Right, it's electoral quantum superposition. Shroedinger's ballot. Get the fuck out of here. A vote for a third party is a vote for a third party. Staying home is voting for no one. Stop getting your logic from bumper sticker slogans. It's dumb.
-
And you’re outnumbered by these people 100 to 1 and you think you’re going to vote harder than them.
What the fuck are you talking about?
No you’re right I’m sure the oligarchs hate it when you vote for one of the two candidates they hand picked for you. Nice primaries by the way.
You mean the primaries where no one of substance ran and Biden, the winner of the 2020 primaries, won effectively by default?
So glad that military-grade morons like you are out here asspatting letting the more oligarch friendly candidate win as some sort of 4d chess against oligarchy. Putting your own goddamn nuts in a vise and calling it strategy when they pop like grapes.
31 states. 86 electoral votes.
Nice dodge. Less than 2% of the vote, genius.
Right, it’s electoral quantum superposition. Shroedinger’s ballot. Get the fuck out of here.
Jesus fucking Christ, I'm sorry basic math is equivalent to quantum physics in your limited comprehension.
-
Nice dodge. Less than 2% of the vote, genius.
Oh the popular vote matters now? When did they change the constitution?
Jesus fucking Christ, I'm sorry basic math is equivalent to quantum physics in your limited comprehension.
I was being generous calling it anything other than mental gymnastics. Statistically, non voters' political slant probably reflects the rest of America and slightly more than half of them would have voted for trump. God, imagine that happened and you had to blame the DNC for running a shitty candidate that nobody liked instead of people who refused to partipate in this electoral circlejerk. That would be horrible for you.
-
Oh the popular vote matters now? When did they change the constitution?
Would you like to remind me what causes a state to go for one candidate or another?
I was being generous calling it anything other than mental gymnastics. Statistically, non voters’ political slant probably reflects the rest of America and slightly more than half of them would have voted for trump.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with the fucking point, Jesus H. Christ.
Read what's being said before trying to argue against it.
-
Would you like to remind me what causes a state to go for one candidate or another?
Sure.
The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons, of whom one at least shall not be an Inhabitant of the same State with themselves. And they shall make a List of all the Persons voted for, and of the Number of Votes for each; which List they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the Seat of the Government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.
Read what's being said before trying to argue against it.
You mean this?
In such a system, not voting or protest voting is effectively a half-vote contribution to whomever the eventual winner is
I did read it. I don't buy it. In fact I think it's dumb.
-
And what makes those electors vote in the modern day, largely restricted by state law?
-
That is left up to the states. And even if there are many who assign all of their electors to whoever won that states popular vote, the national popular vote is a useless metric for anything other than bragging rights. Losing by 31 out of 50 states is not a close election, it's a blowout.
-
That is left up to the states.
And again, what have the states largely decided?
"The popular vote means nothing" is just as fucking stupid as thinking the popular vote means an automatic victory.
the national popular vote is a useless metric for anything other than bragging rights.
Yet a shift in the vote, so long as it's not running up numbers by doing endless fucking rallies in useless places like fucking California (thanks, Hillary), is generally a national shift, resulting in state majorities or pluralities shifting.
Losing by 31 out of 50 states is not a close election, it’s a blowout.
Your claim was, and I quote:
Harris lost, by a wide margin. She didn’t have a chance.
If you think that a 2% shift in the national vote was impossible and beyond the realm of reason, to the point of characterizing it as Harris not having a chance, you're out of your fucking gourd.
-
"The popular vote means nothing" is just as fucking stupid as thinking the popular vote means an automatic victory.
It apparently means a lot to you. I'm not sure why. It means jack shit in a US presidential election.
useless places like fucking California
If this is how you talk about states that went the way you wanted them to, I'm starting to think you're just an angry person who is angry at everything. Have you considered therapy?
is generally a national shift, resulting in state majorities or pluralities shifting.
You're acting like trump didn't lose the popular vote and win the election last time and I'm not sure why you're doing that because he did.
If you think that a 2% shift in the national vote was impossible and beyond the realm of reason, to the point of characterizing it as Harris not having a chance, you're out of your fucking gourd.
I think a 2% shift in the national vote would have been irrelevant because, as we've covered already, the popular vote doesn't decide the race.
Harris lost Arizona by 5 points, North Carolina by 3 points, Nevada by 5 points, Pennsylvania by 3 points, Ohio by 11 points, Florida by 11 points. If 2% more people voted for Harris nationwide the result would be a trump presidency with a slightly smaller difference in the popular vote for you to seethe about.
Harris didn't have a chance. Know how I know? Because she fucking lost.
-
It means jack shit in a US presidential election.
Lord.
If this is how you talk about states that went the way you wanted them to, I’m starting to think you’re just an angry person who is angry at everything. Have you considered therapy?
... we're literally discussing strategy right now. Running up votes in a safe state is fucking useless. For someone who's beating their chest about how 'realistic' they're being, that's an awfully simple thing to miss.
You’re acting like trump didn’t lose the popular vote and win the election last time and I’m not sure why you’re doing that because he did.
Where am I pretending that? Feel free to quote me, genius.
Harris lost Arizona by 5 points, North Carolina by 3 points, Nevada by 5 points, Pennsylvania by 3 points, Ohio by 11 points, Florida by 11 points. If 2% more people voted for Harris nationwide the result would be a trump presidency with a slightly smaller difference in the popular vote for you to seethe about.
She lost Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Georgia all by ~2%. Winning Pennsylvania (48.6% vs. 50.3%) and 2 of the other 3 would have given her victory. Sorry that you're so ill-informed, but I understand that masturbatory cynicism is preferable to folk like you over actual analysis of events.
Harris didn’t have a chance. Know how I know? Because she fucking lost.
... what fucking bizarre circular logic.
-
Ok champ
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
60 comments