251
submitted 8 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

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.”

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] centof@lemm.ee 3 points 8 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 13 points 8 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 2 points 8 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 6 points 8 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 1 points 8 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 8 points 8 months ago

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

Not all support is explicit.

this post was submitted on 23 Jan 2024
251 points (100.0% liked)

politics

19050 readers
3074 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS