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

    Is that 63% specific candidate? Or is that 63% in general?

    Because of its 63% for a specific candidate we can talk. Looks like it’s just in general. Which makes sense because the two candidates are particularly bad this upcoming election.

    Oh man, looks like you have no good arguments to counter mine, otherwise you would have used them. Looks like I’ll have to put you back into the idiot category. Sorry.

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

        Whoa, where did I say the poll was meaningless?

        How do you do that thing where you put things I never said in my mouth? Hey, let me try.

        My name is OBJECTION! and I can’t read.

        Wow, that was easier than I thought it was.

        Ad-homing is fun!

        • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s not not how you spell ad-hominem or what it is.

          If the poll is not meaningless to you, then what number would it have to be for it to make you to vote third party?

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

            The poll would have to be about a specific candidate. Not voting third party in general.

            Third party in general just means that most people are sick of the two candidates in top. This could mean that we are splitting The 60% between five third-party candidates. This means the Democratic and Republican candidates are still on top?

            Now if 60% of the people were interested in voting for the green candidate specifically. Then I’m very interested and a big funny is about to happen to the Republican or Democratic candidate.

            • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 months ago

              The poll would have to be about a specific candidate. Not voting third party in general.

              Then why did you link it?

              • deaf_fish@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 months ago

                It was a counter to this statement.

                When polls ask people who they intend to vote for, they would tell them that they intend to vote for the Democrats, because they consider the Greens nonviable.

                But I now that I am re-reading it I see that I had misinterpreted it. I thought you were implying that polls only ask questions about voting and not option. This was my bad. Sorry.

                • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  It’s an important point, because you presented it as a form of evidence that could be used to show when “it’s time” for everyone to switch to a third party, and then completely rejected it for that purpose right after. Which leaves us back at square one, which is that there is no means of coordinating a sudden switch or recognizing when such a switch would be viable. And without that, your whole position collapses.

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

                    Or a poll that shows favorability over voting.

                    Your argument boils down to “We would need a thing that easily could exist and maybe currently doesn’t exist and that’s why this is an unsolvable problem.”