That’s certainly my going-in assumption. Both locally and nationally.
Although as the OP below says, he affirmatively doesn’t want Trump but “just couldn’t” vote for Biden, so he abstained for Pres. Which has the effect of letting an enthusiastic Trumper go uncompensated for. IMO that amounts to a passive-aggressive vote for Trump. He won’t be alone in that.
In other words, ‘If you don’t vote for Biden, you’re voting for Trump.’ When I say that, people on the far-Left say something along the lines of ‘NO! The system is corrupt! It hast to be changed! My vote for [REAL Liberal] is the only way to change the system!’ That’s fine if you live in a ‘safe’ state. In a swing state, not so much. In reality, one of two candidates will be the next president. No amount of complaining YOUR candidate isn’t one of them will change the math.
The early voting is encouraging. I always say the the only thing that determines the outcome is Democratic turnout, since Republicans ALWAYS turn out. I believe we’re going to see record turnout this year. And I think we’ll have a result at 11:00 since Florida is going to be called much earlier than that for Biden.
According to the news this morning, about 41% of Washington voters have returned their ballots so far.
Yup. All true.
Ref this snip only:
If you substitute “Conservative” for “Liberal” you have identified the achetypical MAGA. And you can see why they got so energized in 2016. Finally! Someone who acted like a barroom loudmouth, not a patrician fatcat. I can get behind that!! And so they did. In addition to all the many ordinary R voters who simply voted R as they always do.
I thought of that, but didn’t include it in my post because I wanted to be brief. The way I see it, even the Fascist wing of the Republican Party will vote for the Republican candidate. To them, a RINO would be better than any Democrat. It seems that when it comes to the Big Election, liberals are more dedicated to ideological purity.
In case anyone objects to my ‘math’ remark, here’s the way I think. TIFWIW.
Let’s assume an election. The candidates are Joe Liberal (D), Don Wingwright (Rep), and Max Lefty (I). Let’s further assume a state that has 20 electors but only ten voters. The hypothetical state has these rules: If each all candidates receives the same number of votes, then each candidate gets an equal share of the electors. If this results in a fractional elector, then the whole elector(s) is (are) assigned to a candidate by lottery. In our election scenario, given an equal split, two candidates would receive six electors and one would receive eight. If any candidate gets a majority of the votes, then that candidate receives ALL of the electors (‘winner take all’). Given the results of the rest of the votes across the nation, Joe Liberal will become the next president if he receives at least ten electoral votes in this very tight race from this state.
One of the ten voters absolutely hates both of the major candidates. For her, the only acceptable candidate is her candidate – Max Lefty. If she voted for Joe Liberal and all of the Republicans voted for Don Wingwright, Joe Liberal would have the ten electoral votes he needs to win the election. But she votes for Max Lefty. Joe gets four votes (40%), Don gets five votes (50%), and Max gets one vote (10%). Don gets all 20 electoral votes and becomes the next president.
Screw 'em. It’s time for both sides to exercise their political muscles.
Or chose not to counteract a Biden vote with a Trump vote so they would cancel out. So it could be a counted as a vote for Biden by your (non)logic.
I gotta say that LSLGuy’s has shown how left-wing this board is. A person is castigated even when they DON’T vote for Trump.
That always reminds me of something I saw play out on facebook in 2016. A very, very (religious) right friend of mine was having qualms about voting for Trump and announced that he was going to vote for whoever was running for libertarian in that race. His wife commented that he needs to understand that we basically live in a two party system and no matter how much he doesn’t want to vote for Trump, he needs to look at it not as voting for Trump, but voting against Hillary, which a 3rd party vote wasn’t going to accomplish.
That’s why this is non-logic. Why isn’t a third-party vote considered a vote against Trump?
Because if it’s a vote that lets Hilary in, it’s a vote for Hilary!
62 million now. it could hit 100 million early votes total.
Unless the third party has a real chance of winning, it’s a waste of a vote. Voting third party is always going to be a vote against the person you’d otherwise be voting for (or a vote for the person you don’t want). In 2016, switching from Trump to Johnson is a vote against Trump because it means Trump lost a vote. A dem switching from Clinton to Stein is a vote against Clinton, because it means she lost a vote.
If each candidate has 100 votes. I vote for Candidate A and you vote for Candidate B. Now they each 101. However, if I vote for candidate A and you vote for Candidate C, it’s now 101 to 100.
To put this in terms of an actual race. Trump and Hillary, together, get 90% of the votes and Gary Johnson has 3%, what happens if a republican votes for him (or a Dem votes for Jill Stein)? The four candidates remaining candidates (so, not counting Trump/Clinton), received a combined total of just a hair over 5%. None of them had a chance of winning, not by a long shot. Moving your vote to a third is taking away a vote from your party (or handing one to the other party).
I see it as a trolley problem.
We’ve got this train coming up to an intersection. I’m a lefty, so I don’t see either path as particularly great. Down one path, train’s gonna squish a fair number of people. Down the other path, it’s gonna squish a huge tremendous number of people.
And 156 MILLION voters have their hands on the engine and are pushing the train toward one of those tracks.
You also have your greens and libertarians, saying, “Hey, both of those tracks are bad, I can’t push toward either of them. I’m gonna push the train in this other direction! And why should the train even need to go on tracks anyway?”
To which I say, “Look, I agree, the tracks are bullshit, we should have a different system. But right now, right now, we have this failed system in front of us. You know the train only goes on the tracks, and you haven’t taken the time or effort to build a plausible alternative set of tracks, and you know for damn sure that the train’s not going to go anywhere except on one of these two tracks in front of us.”
If you don’t agree with me that one of those sets of tracks leads to a significantly worse outcome than the other–if you genuinely believe that each set of tracks has precisely equivalent outcomes–then let’s talk about that. But if you do believe that one set of tracks is worse than the other, then please, please, PLEASE join me in pushing the train toward the less-bad set.
You don’t have to approve of that set. You don’t have to feel happy about it. And when the train gets on that set, join me in trying to slow it down and interfere with it so fewer people get squished, and maybe even start building an alternative set of tracks, or what the hell, start modifying the train so it doesn’t need tracks anyway.
But right now, in this moment, we don’t have time to do that before the train gets to the intersection. All we can do is push the train onto one of those two sets. Anything else is abdicating moral power and responsibility.
I’d like to share that. There is a person I know who is the person who insists on pushing the trolley in an unavailable direction. This person will not see it, since this person tends to get a bit hysterical over the topic. But others might see it and share it with their friends.
Back on topic for a moment, I saw a tweet this morning by an election analyst who claimed that 25% of the early votes cast so far, about 15 million in all, have been cast by voters who didn’t vote at all in 2016. And that the Democratic “lead” among those voters is double the size of the Dem lead among early voters in '16.
That’s very encouraging to hear – we need a landslide to get past the court ratfuckery – but I have asked him for the source of his statistics. It sounds too good to me.
And the Republican Party goal will be to ensure that none of these votes are counted, as long as Trump is ahead in the vote count at any point on Nov 3. If Trump is ahead in a swing state, look for the Republican apparatus to swing into gear to stop the count, burn the mail ballots and go to court to get them to declare victory for Trump.
They will be going for disenfranchisement on a massive scale.
As a UK citizen, the fact that mail-in voting results are already being reported is weird. Over here you cannot report on exit polls or report any early voting trends.
There was a hoo-ha in the 2019 election when a BBC reporter just hinted that she might know about early trends.
The statement from the electoral commission…
“It may be an offence to communicate any information obtained at postal vote opening sessions, including about votes cast, before a poll has closed.
What is the logic in allowing the early results to be announced? won’t that potentially skew turnout or voting intentions?