Being a red state doesn’t guarantee a Trump win though. In the last election he assumed Georgia would put him over the top because they are historically a red state but they actually ended up swinging over to blue by a small majority.
There was a huge controversy around it because Trump called up people there and told them to tamper with the numbers to let him win anyway
The Republican party is counting on the idea that people forget these things quickly lol
OK, but OP mentioned a Red state specifically. They want a more nuanced answer than “vote blue just in case”.
Assume a state so red, Trump loving and Biden hating that there is no possibility of a blue win. Is voting Biden in that particular state still the best strategy for the future of the USA?
There is never no possibility. Florida is considered a red state up there with texas and gore lost to it from a florida court decision on hanging chads.
that just shows a state can change and it can change at any time. enough folks could get fed up that with your vote the outcome is different. Politics is like the stock market. You can use historical trends to guess at the future but historical trends do not always indicate future behaviour.
Because trumpets will always vote Trump. People voting for third party may not be actively supporting Trump, but the 3rd party has zero chance of winning so the only way to keep Trump from winning is to vote for who actually can win against him currently. Which is biden.
OP has given us no info about the candidates they’re considering other than RFK, who is a lunatic. There’s no merit to encouraging RFK’s views, so Biden should be OP’s choice.
I think we’re talking past each other but agreeing on the fundamentals. I’m approaching it from the angle of all government positions - absolutely if a progressive candidate has a chance to win any office from dog catcher to president, get them in so they can influence policy. But if they have no chance of winning, it’s just damage control.
It’s a red state. No chance of anything but a Trump win.
Please explain why their “not TRUMP” vote should be given to Biden?
Being a red state doesn’t guarantee a Trump win though. In the last election he assumed Georgia would put him over the top because they are historically a red state but they actually ended up swinging over to blue by a small majority.
There was a huge controversy around it because Trump called up people there and told them to tamper with the numbers to let him win anyway
The Republican party is counting on the idea that people forget these things quickly lol
OK, but OP mentioned a Red state specifically. They want a more nuanced answer than “vote blue just in case”.
Assume a state so red, Trump loving and Biden hating that there is no possibility of a blue win. Is voting Biden in that particular state still the best strategy for the future of the USA?
There is never no possibility. Florida is considered a red state up there with texas and gore lost to it from a florida court decision on hanging chads.
Florida wasn’t a red state, more democrats have won than Republicans in Florida. It’s the past few years thing that the racism is taking hold quickly.
that just shows a state can change and it can change at any time. enough folks could get fed up that with your vote the outcome is different. Politics is like the stock market. You can use historical trends to guess at the future but historical trends do not always indicate future behaviour.
To demonstrate the lack of a “clear mandate”.
Yes, Trump will win if he gets one more vote than Biden, but the more he loses the popular vote by, the more justification people have for protesting.
So if he wins on electoral college votes but loses the popular vote by a landslide, at least it shows what The People are actually thinking.
We can just as easily define the popular vote as being the sum of all non Trump votes.
No Trump doesn’t need to be Yes Biden.
It doesn’t matter how you define it. It matters how the people that report on it define it. And almost universally, that’s horse race numbers.
Third parties are pretty much invisible for 95% of people until they start breaking into the horse race.
Nobody have a fuck about Ralph Nader or Pat Buchanan till they mattered for the result of the actual election in 2000. But only after the fact.
No, it matter how the strategy analysts view the raw data. Not the media.
Only if you focus on winning. Bernie didn’t run in the primaries to win. He ran to influence.
oh just stfu
Help help. I’m being repressed.
Because trumpets will always vote Trump. People voting for third party may not be actively supporting Trump, but the 3rd party has zero chance of winning so the only way to keep Trump from winning is to vote for who actually can win against him currently. Which is biden.
Please explain why it should be given to anyone else.
Because there are lots of other people who are not Trump.
Voting for candidates with more extreme policies shifts the political needle, even if they don’t win.
OP has given us no info about the candidates they’re considering other than RFK, who is a lunatic. There’s no merit to encouraging RFK’s views, so Biden should be OP’s choice.
RFK has significantly less lunacy than Trump, and is much more coherent than both Biden and Trump.
He still supports Israel though, so there is no anti genocide candidate.
didn’t he literally have a worm burrowing through his brain
Yes. 14 years ago.
Kennedy said he had recovered from the memory loss and fogginess and had no aftereffects from the parasite.
RFK is less coherent than Biden politically and intellectually, which is what matters.
The way RFK makes (coherent) arguments in public is streets ahead of Biden and Trump, but so is almost any politician.
In terms of honesty, RFK is between Biden and Trump. Half truths and populism, rather than the full lies of Trump.
No, it isn’t. He’s a conspiracy theorist. Voting for him is endorsing conspiracy theorists.
The Tuskegee experiment is not the same as Flat Earth. Conspiracy theories are not a homogeneous and neither are conspiracy theorists.
Voting for other candidates only shifts the needle if they win. If they can’t possibly win, nothing is accomplished by voting for them.
Incorrect. Bernie shifted the needle and didn’t win.
On Thursday he rolled out two new policy proposals:
"Senator Sanders and his supporters can take pride in their work in laying the groundwork for these ideas,
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/10/830853819/joe-biden-won-the-primary-now-hes-trying-to-win-over-progressive-groups
Didn’t win? Dude’s a congressman. He’s in.
Bernie didn’t win the presidency but still got some of his policies adopted by the president.
You don’t need to win to have influence.
I think we’re talking past each other but agreeing on the fundamentals. I’m approaching it from the angle of all government positions - absolutely if a progressive candidate has a chance to win any office from dog catcher to president, get them in so they can influence policy. But if they have no chance of winning, it’s just damage control.
Short term, yes. Long term losers can have more impact than you are crediting.