“if you want our votes” is the most toothless threat one could possibly make in the current political environment, no matter what your single issue concern is… abortion, climate, guns, arguably the very color of your own skin, you’re lbgtqrstuvwxyz, you like books, you like money… whatever the hell it is you want, you got exactly one option on the ballot for it.
How many of these people would actually not vote Biden? Likely exactly zero of them, because God forbid trump wins, every single one of these voices will get slapped on the ignore list for four years.
Every single climate focused individual should probably vote green party, but if they all actually do, they’re fucked, because theyre blue team, and the blue team won’t beat the red team without them.
Toothless threat, and it’s going to fall on deaf ears… Bidens campaign machine is going to be focused on a couple key states, and the only action that’s going to be taken is to throw money at them…
Cornel West was a speaker. In the past, having Green Party candidates on the ballot has shifted 2-3% of the population to voting for them instead of the Democrats. That’s enough to tip close election, which is what we’re likely to have.
Getting his support, and having him stay off the ballot in likely swing states would make a real difference.
In the past, having Green Party candidates on the ballot has shifted 2-3% of the population to voting for them instead of the Democrats
can you prove that?
It’s a bit lower than I thought; Jill Stein got ~1% of the vote in 2016. The spoiler effect is so well-known that you see Republicans funding Green Party candidates. It’s an artifact of how US elections work:
Scenario 1:
D: 11 votes
R: 10 votes
G: 0 votes
Democrat wins
Scenario 2:
D: 10 votes
R: 10 votes
G: 1 votes
Tie decided by game of chance
Scenario 3:
D: 9 votes
R: 10 votes
G: 2 votes
Republican wins
none of this addresses my question:
CAN YOU PROVE THAT 2-3% OF THE POPULATION BOTH HAVE VOTED FOR GREENS, BUT OTHERWISE WOULD HAVE VOTED FOR DEMOCRATS.
i already know the answer: you can’t prove a counterfactual.
A good way to is poll twice, once including a Green Party Candidate, and once not. Emerson College did that for some swing states a few weeks back. Here’s a pretty typical example, showing how results in Michigan change when West is added to the ballot:
This is why having him on the ballot is a really damaging for the Democrats, and it’s important that there be a negotiated policy concession to get him to avoid the damage.
A good way to is poll twice
what makes you think this is a good method for proving your claim that 2-3% of all voters were democrat voters who switched to green in past elections?
You are being so rude. Silence is linking all the data and graphs at you and you’re spitting in their face.
It’s a good way of saying what people are thinking of doing, and that’s exactly what was happening in Michigan a few weeks ago. Given how close the election is likely to be in that state, even a far smaller number of people voting G instead of D will throw the country for Trump.
the polling is interesting but it doesn’t prove that any of those people will vote at all.
The ‘RV’ annotation means it’s a poll of people who say they are registered voters.
Proof is a standard for mathematics. Not the real world. It’s likely enough that Republicans regularly provide financial support for the Greens. That’s good enough for me