If I live in a red state, would it be better to vote for rfk to take votes away from trump?
If I live in a red state, would it be better to vote for rfk to take votes away from trump?
Title
You're viewing a single thread.
No. Vote Biden.
UPDATE: Vote Harris!*
If you can spare the time or money, volunteer and donate to the campaign in places they can actually win.
EDIT: Also, vote Democrat if there are any other elections going on at the same time. If Trump does win, the only chance of holding him to any kind of account is to have as many Democrats in positions of power as possible.
Sincerely, someone who can't vote in your elections but still lives with the knock-on effects!
*EDIT 2: Absolute necro-editing to change this to say Vote Harris.
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.
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.
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.
didn't he literally have a worm burrowing through his brain
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:
- Lower the age of Medicare eligibility from 65 to 60.
- Forgive student debt for low-income and middle-class families who attended public colleges and universities and some private institutions.
"Senator Sanders and his supporters can take pride in their work in laying the groundwork for these ideas,
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.
That's fair.