[xp84]

The reason it doesn’t matter is that everyone who chooses to vote third party does so fully knowing who the two front runners are, as well as the likely margin of their state. Most third-party voters are in extremely uncompetitive states, making it quite safe to make a statement vote, even though it potentially dampens your “lesser of two evils” candidate’s apparent mandate.

For instance, I wrote an invalid write-in candidate since both major parties ran clowns in 2024, but Harris carried my state by a mile.

[tracker1]

This is very true... I used to vote Libertarian for all races where there was a Libertarian candidate... then my state shifted purple, and I'd rather see a Republican more often than not over a given Democrat candidate. While I don't agree with the actual far right fringe, I cannot vote for a party with prominent communists in it.

[apparent]

I agree that most people who vote for other candidates come from uncompetitive states. But this doesn't necessarily prove your point. If there were more other-candidate supporters who would have voted for Kamala (if they had to vote for one of the two main candidates) than Trump, then that would mean he wouldn't have won the popular vote if it was just between the two of them.

Regardless, I think it's important to be precise about claims like this, since there is actually a difference between winning the popular vote and winning a plurality of it. Imagine making the claim if 10% of the popular vote went to third-party candidates, or even 20%!

[JCattheATM]

> For instance, I wrote an invalid write-in candidate since both major parties ran clowns in 2024,

That makes you part of the problem. And no, only one party ran a clown, and that party won because of people like you.

[pepperball]

Don’t worry, the next out-of-touch geezer you run will definitely have the charisma to win. It looks like they may be up against JD Vance for Christ’s sake.

[JCattheATM]

At this point the bar is so low, who knows? A criminal rapist fraudster grifter won and continues to have enthusiastic support. Personally, I blame religion for strengthening those tribalism neural pathways and eroding critical thinking abilities.

[rolymath]

Critical thinking comes later, not before. So religion doesn't erode them, but delays them.

Secondly, tribal behavior is strengthened through sports teams, college allegiances, rep vs dem party lines and many other things, with the latter of those being the main reason.

Thirdly, the dems were very pro zionist while Trump was able to maintain deniability. This swung a lot of dem voters.

Lastly, Kamala got something like 0 votes in the primary. Wishing she would win the general election was delusional. Dems should themselves in the foot twice vs Trump with Kamala and when they betrayed Bernie to help Hillary.

You should engage in some critical thinking yourself instead of blasting your insecurities over the internet. Your media diet (bet $1000 that reddit is a big part) needs a do-over.

[JCattheATM]

> Critical thinking comes later, not before. So religion doesn't erode them, but delays them.

Critical thinking is a base human ability, which religion can indeed erode before it has a chance to grow.

> Secondly, tribal behavior is strengthened through sports teams, college allegiances, rep vs dem party lines and many other things, with the latter of those being the main reason.

This doesn't negate anything I've said, it adds to it. It is notable that the more religious parts of the US act more religious about their political party, however - something not seen in most western countries.

> Thirdly, the dems were very pro zionist while Trump was able to maintain deniability. This swung a lot of dem voters.

They were not as pro zionist as the "Lets demolish Gaza and build new resorts" GOP.

> Wishing she would win the general election was delusional.

Only because the US population is what it is, which is why wishing the only rational choice got elected is too much to hope for.

> blasting your insecurities over the internet.

I'm doing no such thing, however the way you make assumptions so haphazardly shows you yourself could benefit from some critical thinking instruction.