Elections Will Third Parties Affect the Outcome of the 2024 Election?

[Jack V Savage]

All you do is personally insult people you disagree with. Maybe if you were more correct on your points you wouldn't feel the need to do that.

Me? Do you have me confused with someone else? My point is undeniably correct.

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Haven't seen a poll yet that shows biden winning in a multi party race

 

[idrankyourbeer]

It's not moving the goalposts. I literally said

That was the first time I heard Trump say it, and I mentioned that it was dumb and borderline racist on his part. Note that the left has also referred to Trump as "Drumpf" as well, so it's not like Trump is the only one guilty of this tactic. Not sure why you feel the need to equate yourself to Trump, despite everything you've said about him

oh no. how dare anybody on the left make fun of captain mean tweets or call him mean names, you know, the same guy who makes fun of literally everybody. even the handicapped.

in an ordinary world, that right there would have been the end of his campaign. but he's managed to obtain a cult following of bigots and short bus retards and they love him for this shit. molestini cheetolini has no bottom, and neither do any of the maga trash who worship him.

and i will never feel the need to equate myself to the twice-impeached, quadruple-indicted, election-losing fraudster and rapist. i really don't have the urge to store classified documents right next to my shitter, cheat on my wife with a whore from the gangbang videos while my wife is at home caring to our newborn child, attempt to defraud my country and it's elections, steal from children with cancer, or rape any helpless women inside of a department store. i've got a long way to go before i could ever fill diaper don's depends my friend.

and shouldn't you be out there helping zesto molesto find some of that evidence of election fraud? i hear that he's gonna be releasing it any day now, alongside of his health care plan and obama's real birth certificate. did you hear he was really from kenya? that's what people are saying and everybody knows it! nikki haley....err wait...what was her name again? we'll have to ask cheeto benito to clarify that... anyways she might be from somewhere around there too. i'm sure that if we tune into tucker carlson or watch some of bunker boys latest campaign speeches, we'll find out where she's really from!

 

[Scheme]

Me? Do you have me confused with someone else? My point is undeniably correct.

Good one buddy. If you want to convey a correct point, it should be good enough to not have to make childish insults preceding it and give reminders of how undeniably correct you are.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Good one buddy. If you want to convey a correct point, it should be good enough to not have to make childish insults preceding it and give reminders of how undeniably correct you are.

What childish insults are you referring to? You mean me pointing out a logical flaw in your thinking?

Only some rightists bring up Haley's name, but "the left" calls Trump by his older name. But actually, rightist concern about Haley not having an English-derived name is way, way more common than leftists talking about Trump's name. Your point relies on inconsistent standards of grouping. And your response to me pointing that out was a weirdly inappropriate personal attack.

 

[chardog]

4 more years of TR7MP isn't going to bring us to a better long term future.

one of the two presidents in the past 40 years that has addressed the border issue. I'm completely fine with a one trick pony president, let the guy build his big beautiful wall, control the flow on our terms. After that, someone gonna have to tackle health care, and the last time we had a chance was during obama, and he totally conned his entire based, not that surprising from a chicago politician..... we'll have to get a president that understands housing/banking and how to deal with it, again, a one trick pony is the most you can really ask for.

of course, this is wishful thinking, and I'll be dead by the time any of this is accomplished..........

 

[Scheme]

What childish insults are you referring to? You mean me pointing out a logical flaw in your thinking?

Only some rightists bring up Haley's name, but "the left" calls Trump by his older name. But actually, rightist concern about Haley not having an English-derived name is way, way more common than leftists talking about Trump's name. Your point relies on inconsistent standards of grouping. And your response to me pointing that out was a weirdly inappropriate personal attack.

I said the only ones I have seen use their names were leftists, because the only ones on this forum have been leftists and the specific poster I was quoting is a leftist. I don't understand what's hard about that? Then the poster showed me Trump saying it and now I've only seen leftists and Trump say it. There is no flaw in the logic of my original statement, because it wasn't a general statement on all of society.

Also I don't think you can really act like you never refer to right wing people in groups. You have constant examples of referring to the right wing as a singular entity as well. That's how everyone generally talks here. To act like it's some sort of problem with only my thinking is crazy, especially when you do it constantly and likely much more than I do.

"illustrates your thinking problem" is an insult. And most of the time you quote people who are often right-wing you like to include comments like calling people partisan hacks, calling them illiterate, etc. If your points were so great, you wouldn't feel the need to constantly insult people and say how correct your points are. They would stand based on their merit.

If you'd let me view your profile (for some reason you felt the need to make it private), I would go through your post history and enlighten you to some examples when I have some more time.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I said the only ones I have seen use their names were leftists, because the only ones on this forum have been leftists and the specific poster I was quoting is a leftist. I don't understand what's hard about that? Then the poster showed me Trump saying it and now I've only seen leftists and Trump say it. There is no flaw in the logic of my original statement, because it wasn't a general statement on all of society.

Also I don't think you can really act like you never refer to right wing people in groups. You have constant examples of referring to the right wing as a singular entity as well. That's how everyone generally talks here. To act like it's some sort of problem with only my thinking is crazy, especially when you do it constantly and likely much more than I do.

"illustrates your thinking problem" is an insult. And most of the time you quote people who are often right-wing you like to include comments like calling people partisan hacks, calling them illiterate, etc. If your points were so great, you wouldn't feel the need to constantly insult people and say how correct your points are. They would stand based on their merit.

If you'd let me view your profile (for some reason you felt the need to make it private), I would go through your post history and enlighten you to some examples when I have some more time.

The search function works. Put my name into "By:" and then go wild.

And you're reacting too defensively to understand the point. (Some) rightists use Haley's name just as (a much smaller number of) leftists use Trump's family's old name. But you're denying that "the right" does one, while asserting that "the left" does the other. So the problem is that the inconsistent grouping pattern on this issue is the sole basis for your argument. If you corrected that flaw, not only would your point evaporate, it would clearly reverse.

And with regard to your personal attack, I predict you will find zero instances of me ever being wrong and resorting to Scheme-style personal attacks to cover that up.

 

[Rational Poster]

I said the only ones I have seen use their names were leftists, because the only ones on this forum have been leftists and the specific poster I was quoting is a leftist. I don't understand what's hard about that? Then the poster showed me Trump saying it and now I've only seen leftists and Trump say it. There is no flaw in the logic of my original statement, because it wasn't a general statement on all of society.

Also I don't think you can really act like you never refer to right wing people in groups. You have constant examples of referring to the right wing as a singular entity as well. That's how everyone generally talks here. To act like it's some sort of problem with only my thinking is crazy, especially when you do it constantly and likely much more than I do.

"illustrates your thinking problem" is an insult. And most of the time you quote people who are often right-wing you like to include comments like calling people partisan hacks, calling them illiterate, etc. If your points were so great, you wouldn't feel the need to constantly insult people and say how correct your points are. They would stand based on their merit.

If you'd let me view your profile (for some reason you felt the need to make it private), I would go through your post history and enlighten you to some examples when I have some more time.

Jack is a leftist

 

[Scheme]

The search function works. Put my name into "By:" and then go wild.

And you're reacting too defensively to understand the point. (Some) rightists use Haley's name just as (a much smaller number of) leftists use Trump's family's old name. But you're denying that "the right" does one, while asserting that "the left" does the other. So the problem is that the inconsistent grouping pattern on this issue is the sole basis for your argument. If you corrected that flaw, not only would your point evaporate, it would clearly reverse.

And with regard to your personal attack, I predict you will find zero instances of me ever being wrong and resorting to Scheme-style personal attacks to cover that up.

I actually didn't have to look far, let's just look at the last time you quoted me, a couple weeks ago:

California

Bro, I used to live in Arcata. I love Humboldt. Nice! I lived up the road outside of Crescent City in the redwoods on the Smith River. It was an amazing place. Now I'm stuck in rural Missouri for the time being. Would not recommend. Lol.

forums.sherdog.com

Your post literally starts off by saying I am using a talking point and that I am being dishonest:

This talking point should be a red flag that someone is not interested in honest discussion

You then make the point that the net migration per population of the original state between Florida and California is greater for California. I show you that a data source that shows that California is third to last in total net migration rate, and dead last in raw population migration numbers, while Florida is first in overall migration numbers and fourth in net migration rate. The absolute numbers also show that more people moved to Florida from California than vice versa.

The one being misleading is you, because the statistic you quoted is a misleading and irrelevant statistic (made famous by the most biased source on the matter, Gavin Newsom, the governor of California). The reason it's irrelevant should be obvious, but I'll give you an example:
1. Let's say a state A has a population of 10 people and another state B has a population of 10 million people
2. If 10000 people move from state B to state A, and 1 person moves from state A to state B, here are the net migration rates as a percent of the population of the origin state:
State A->B = 10000 people per 100K (1 / 10 people left)
State B->A = 100 people per 100K

Even though only a single person moved to state B and 10000 moved to state A, the useless rate statistic would suggest that for some reason, 100x more people moved from State A -> State B. This is a ridiculous notion given that the population of state A had increased by 1000x from that immigration, while the population of state B had actually lost people (it had a net migration rate of -9999). So tell me, how in this case does that make sense, that a state loses population, while another gains an insane population boost and somehow the rate statistic shows such an insane discrepancy? It's because the statistic is inherently flawed and shouldn't be considered in the notion of net migration.

And note that in my original post, I didn't say: "well, due to your obvious incompetence and political hackery you would believe such a useless and misleading statistic". I just posted the source of my data. Your first line in your post is about how I was being dishonest, while the whole time you were quoting a misleading statistic from the most biased source on the matter.

So please Jack, stop insulting people when you quote them and reminding people how "undeniably correct" you are. Maybe then you'll learn to make better and more logical points.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I actually didn't have to look far, let's just look at the last time you quoted me, a couple weeks ago:

California

Bro, I used to live in Arcata. I love Humboldt. Nice! I lived up the road outside of Crescent City in the redwoods on the Smith River. It was an amazing place. Now I'm stuck in rural Missouri for the time being. Would not recommend. Lol.

forums.sherdog.com

Your post literally starts off by saying I am using a talking point and that I am being dishonest:

"This talking point should be a red flag that someone is not interested in honest discussion. California has a much bigger population than Florida. In 2021, 1.16 per 1,000 Floridians moved to California in 2021 and 0.96 Californians moved to Florida. In 2022, it was about 0.13 percent of the population of each state that went from one to the other (that is, the rates were the same). One might note that Florida doesn't have a state income tax so rich people have a big incentive to move, and yet few do. Conversely, CA not only has a higher state income tax, but housing costs are much higher. Markets clearly are saying that CA is much, much more desirable."

You were using an inaccurate talking point rather than making a serious point. I correctly pointed that out, and then provided facts that demonstrated the problem with the talking point (and why it is not honest).

You then make the point that the net migration per population of the original state between Florida and California is greater for California. I show you that a data source that shows that California is third to last in total net migration rate, and dead last in raw population migration numbers, while Florida is first in overall migration numbers and fourth in net migration rate. The absolute numbers also show that more people moved to Florida from California than vice versa.

You provided a distraction from my point, yeah. Are people moving from CA to Florida as you stated? Well, over the past two years that we have data for, a slightly higher percentage of Florida's population moved to CA in one, and the second was virtually even. Of course, since CA has a much larger population, the raw numbers will be higher, which is exactly why (if you're genuinely interested in understanding reality) you want to look at percentages rather than raw numbers. What do you call it when someone is doing what you were doing--which was repeating a frequent point made in rightist media that is designed to mislead people who aren't sophisticated consumers of data?

My general view is that we should use data to try to understand reality rather than to try to trick people into adopting a position that is convenient for a political party.

 

[BFoe]

I think you can afford to think a few more votes ahead. If Green votes are leading to the Democrats losing states then they might start introducing policies that appeal to the 31,000 who voted Green. A better long term future might be worth 4 Trump years compared to a slightly better status quo.

As far as your point on environmental policies, sure. I’m just saying: pick your battles.
The very first vote I ever cast in a presidential election was for a 3rd party (Perot). That was 1996, and I felt fine making that sort of statement because it was likely that Clinton was going to mollywhop Dole and win, which I was good with.

When you’re dealing with presidents like Bush or Trump, we are talking about some of the very worst presidents in US history. If there’s any indication that those elections are going to be close—as they were in 2000 and 2016–- that’s not the time to vote 3rd party AFAIC.

In the case of Jill Stein, if memory serves it came out that she had invested in bunch of fossil fuel stocks lmao. So I really don’t know what Stein voters were doing. Bunch of rose-colored-glasses-wearing, hippie dippie liberals that are idealistic and don’t understand politics.

Nothing is worth 4 more years of Trump btw. No fucking thank you.

 

[Scheme]

"This talking point should be a red flag that someone is not interested in honest discussion. California has a much bigger population than Florida. In 2021, 1.16 per 1,000 Floridians moved to California in 2021 and 0.96 Californians moved to Florida. In 2022, it was about 0.13 percent of the population of each state that went from one to the other (that is, the rates were the same). One might note that Florida doesn't have a state income tax so rich people have a big incentive to move, and yet few do. Conversely, CA not only has a higher state income tax, but housing costs are much higher. Markets clearly are saying that CA is much, much more desirable."

You were using an inaccurate talking point rather than making a serious point. I correctly pointed that out, and then provided facts that demonstrated the problem with the talking point (and why it is not honest).



You provided a distraction from my point, yeah. Are people moving from CA to Florida as you stated? Well, over the past two years that we have data for, a slightly higher percentage of Florida's population moved to CA in one, and the second was virtually even. Of course, since CA has a much larger population, the raw numbers will be higher, which is exactly why (if you're genuinely interested in understanding reality) you want to look at percentages rather than raw numbers. What do you call it when someone is doing what you were doing--which was repeating a frequent point made in rightist media that is designed to mislead people who aren't sophisticated consumers of data?

My general view is that we should use data to try to understand reality rather than to try to trick people into adopting a position that is convenient for a political party.

First of all you don't address the net migration statistics, you are addressing a net migration rate comparison between two states which my example has shown is a completely useless statistic that doesn't tell us anything about reality. Did you look at my example? If you have any questions or concerns regarding it I'll happily clarify it. Let me post it again for you, perhaps you'll get it this time, and shows exactly why the statistic you are quoting is invalid and misleading:

1. Let's say a state A has a population of 10 people and another state B has a population of 10 million people
2. If 10000 people move from state B to state A, and 1 person moves from state A to state B, here are the net migration rates as a percent of the population of the origin state:
State A->B = 10000 people per 100K (1 / 10 people left)
State B->A = 100 people per 100K

Even though only a single person moved to state B and 10000 moved to state A, the useless rate statistic would suggest that for some reason, 100x more people moved from State A -> State B. This is a ridiculous notion given that the population of state A had increased by 1000x from that immigration, while the population of state B had actually lost people (it had a net migration rate of -9999). So tell me, how in this case does that make sense, that a state loses population, while another gains an insane population boost and somehow the rate statistic shows such an insane discrepancy? It's because the statistic is inherently flawed and shouldn't be considered in the notion of net migration.

Address this example or continue to lie to yourself, but don't just say "oh yeah you're dishonest and I'm correct", because I wont waste my time continuing to argue with someone who is actually being dishonest.

 

[Jack V Savage]

First of all you don't address the net migration statistics, you are addressing a net migration rate comparison between two states which my example has shown is a completely useless statistic that doesn't tell us anything about reality.

Well, it tells us that your claim was false, doesn't it? I'd think that would be of some interest to you if you care about accuracy as opposed to propaganda.

Did you look at my example? If you have any questions or concerns regarding it I'll happily clarify it. Let me post it again for you, perhaps you'll get it this time, and shows exactly why the statistic you are quoting is invalid and misleading:

I mean, both states have over 20 million people so the example was kind of disconnected from real-world considerations. I think it should really be obvious why rates would be more important, but I guess fair point that if we posit an unrealistically small sample size, it would be much less informative.

Address this example or continue to lie to yourself, but don't just say "oh yeah you're dishonest and I'm correct", because I wont waste my time continuing to argue with someone who is actually being dishonest.

See, isn't this just you trying to use personal attacks to get out of an argument as you dishonestly asserted that I do?

 

[Scheme]

Well, it tells us that your claim was false, doesn't it? I'd think that would be of some interest to you if you care about accuracy as opposed to propaganda.


I mean, both states have over 20 million people so the example was kind of disconnected from real-world considerations. I think it should really be obvious why rates would be more important, but I guess fair point that if we posit an unrealistically small sample size, it would be much less informative.


See, isn't this just you trying to use personal attacks to get out of an argument as you dishonestly asserted that I do?

The example is to show you that the statistic is flawed. California has about twice the population, so the flawed nature of the population differences is very much present. Also why are you suddenly bringing up total population numbers when we are talking about rates? There is nothing magical about the number 20 million that makes the statistic any less flawed.

I am saddened, I truly thought that by showing you a mathematical analogy of why the statistic is inherently flawed and does not reflect at all of the reality of the migration patterns you would accept how bad of a statistic it really is.

Also, my original post is still absolute fact, even with your dishonesty and useless statistic. California is in fact

losing population to the red states like Florida/Texas with not nearly as good climates or industries.

This is undisputable, they have lost population because more people have left California than entered it from those states.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The example is to show you that the statistic is flawed.

It doesn't do that. There's more volatility in a very small sample, but that's not a relevant consideration here. Clearly, if you're actually curious about what net migration trends say about perceived quality of life, you'd be more interested in rates than raw numbers beyond a certain very low sample size (and, off the subject a bit, but you'd also be highly interested in prices--that wasn't discussed because your interest is less in understanding the issue than in misleading people).

California has about twice the population, so the flawed nature of the population differences is very much present. Also why are you suddenly bringing up total population numbers when we are talking about rates? There is nothing magical about the number 20 million that makes the statistic any less flawed.

No, there's something "magical" about 10 people--the sample is too small to be meaningful. Clearly, 20 million is much more significant.

 

[Scheme]

It doesn't do that. There's more volatility in a very small sample, but that's not a relevant consideration here. Clearly, if you're actually curious about what net migration trends say about perceived quality of life, you'd be more interested in rates than raw numbers beyond a certain very low sample size (and, off the subject a bit, but you'd also be highly interested in prices).


No, there's something "magical" about 10 people--the sample is too small to be meaningful. Clearly, 20 million is much more significant.

The example can be scaled up however many you want, it could be 10K people, 100K, 1M, people, etc. I only chose 10 people to make it completely obvious that it's a flawed statistic that doesn't represent any migration reality. I don't know how you can say that California losing people going to Florida and Florida gaining people coming from California is somehow not

losing population to the red states like Florida/Texas.

The only way you can do it is if you use a useless statistic that I've shown is an irrelevant and misleading statistic. The sample isn't too small because it isn't statistical observation, there is no 'sample'. It's simply hard math numbers.

Now, you can look at the net migration as a percentage of your population of a single state (not comparing with another state), and that would also be a valid statistic. In that case, California is 3rd worst in the country while Florida is 4th best. In general, most states in the top 10 are red states in terms of net migration as a % of population and most states in the bottom 10 are blue states. With Florida being 4th and California being 48th. The one invalid statistic you show simply doesn't reflect reality.

 

[Jack V Savage]

The example can be scaled up however many you want, it could be 10K people, 100K, 1M, people, etc. I only chose 10 people to make it completely obvious that it's a flawed statistic that doesn't represent any migration reality. I don't know how you can say that California losing people going to Florida and Florida gaining people comig from California is somehow not

Increasing the sample takes away the basis for opposing using percentages (that the sample is too small to be meaningful).

The only way you can do it is if you use a useless statistic that I've shown is an irrelevant and misleading statistic. The sample isn't too small because it isn't statistical observation, there is no 'sample'. It's simply hard math numbers.

Other than a desire to use stats to mislead, why would you look at the raw number--which merely indicates that one state has a larger baseline population and says nothing about the question you're trying to answer--rather than rates?

Now, you can look at the net migration as a percentage of your population of a single state (not comparing with another state), and that would also be a valid statistic. In that case, California is 3rd worst in the country while Florida is 4th best. In general, most states in the top 10 are red states in terms of net migration as a % of population and most states in the bottom 10 are blue states. With Florida being 4th and California being 48th. The one invalid statistic you show simply doesn't reflect reality.

You used the state-to-state comparison! I pointed out that that's something that has been going around in rightist propaganda circles and that it's a dishonest use of stats, which is what drew your ire in the first place. If you'd simply said, "thanks, I actually didn't mean to mislead but was fooled myself," that would have been the end of it. And anyway, prices are obviously the key metric to look at if you want to see how people value living in different areas (you wouldn't say that more people in the world driving Hondas than Bentleys proves that Hondas are more desirable cars, right?).

 

[sickc0d3r]

I wouldn’t call it wasting your vote. But you do Have to consider the ramifications.

Real example: I have a hippie dippie liberal friend who isn’t very politically knowledgeable. She cares about the environment a lot, so she wanted to vote for Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate, in 2016. That’s all well and good.

But Jill Stein was never going to win. Hillary may not be as good on the environment as Stein, but she’s leagues better than Trump.
And a very real result of voting for Stein instead of Hillary is that it could drain votes from Hillary and allow Trump to win. And that’s exactly what happened: Trump won my state by less than 23,000 votes. Jill Stein got 31,000…

The result was that by voting for the Green Party, you ended up with the guy who cut environmental regulations the most. These are the things you have to consider when voting 3rd party.

Fortunately/unfortunately, this only matters in like 8 states.

 

[Misfit23]

I'd vote 3rd party if the candidate was Haley. Probably voting Biden if Trump is nominated.