No one knows your chosen third party candidate exists, and unless you want to become their campaign manager that will still be true in November. Even if you did, they still wouldn't win.

In the last election, Biden got 50% of the popular vote, and Trump got 45%. Say for the sake of argument that if nothing else happens, 2024 will have the exact same spread. Suppose you're the best campaign manager ever and manage to convince 2/3 of the people who would have voted for Biden, plus everyone who was going to vote third party, to vote for your candidate instead. (Given the current state of money in politics I should not need to explain why this is infeasible, but suppose it is.) Congratulations! Your candidate now has 37% of the nationwide vote. Unfortunately, that's not good enough, because Trump's voter base, who care not for your leftist policies, still gave 45% of the vote to him, and he wins the election.

All voting third party instead of Biden does is make it more likely that Trump will win.

[–] davel@lemmy.ml -3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

You seem to think you’re explaining, over and over, how voting works to people who don’t know how voting works, but they do know. You’re enlightening no one.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 6 points 7 months ago (1 children)

I have demonstrated that voting third party is inviting a Trump victory, yet these people who supposedly already understand everything I say insist that this is not the case. What's not clicking?

[–] xor@infosec.pub 4 points 7 months ago (1 children)

what's not clicking is that half of the "people" trying super hard to make biden into the antichrist actually do want trump to win and are arguing disingenuously.

the time to complain about biden was the last three years, the time to complain about trump is now.

if their only political opinion is about how bad biden really is... and they never talk about trump, russia or ukraine...
then it's a duck

[–] davel@lemmy.ml -5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

Are these bots in the room with us now? https://lemmy.ml/comment/9279492

IT Pro: Cambridge Analytica models were exaggerated and ineffective, [UK Information Commissioner’s Office] claims

Wall Street Journal: Mueller Doesn’t Find Trump Campaign Conspired With Russia

Jacobin: Democrats and Mainstream Media Were the Real Kremlin Assets

Washington Post: FEC fines DNC, Clinton for violating rules in funding Steele dossier

Washington Post: Russian trolls on Twitter had little influence on 2016 voters

Jacobin: It Turns Out Hillary Clinton, Not Russian Bots, Lost the 2016 Election

Matt Taibbi: Move Over, Jayson Blair: Meet Hamilton 68, the New King of Media Fraud The Twitter Files reveal that one of the most common news sources of the Trump era was a scam, making ordinary American political conversations look like Russian spywork

Jacobin: Why the Twitter Files Are in Fact a Big Deal On the Left, there’s been a temptation to dismiss the revelations about Twitter’s internal censorship system that have emerged from the so-called Twitter Files project. But that would be a mistake: the news is important and the details are alarming.

MSNBC Repeats Hamilton 68 Lies 279 Times in 11 Minutes

Jeff Gerth at Columbia Journalism Review on Russiagate: Editor's Note | Part one | Part two | Part three | Part four

Matt Taibbi: WMD, Part II: CIA "Cooked The Intelligence" To Hide That Russia Favored Clinton, Not Trump In 2016

Chris Hedges: Why Russiagate Won’t Go Away

[–] xor@infosec.pub 3 points 7 months ago (1 children)

judging by your wall of sources, pretending like they're related to what i'm actually saying, it appears that you are indeed in the room...

also, you're a sea lion

[–] davel@lemmy.ml -1 points 7 months ago (1 children)

They’re all related to your BlueAnon conspiracy theory about Russian bots, which you didn’t explicitly state but clearly meant to imply.

[–] xor@infosec.pub 0 points 7 months ago (1 children)

nope, i'm not blue, not blueanon...
not implying what you pretend you think i'm implying...
you're deliberately fighting a strawman

[–] davel@lemmy.ml 2 points 7 months ago (1 children)

half of the “people”

Why are people in quotes? Because you mean bots, meaning paid shills and/or software “arguing disingenuously,” and not regular people posting earnestly/organically.

if their only political opinion is about how bad biden really is… and they never talk about trump, russia or ukraine… then it’s a duck

What “duck” are you alluding to? Russian bots.

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 0 points 7 months ago

why wouldn't russian bots talk about russia?

they're pure blooded american trump supporters arguing in bad faith, simple as