3 ms·
> "by not being registered to vote or by not voting, indicated they were at least OK with him winning" Ah the favorite pastime of the Left - blaming the people
by bigbadfeline 2y ago
> "by not being registered to vote or by not voting, indicated they were at least OK with him winning"
Ah the favorite pastime of the Left - blaming the people. In fact not voting indicates only one thing - NOT being OK with any of them winning, it's a legitimate and very important choice to have, too bad neither of the losers is willing to draw any conclusions.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> not voting indicates only one thing - NOT being OK with any of them winning Of course it doesn't. In a swing state, a non vote or third-party vote means endorsing the outcome. The fact that there wasn't a perfect choice is at the root of compromise that makes for a democracy. (And in a non-swing state, unless someone submitted a blank ballot, it generally means laziness.) Electorally, non-voters are incredibly safe to ignore. They rarely convert from non-voting to voting. If you're an elected and have a non-voting demographic, you can always make political hay by transferring resources from them to your voters.
- ryandrake 2y agoExactly. If you're not "OK with whoever wins" then vote and write-in Mickey Mouse or something. Not even voting literally means you are fine with whoever everyone else picks. The mere ~3M people who voted for some other candidate or a write-in were the only ones whose vote said "I'm not OK with either major candidate."