No, its not. you can’t infer that. jfc people read what I’m writing to you.
Not Voting can mean a number of things depending on the individual, including but not limited to:
I needed to work
My polling place had unrealistic hours.
X/Y/Z for Candidate/Issue were unacceptable to me wholesale.
I’d be fine with either
If ALL candidates are unacceptable from the get go that’s a candidate issue not the voters problem. thats literally the definition of a line in the sand. the fact you can’t distinguish it from ‘being fine with either’ doesnt mean what you’re implying is true. BOTH voters are fairly easy to win over long as your candidate isnt ideologically opposed to something they actually care about.
Here is a simple action you can take to distinguish between the two non-voters:
‘What issue would get you to support candidate Y?’
-> if they give a policy that neither candidate is running on you’ve found someone who finds both objectionable.
-> if they say they’re not interested in politics / can’t think of anything then you’ve found someone who is actually indifferent.
you need to approach these two voters very differently when trying to get them to vote. For example: my answer is ‘support universal health care, fix the visa program so people are not tied to a company, set a inflation matching living wage’ there are a ton of issues personally that would get me to cast my vote, and not a single one starts with ‘but Y (republicans) are X (murdering children)!’ or uses the phrase ‘least worse choice’.
You can get away with the ‘least worse choice’ nonsense with the indifferent candidate. but you’re still more likely to win them over with something they want.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
No, its not. you can’t infer that. jfc people read what I’m writing to you.
Not Voting can mean a number of things depending on the individual, including but not limited to:
If ALL candidates are unacceptable from the get go that’s a candidate issue not the voters problem. thats literally the definition of a line in the sand. the fact you can’t distinguish it from ‘being fine with either’ doesnt mean what you’re implying is true. BOTH voters are fairly easy to win over long as your candidate isnt ideologically opposed to something they actually care about.
Here is a simple action you can take to distinguish between the two non-voters: ‘What issue would get you to support candidate Y?’
-> if they give a policy that neither candidate is running on you’ve found someone who finds both objectionable.
-> if they say they’re not interested in politics / can’t think of anything then you’ve found someone who is actually indifferent.
you need to approach these two voters very differently when trying to get them to vote. For example: my answer is ‘support universal health care, fix the visa program so people are not tied to a company, set a inflation matching living wage’ there are a ton of issues personally that would get me to cast my vote, and not a single one starts with ‘but Y (republicans) are X (murdering children)!’ or uses the phrase ‘least worse choice’.
You can get away with the ‘least worse choice’ nonsense with the indifferent candidate. but you’re still more likely to win them over with something they want.
You really enjoy being wrong, don’t you?
left / right whats the difference. not my problem you dont agree/understand what im telling you.