this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2024
143 points (91.8% liked)

United States | News & Politics

7178 readers
604 users here now

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
pangyuehung@lemmy.ml
yogthos@lemmy.ml
143
Jill Stein hurts Donald Trump more than Kamala Harris, poll suggests (www.newsweek.com)
submitted 1 day ago by geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml to c/usa@lemmy.ml
85 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

A new poll suggests that Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is drawing more voters from former President Donald Trump than from Vice President Kamala Harris.

According to a Noble Predictive Insights survey released last week, Harris holds a narrow lead over Trump in a hypothetical three-way race. With Stein on the ballot, Harris' lead expands, pointing to a potential spoiler effect similar to what many Democrats blamed Stein for doing to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.

For Trump, the emergence of Stein as a potential spoiler may be a critical factor in battleground states, where even a small shift in votes could determine the outcome. For Harris, Stein's candidacy could paradoxically provide an unexpected advantage, drawing votes from Trump and narrowing his pathway to victory.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] pregnantwithrage@lemmy.world 1 points 4 minutes ago* (last edited 4 minutes ago)

Without looking at any statistics or polling, I think the spoiler effect is not as prominent and is over stated for one reason.

If I'm going out of my way to not vote for the Democrats or Republicans and voting third party that would mean that I dislike my options so much that I'm giving a fuck you to the two party system.

What people can gather from this is if you said there was only two options I would just sit out and therefore it wasn't going to affect either candidate regardless.

I'm open to be convinced otherwise but I think candidates blaming spoilers should look at the electoral college and themselves when every 4 years they are ready to blame single digit candidates for their losses.

[–] pjwestin@lemmy.world 4 points 1 hour ago

Democrats will still blame Stein if they lose, and even though their explicit strategy is to pick off disaffected Republicans, they'll never blame Chase Oliver. It's just like in 2016, when Hillary used the exact same strategy, and they blamed Stein, even though Gary Johnson took home a much higher percentage of the vote in most swing states. They don't care about spoiler candidates; they just want to punch left, especially when they need a scapegoat for a loss.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 17 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

Do you think all of those people who have been saying that third-party voters are going to destroy the US will be apologizing in the comment section here?

[–] vxx@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

It's possible the warnings helped. No reason to apologise for that.

[–] Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee 8 points 3 hours ago

First past the post is a terrible design. Let's rank choice and move on.

lol, pie in the sky right?

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world -5 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Regardless of outcome, you're playing with fire in our current voting system. Even if a few states did actually elect a third party, you could see no candidate reach 270 electoral votes and then it goes to the even more arcane vote done in the house of representatives (which each state gets a vote)

A very blue district in Hawaii sent a Republican (Charles Djou) to Washington in a special election with less than half the vote, because the two Democrats in the race refused to back down. If there were a ranked choice or other voting system than "plurality takes all", he wouldn't have won

[–] Cataphract@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

Oh geez, really tightening up the narrative now. 3rd party voting in non-swing states is getting demonized.

[–] spongebue@lemmy.world -1 points 1 hour ago

Cripes. My point was our current system means your vote for the perfect candidate can put the candidate you disagree with most into office when one with much closer views to yours could have been elected instead. It has happened, and in a place where it really shouldn't have.

That system should be changed for that reason, and until it is you should be very aware of unintended consequences of that vote.

[–] josie@vegantheoryclub.org 9 points 4 hours ago

Dem mental gymnastics are going into overdrive rn

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml -1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

Always make both parties worried: threaten to vote for a third party to keep the main party on its toes. But vote for the main party on the actual day. This isn't a time for idealism.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 14 points 4 hours ago (2 children)
[–] superglue@lemmy.dbzer0.com -1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I've also seen people vote third party for just as long and not a damn thing has changed either. In fact I used to be one of them.

[–] geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml 1 points 17 minutes ago

Has it not? Political parties have copied popular policies from third parties in their subsequent elections many times.

But only once they see how many votes they lose on it they will start considering those policies.

[–] tetris11@lemmy.ml -4 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Sure, if you're willing to take your actions to the streets and have a large following behind you, then by all means strike while the fire is hot.

But if you're not organised other than a vague internet presence, now is really not the time to fuck about.

[–] basmati@lemmus.org 4 points 1 hour ago

Oh, you mean materially supporting protests, showing up to several daily for months, and marching in the street as often as possible? Glad to hear you support Jill Stein.

load more comments
view more: next ›