Your wild guess percentages based on zero evidence are not a name. You still have not given me a name. Who am I supposed to vote for if you won’t even give me a name?
I asked for a name that has a reasonable chance of beating both Trump and Biden. I see that West has 2% support. That is not a reasonable chance, so that name is not the name I asked for.
Also, you have contradicted yourself, because Cornel West is not a Green party candidate. Therefore, based on your previous post, he won’t have that (evidence-free) 99% chance of winning.
Odd that this name for a candidate that can win is so hard for you to come up with.
If there is no candidate that has such a chance, why bother voting?
You have not given me a good reason. Your reason so far is not supported by history. Neither Perot nor Nader changed a thing. Unless you can give me a good reason why that will be different this time around, you are grasping at straws.
If you want to vote, fine. Go ahead. I just don’t see why you’re bothering when you can’t even give a good reason. Seems like a lot of effort for nothing.
Your wild guess percentages based on zero evidence are not a name. You still have not given me a name. Who am I supposed to vote for if you won’t even give me a name?
Cornel West there you go.
I asked for a name that has a reasonable chance of beating both Trump and Biden. I see that West has 2% support. That is not a reasonable chance, so that name is not the name I asked for.
Also, you have contradicted yourself, because Cornel West is not a Green party candidate. Therefore, based on your previous post, he won’t have that (evidence-free) 99% chance of winning.
Odd that this name for a candidate that can win is so hard for you to come up with.
Donald Trump. he has a high percentage chance to win.
That’s what you’re looking for right? Someone with a high win percentage?
Or are you looking for someone that endorses your views with a win percentage? I hear Joe Biden endorses Genocide, do you endorse genocide?
Nope, this is what I have asked you for multiple times:
If there is no candidate that has such a chance, why bother voting?
Because if the amount of voters for a different candidate increases then it will be noticed. It will do two things:
Force the Dems to move back more to the left actually to win back those votes
The next time around people will consider it a more viable option.
Asking for them to win directly is basically a catch22.
If you keep voting Democrat now you very explicitly endorse that you are content with their current policies.
That didn’t happen with Perot or Nader. I find it very hard to believe that would happen this time.
Why can’t you just admit that you can’t give me a name?
If you don’t want to vote for someone who doens’t have a chance of winning then just stay home
I didn’t say anyone should stay home.
I said:
You have not given me a good reason. Your reason so far is not supported by history. Neither Perot nor Nader changed a thing. Unless you can give me a good reason why that will be different this time around, you are grasping at straws.
If you want to vote, fine. Go ahead. I just don’t see why you’re bothering when you can’t even give a good reason. Seems like a lot of effort for nothing.