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.
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.