Or maybe it’s just that nobody uses the shortened “MIC” in regular conversation–they would just say the full thing. No need to shorten, just write it out.
I’ll vote third party anytime someone has a realistic chance to win, but that’s not the U.S. presidential election. There’s a reason for the trope “throwing your vote away”.
In an ideal world we’d get rid of the electoral college and implement ranked choice voting. Until then, the primaries are where we maybe have some chance to influence who becomes president.
From your other comments seems like you’re trolling.
But for anyone else reading this: I had seen numbers between 10-20% from Michigan and Minnesota for people who voted “uncommitted” in the primaries. There is smaller turnout for primaries than general elections, and democrats are only half or so of the turnout at the general election.
It’s extremely unlikely that a 3rd party candidate will win with a fraction of the primary voters who are a fraction of the general election voters. If people went forward with a 3rd party candidate it does seem likely it could throw the election to Trump.
I support the uncommitted campaign in so far as it alarms Biden about losing voters who want to see action protecting Palestinians and makes him change his positions.
I don’t think those same people should vote 3rd party during the general election because of the classic bullshit choice we have to keep making: the lesser of two evils.
Let’s also remember: there are many obstacles to even getting listed on the ballot, and those requirements vary state by state. Even if someone well funded decided to run today, it’s unlikely they could get their name on the ballot in every state. (So add ballot access reform to the wishlist along with ranked choice voting and eliminating the electoral college)
Why should 10% of third-party voters support the Democratic nominee when 90% of Democrat voters could simply support [third-party candidate that I can’t even name]? Surely getting 81 million voters to change their minds is a trivial task! Y’all are just dense!
3rd party in 2024 is the only way to escape the MIC
“Man In Charge”? What does MIC mean??
Military Industrial Complex
The sad reality when Americans haven’t even heard of the shackles on their ankles.
Or maybe it’s just that nobody uses the shortened “MIC” in regular conversation–they would just say the full thing. No need to shorten, just write it out.
Did you check @RoyalEngineering’s passport? Otherwise, I’m not sure that you can assume they’re an American.
Believe it or not, the world is not America.
Not really sure they’d have a pasaport, being from the States and all.
Got it, you used your psychic powers to figure out what country they’re a citizen of.
You used to live in L.A. for quite some time.
Acting like everybody on here is a complete anon is a naive hill to die on.
OP is American lmao.
“You lived in L.A. therefore I know a different internet stranger is a U.S. citizen” is a weird explanation for your psychic powers.
I never said I wasn’t a U.S. citizen.
I also know what MIC means.
Careful, my eyes almost rolled right out of their sockets.
Ross Perot got nowhere.
Ralph Nader got nowhere.
Why would it be different this time?
I’ll vote third party anytime someone has a realistic chance to win, but that’s not the U.S. presidential election. There’s a reason for the trope “throwing your vote away”.
In an ideal world we’d get rid of the electoral college and implement ranked choice voting. Until then, the primaries are where we maybe have some chance to influence who becomes president.
If the uncommitted vote wasn’t obvious, there 100% will be a strong front-running 3rd party here in a couple of weeks or so.
Esp once those 3rd parties see the amount of dissent that exists surrounding the 2 main candidates
From your other comments seems like you’re trolling.
But for anyone else reading this: I had seen numbers between 10-20% from Michigan and Minnesota for people who voted “uncommitted” in the primaries. There is smaller turnout for primaries than general elections, and democrats are only half or so of the turnout at the general election.
It’s extremely unlikely that a 3rd party candidate will win with a fraction of the primary voters who are a fraction of the general election voters. If people went forward with a 3rd party candidate it does seem likely it could throw the election to Trump.
I support the uncommitted campaign in so far as it alarms Biden about losing voters who want to see action protecting Palestinians and makes him change his positions.
I don’t think those same people should vote 3rd party during the general election because of the classic bullshit choice we have to keep making: the lesser of two evils.
Let’s also remember: there are many obstacles to even getting listed on the ballot, and those requirements vary state by state. Even if someone well funded decided to run today, it’s unlikely they could get their name on the ballot in every state. (So add ballot access reform to the wishlist along with ranked choice voting and eliminating the electoral college)
If/when Biden makes those decision too late (hint: it’s too late), I fear most of you are farrrr too dense to vote for an actual candidate.
Which will result in Trump.
I’ll wager money against that considering a “strong front-running third party” takes more than two weeks to happen.