-59

In a Tight Presidential Race, Third-Party Candidates Present a Wild Card (www.nytimes.com)

submitted 1 month ago by UniversalMonk@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world

10 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 15 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] kevindqc@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

That's all they're good for.

[+] UniversalMonk@lemmy.world -21 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Plenty of people are fed up with the Duopoly. If they don’t like that, then maybe they should focus on actually appealing to voters instead of pushing them away.

Personally, since I’ve been on Lemmy, I’ve become even more turned off by Democrats—the hate and vitriol I’ve seen is worse than anything I’ve encountered from Republicans.

I didn’t vote for either party when I cast my vote yesterday, and I don’t see that changing anytime soon.

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 5 points 1 month ago

Right, because you voted for Pro-Israel candidate Rachele Fruit. Quoted earlier this year:

And anyone who is interested in reading and learning about the history of Hamas will be convinced that it’s not about liberation. It’s about genocide against the Jews.

[-] abff08f4813c@j4vcdedmiokf56h3ho4t62mlku.srv.us 1 points 1 month ago

Mr. Tamas said this was an overly simplistic view of the 2016 outcome, which he has studied. Many of the people who voted for Ms. Stein were unlikely to have voted for any other candidate. Some would have picked Mr. Trump if she had not been on the ballot.
The last real spoiler supported by evidence, Mr. Tamas said, was ... in 2000

Silver lining here - all the money the GOP is spending to spoil the election has gone to waste if this is correct.

Actually, even better,

it was difficult to determine whether Mr. Trump or Ms. Harris will benefit most.

Meaning there's a chance that the GOP spending here turns out to rather ironically help Harris!

[-] MediaBiasFactChecker@lemmy.world -4 points 1 month ago

New York Times - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report)

Information for New York Times:

MBFC: Left-Center - Credibility: High - Factual Reporting: High - United States of America
Wikipedia about this source

Search topics on Ground.News

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/us/politics/presidential-election-third-party-candidates.html

Media Bias Fact Check | bot support

this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024

-59 points (7.2% liked)

politics

19096 readers

2749 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News