• commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    the polling is interesting but it doesn’t prove that any of those people will vote at all.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The ‘RV’ annotation means it’s a poll of people who say they are registered voters.

      Proof is a standard for mathematics. Not the real world. It’s likely enough that Republicans regularly provide financial support for the Greens. That’s good enough for me

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        so you have conjecture. you should have just said that instead of stating it as indisputable fact and then trying to snow me with data that doesn’t prove your position.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I have:

          • a history of people actually voting for the Greens
          • polls where registered voters say they’ll do so instead of voting for Democrats
          • a party ideology which could attract Democrats but which would be antithetical to Republicans
          • a history of Republicans funding Green party candidates as spoilers
          • an Election system which causes them to in fact serve as spoilers

          It’s pretty compelling when taken as a whole

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            i’m of the opinion that democrats spoil green party elections, and if the democrats weren’t on the ballot, greens would have won every election for the last 30 years. and i have just as much proof as you do.

            • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The Green candidates are all complete dorks. We have studies on what voters like in a candidate and they have none of those qualities.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                We have studies on what voters like in a candidate and they have none of those qualities.

                you aren’t providing any of those studies. further, as i said, a hypothesis framed like this cannot actually be proven (or disproven), so i don’t know what good those studies would do.

      • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        registered voters are not the same as likely voters, nor actual past voters. you made a claim that you simply can’t prove and none of the data you’ve provided is, in fact, proof for your claim.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOPM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Likely voter models don’t work well enough to look at 1-3% kinds of numbers of voters more than a year out from election day. Sorry.

          Using actual voters from 2020 is tough because we had two different third parties there: the Greens who siphoned votes off of Biden, and the Libertarians who siphoned a larger number of votes off of Trump. So you see polls showing the combined effect (slightly beneficial to Biden) but not the separate impact of the Green party candidate.

          Absolute proof isn’t something that really exists in the social sciences, which is why you’re never going to find it, the most you find is several decent converging lines of evidence, as we have here.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Absolute proof isn’t something that really exists in the social sciences

            this platitude isn’t even true. lots of things can be proven false in social sciences. the fact that you are (quixotically) defending an unprovable hypothesis doesn’t mean there aren’t disprovable hypotheses which are possible.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Likely voter models don’t work well enough to look at 1-3% kinds of numbers of voters more than a year out from election day. Sorry.

            your claim was about past elections. the data you provided was about a potential future election. you still don’t seem to be able to understand what was wrong with your claim.

              • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                it’s not the volume: it’s teh quality and relevance. you haven’t given me any relevant data to support your claim.

          • commie@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            the Greens who siphoned votes off of Biden and the Libertarians who siphoned a larger number of votes off of Trump.

            you can’t prove this at all. just because e those people did vote for libertarians or greens does t mean they would have voted for anyone else. in fact, given the option, they did NOT vote for someone else.