Speaking about the likelihood of whether a candidate can win is not the same thing as desiring for that candidate to win.

I explicitly said in my very first reply to you that I wasn’t making a recommendation about which candidate to vote for because my point was about the reasoning of the argument and whether OP’s argument actually addressed the viability of a candidate, the central piece of contention when it comes to whether a third-party candidate is capable of winning.

That doesn’t mean I want Cuomo to win, regardless of how his chances look or his actual viability. I’m not a centrist; I don’t want centrists for office; I’m thrilled the socialist won the primary; this is entirely besides the point of my original comment.

the sex pest you want is a centrist

Ohhhhh; O. K. Yeah; you are just totally ignoring what I’m saying.

Thanks for, at least, confirming.

I’ve said multiple times I wanted Mamdani to win; I’ve also said multiple times that I’m, very much, not advocating for anyone to vote third party (again, the candidate I would want won). You’re just ignoring what I’m saying and substituting your own reality.

O. K. then; carry on. I wasted way too much time actually thinking this was a real conversation.

paragraph of excuses

…you mean the material differences between two different scenarios?

I’ve already said that the backing of a powerful organization in different election series would render the same advantages and chance of winning – regardless of the candidates political positions (and that I wanted Mamdani to win! I’m not even arguing to not vote for him; I think every New Yorker should) – so this is literally you just insisting that, no, really the reasoning would be different if Mamdani ran as a third party and the Democratic party endorsed him. Then I’d say the reasoning was different and you should vote for the guy who won the primary.

Which, like, if you’re going to assume I’m secretly lying, why even bother to have responded in the first place?

Voting 3rd party is literally voting for the worst candidate, in all cases unless there’s a progressive as the party’s nominee, in which case it doesn’t matter.

See, this is why it feels like your responses are wholly detached from anything I’m actually saying.

I explicitly said that people who make these arguments don’t advocate against third party votes in local elections (because the viability/feasibility dynamics of a smaller population are different) and I thought it was clear to extrapolate from the underlying reasoning (but perhaps I was mistaken) that voting for a third party presidential nominee who’s been backed by, say, the Democratic party because they opted to not back the winner of their primary during a presidential election (which I didn’t mention as it feels highly unlikely, ever, but it’s the same premise) would make sense because that candidate would then have the name recognition, reach, and resources necessary to reach a populace as large as the entire nation.

Objectively, you’re directly contradicting what I’ve said the reasoning of the argument is, even when I’ve pointed out it argues the opposite.

It seems I’m not able to break down the core basics of the underlying mechanics well enough so we’ll probably have to end the conversation but, just in case I’m still being avoidably unclear, I’ll try to summarize as barebones as possible:

it’s about resources.

More resources behind a candidate materially changes that candidates viability; unless you can explain how a progressive candidate in this scenario invalidates the resources and reach that’s actually of concern when weighing whether a candidate can succeed, you – likewise – are opting to ignore the details of the reasoning and not actually address them.

I mean, I’m not even arguing one way or the other. When people argue against voting for a third party in a presidential election, it’s on the basis that the candidate has absolutely no shot at winning and, at best, will split the vote.

It has nothing to do with liking or not liking hypocrisy; the basis of their argument is entirely about whether a strategy is viable, not whether they felt good about the decision.

I assumed that the OP was actually trying to poke holes in the argument but arguing that the Democratic party has backed a third-party candidate in a local election doesn’t negate any of the actual points regarding dissuading voting for a third-party candidate who is without the same resources and does not have the same kind of outreach (such as appearing in debates, etc.) in a presidential election. That’s why, notably, OP had to specify a presidential election: people don’t, generally, argue against voting for third parties at the local level because the visibility of those candidates winning is entirely different.

Do you get what I mean? It wholly doesn’t engage with the actual reasoning or evidence for the argument so it…wouldn’t mean anything, if you did try to use it as a rebuttal.

You’re going to fling that a high-profile and well-recognized (even amongst non-politically engaged voters) organization gave recognition and resources to a third party in a local (not even gubernatorial but) mayoral election as a counter defense for voting for a third party in a presidential election?

FB is ostly AI, and right wing content.

Sure but it wasn’t always; it’s been nearly a decade (if not that) since I’ve stopped using it. A lot has changed.

I realized sometime in the last year that Lemmy provided me all the usual community groups I needed and actually content I wanted to read (I never really used Reddit to just browse, outside of the sub.s I’d joined).

And I’ve been using Mastodon since, like 2020 or something (never was a fan of Twitter, though).

Also stopped using Facebook though that’s probably more due to burnout and falling out of touch with a lot of the people in my life. Facebook really did make navigating socializing and keeping in touch both easier and less energy intensive and it is, for me, a good example of how social media can be good rather than this nebulous Garbage™ that people seem to emotionally brand such a large classification as. Shame about it being owned by one of the worst human beings (but it was also always going to end up as shit – in the end –, so long as owned by a corporation); since I’d already dropped in using it, I just opted to stay stopped.

Still use YouTube as there isn’t a real viable alternative yet; itching for the day they’re is.

And still use Tumblr, as most of those I socialize with are on there; though it has built up plenty of its own enshittification over the last few years. If I ever finish my Fediverse clone of it, that’s where I’ll be sprinting to.