If you’re an unhappy voter and want other unhappy voters to hold their noses and vote for the major candidate they least dislike, think about the Golden Rule.
It has been said a gazillion times over the last few months, but is it getting through to those who need to hear it?
I don’t know what you mean by gish but I’d be happy to discuss any other polls that you are more comfortable with… But you’d have to provide some for me to do that.
Do you have anything to say about your conclusion that one non Democratic voter equals three Republican ones?
I addressed your 1 = 3 already.
Admit you were wrong and that I might have sensible points to make if you want me to engage with more of your insane and impossible conclusions from your bad takes on opinion polls.
I will admit to being wrong just as soon as you make a compelling case. I’m sorry but you have not done so. All you have managed to do so far is throw a bunch of personal attacks and then zero in on this one = three which just not the gotcha that you think it is.
Make a case. Instead of just criticizing me, perhaps. You don’t like my polls? Provide your own. Come on, get involved.
Hahahahha. That’s rich. I have presented you with a grand total of 4 polls; all intimately relevant to the discussion at hand. That’s too much for you to handle?
Don’t switch your criticisms mid stream. Have i presented you with too much data or not? Am I actually guilty of gish gallop or was that just your excuse for ignoring 25% of the data i gave you?
E: conveniently it is the exact bit of data (the only bit provided anywhere yet) that directly addresses the question at hand: Do third partiers prefer Harris over Trump or do they not?
At no point have you made a coherent argument based on them, though.
Don’t switch your criticisms mid stream.
No, this is exactly the same criticism! It’s exactly the gish galloper’s technique - make a series of nonsense claims, firing salvo after salvo of nonsense into the argument. There’s no point me engaging with any of your other claims until you accept that you were talking nonsense with the first. We don’t have a basis for discussion unless we agree what counts as sane or rational points to make from data. I think that any points that require one non-democrat to be three republicans can’t possibly have merit, and for a fleeting moment I thought you had accepted that your argument on that specific point was erroneous, but I just now read that you don’t recant that assertion at all. Why would I engage with other data if you can’t agree that that didn’t make sense?
I don’t know what you mean by gish but I’d be happy to discuss any other polls that you are more comfortable with… But you’d have to provide some for me to do that.
I addressed your 1 = 3 already.
I will admit to being wrong just as soon as you make a compelling case. I’m sorry but you have not done so. All you have managed to do so far is throw a bunch of personal attacks and then zero in on this one = three which just not the gotcha that you think it is. Make a case. Instead of just criticizing me, perhaps. You don’t like my polls? Provide your own. Come on, get involved.
Then look up gish gallop.
Hahahahha. That’s rich. I have presented you with a grand total of 4 polls; all intimately relevant to the discussion at hand. That’s too much for you to handle?
At no point have you made a coherent argument based on them, though.
Don’t switch your criticisms mid stream. Have i presented you with too much data or not? Am I actually guilty of gish gallop or was that just your excuse for ignoring 25% of the data i gave you?
E: conveniently it is the exact bit of data (the only bit provided anywhere yet) that directly addresses the question at hand: Do third partiers prefer Harris over Trump or do they not?
No, this is exactly the same criticism! It’s exactly the gish galloper’s technique - make a series of nonsense claims, firing salvo after salvo of nonsense into the argument. There’s no point me engaging with any of your other claims until you accept that you were talking nonsense with the first. We don’t have a basis for discussion unless we agree what counts as sane or rational points to make from data. I think that any points that require one non-democrat to be three republicans can’t possibly have merit, and for a fleeting moment I thought you had accepted that your argument on that specific point was erroneous, but I just now read that you don’t recant that assertion at all. Why would I engage with other data if you can’t agree that that didn’t make sense?