CooperRedArmyDog

between 2 and 3 there is a step that goes from "nearly half" to "roughly half" and that is what makes that jump easier you would also likely see that between 3 and 4.

however 2-4 are not needed because 45% is by most metrics a "significant amount"

Plurality, as you pointed out he did not get a majoirty

I belive the offical wording is "wierd hand motion" and "heart going out to the crowd" because clearly none of us have eyes

you stop at you where lied to, you do not need to do the I told you so, you do not need to shame them. If you want to bring people on board you do not antagonize them more than you have to

As someone who is stauncly pro dog ... and weary of cats... I feel like I need to take a side in this debate

... and also Yougoslavia, hence where the name came from

I mean it is not one issue, I have multiple issues, I had one issue that was the straw that broke the cammels back. I needed enough cleared up, or my none starter cleared up first.

Second if we have the same values, why did you compromise on them, and how are you able to sleep with them so compromised.

Third we had more than 2 choices, I would not say of the multiple people running Harris was the best, HECK Harris was not the best potential Dem nominee, she flat out ended her be neighborly and the GOP is wierd because her C-Suite brother in law asked her to stop. She had a good start, and she chose the right VP but threw it away to appease the rich.

I mean I know for none voters this cited Gaza but I think as always Economy was over all number one. I also think it is worth pointing out that we where not doing great over bidens term, so lots of people would vote for anyone who just said it would be better even if it was not fleshed out because it was not good.

I only care and am arguing because it seems like it is the harshest button issue, and while I agree its meaningless and they likely did not swey the election too much, I want, in the cathartic emotional way for someone to either admit that, or admit that harris did a bad stratagy because she abandoned the people to the left of her to get people to the right, because it cannot be nither.

agian they are deffinitionaly not, witholding support, and activly giving it to someone else are not the same

Genuine question, why should I keep agreeing to a compromise that every time I look back has run farther and farther to the right and away from what my values are. You can say protest and advocate for change but when that happened they where shamed arrested and expelled. The railway union was forced into an unfavorable contract by the democrats. At what point is it that this compromise is less a compromise and more a pacification, and me lending my support to another right wing extention? Where is the red line? are individuals not allowed to have positions where if you support them they will not suport you? or even if you get enough of them?

lets not confuse not voting for, and voting aganst