Did he really mean it that way? Almost has to be overlapping voters and non-voters. Any portion of those non-voters deciding to vote due to that issue, or normal voters letting that issue tip their vote a certain way, could have a huge effect on elections. And if RFK takes advantage, major party candidates may take notice.
Did he really mean it that way? Almost has to be overlapping voters and non-voters. Any portion of those non-voters deciding to vote due to that issue, or normal voters letting that issue tip their vote a certain way, could have a huge effect on elections. And if RFK takes advantage, major party candidates may take notice.
I agree with you. But let's say 40% of 60%, that'd be 24%. A big number, but then people vote on other things besides jabs. Some are concerned about other issues, and many just vote for whoever they find likeable, or whoever their influencers recommend. Many suffer from TDS and will vote for whoever they think can vanquish Orange Man.
Did he really mean it that way? Almost has to be overlapping voters and non-voters. Any portion of those non-voters deciding to vote due to that issue, or normal voters letting that issue tip their vote a certain way, could have a huge effect on elections. And if RFK takes advantage, major party candidates may take notice.
I agree with you. But let's say 40% of 60%, that'd be 24%. A big number, but then people vote on other things besides jabs. Some are concerned about other issues, and many just vote for whoever they find likeable, or whoever their influencers recommend. Many suffer from TDS and will vote for whoever they think can vanquish Orange Man.