I know you aren’t a nonvoter, and I never said you were one.

Nonvoters include people who don’t bother to register and people who say they don’t plan to vote. So they can be identified before an election.

And despite what many seem to think, the vast majority of nonvoters would not become voters even if a candidate had done X, whether X is “support Palestine” or “support trans people” or “stop talking about trans people” or whatever else.

People love to project their personal politics onto nonvoters, but the fact is that nonvoters are nonvoters mainly because they do not care about politics.

It’s really no different than other human activities. For example, I don’t watch NASCAR races because I do not care about NASCAR. And NASCAR drivers ignore me, which is fine. Because even if they were highly interested in me, there is literally nothing they could do that would make me want to watch NASCAR.

I am a NASCAR “non-watcher”. Well, turns out lots of people feel the same about politics as I do about NASCAR.

Again, the vast majority of nonvoters are politically disengaged. They don’t stay home out of disgust, they stay home because they don’t care.

So on Brand

No, there is a specific term for people like that: “First time voters”. And they are courted by all parties.

If they vote for my second choice, then by definition they aren’t nonvoters.

They don’t have to “designate” people as nonvoters. A nonvoter is someone who doesn’t vote. Nonvoters designate themselves.

Yes, I’m serious. Are you? Because “Democrats will never win” is about as serious as someone who says “The 49ers will never win” after watching last week’s game.

The vast majority of nonvoters are politically disengaged, and there’s no evidence that their opinions differ significantly from those of voters.

The point is that “Democrats will never win” is obviously false, since many of them win every year.

They court voters all the time. They don’t court nonvoters.

For the same reason, campaigns don’t depend on getting youth to finally turn out to vote. It’s a strategy that has never worked.

Democrats won over 200 federal elections last month. Believe it or not, Harris was not the only Democrat on the ballot.

Democrats need to listen to people who vote.

But the person I replied to said they also need to worry about nonvoters. They don’t. Nonvoters don’t matter.

Nobody needs to worry about people who don’t vote.

Not exactly. It’s taking away a guardrail that protects patients from quacks. If that results in a bad outcome, the quack is still responsible.

They can still catch screw ups (check to confirm if the doctor really wants something). But if the doctor insists that they want it, then the hospital/pharmacy has to provide it.

This law doesn’t really restrict what doctors do. If anything it gives doctors more power.

It restricts hospitals and pharmacies, basically preventing them from vetoing prescriptions from idiot doctors.

That’s not what it says.

Under the proposed law, a doctor can prescribe a drug (or not) as they already do. It requires hospitals to dispense the drug if a doctor prescribed it (exception: the usual religious nonsense).

Currently hospitals can refuse to fill a prescription under some circumstances, if they disagree with the doctor.

Judge Lopez didn’t say it was corrupt, quite the opposite. But he did think it was flawed.

Cutting interest rates excessively would likely increase inflation.

By all accounts, Trump genuinely wanted Gaetz to be his AG.