What you described as being what they should have said in order for it to have meant something sounds like a pledge to me—not in the sense of a sworn oath on a Bible, but in the sense of a promise or commitment or strong strong intention. You seem to have wanted more than they gave (call it what you will), and I’m saying they gave enough to convince me that they had a very good chance of voting for that person, had that person been nominated. Which was my original point.

That’s about it, as I see it.

All we are talking about here is a simple declarative consequent following upon the antecedent of a conditional proposition.

That’s all.

One more thing—I wasn’t throwing aside what you actually said and pretending you said something else. I was attempting to get at the question of whether my paraphrase was what you may have actually meant by some of what you said (and I used the word “if”). That’s because I’m having trouble understanding why you seem to want some sort of pledge (at least, that’s my interpretation of what you want from these people) before you credit my description and impression of what they said and what it meant.

Words and thoughts are not always clear. Sometimes they are hard to interpret and it’s hard to understand the thoughts behind them. I’m merely trying to understand an argument from you that I find a bit strange. You may find it strange that I find it strange, but I do find it slightly strange that you are arguing so vociferously against my own impressions of my own conversations with friends, as summarized here.

In summary, of course I don’t know for sure what they would have done, but they gave every indication of giving serious consideration to voting for certain GOP candidates rather than Hillary. They even seemed fairly eager to do so, considering that they had not voted for any GOP candidates before.

I’ve explained over and over why there was no reason for them to take some sort of pledge like that. I wasn’t quizzing them on that, nor do I even remember verbatim what they said (maybe they even did make some pledge and I don’t remember it), since all of these discussions occurred during the early days of the primaries, probably no later than January or February.

Understand that we do not discuss politics often. This was them bringing it up to me, which was unusual. They seemed extremely serious. What happened—and I believe I’ve already alluded to this—was that in a couple of months or less (by March and certainly by April) it had become clear that Trump was almost certainly going to be the nominee.

So the candidates they were interested in faded, and there was no reason for them to come to me again saying “Oh, I absolutely would have voted for them if they hadn’t faded!”

I have no idea why you keep harping on this idea of some sort of solemn pledge from them, something I wouldn’t have expected from these people. They are all moderate Democrats (yes, such people exist) who do not live and breathe politics but do pay some attention to it and take voting seriously. They have also told me in recent months how distressed they are at both alternatives this year. They have made it clear that their vote for Hillary is extremely reluctant and due almost entirely (or entirely) to the Trump alternative.

I would not expect more from them on the subject. We discuss it very seldom. I’m not in the habit of grilling people on this. But it is my strong impression that some of these people would have voted for Rubio, Kasich, or several other candidates over Hillary.

If you’re just saying “Maybe they wouldn’t have voted for a GOP candidate, if someone other than Trump had been nominated, because they didn’t sign a contract written in blood to that effect”–then well, of course they might not have voted for the GOP candidate. “

I cannot believe the way this exchange has gone. Why not simply quote what I actually wrote, rather than rhetorically constructing an question I never posed, and then enclosing it in ostensibly paraphrasing quotes, in order to rebut it?

Here is a simple way one could get to the root of the matter.

One need only ask one’s self if at any time any person from the class of persons purportedly under discussion, has actually said that, given X Republican option in opposition to Hillary, they would vote for that option. Certainly there was some sufficient time between a year ago and the locking up by Trump of the nomination for this to have occurred were they truly serious and motivated.

Hand wringing, and indications that one might be driven to do a little opposition candidate tire-kicking have just about the same political value as their cash value does in the marketplace.

At any rate, when the quoting readily available text goes by the wayside in preference to the construction of pantomimes, it’s probably best to call it a day.

If you’re just saying “Maybe they wouldn’t have voted for a GOP candidate, if someone other than Trump had been nominated, because they didn’t sign a contract written in blood to that effect”—then well, of course they might not have voted for the GOP candidate.

My point is that what they said was not “nothing” and is still not nothing. They were very serious and very perturbed, and continue to be so. They approached me on this, which is highly unusual and had never happened before. Our interactions indicated to me that many of them were extremely serious about this and very ready to abandon Hillary, but for Trump.

You don’t have to believe it, but that’s what I gleaned from my interactions with them. But the greater point is that Trump made that possibility impossible; because he is the nominee they are now determined to vote for her in order to stop him.

“their intentions still might come to propositionally mean something more than nothing”

Perhaps it’s the limitations of language or vocabulary, the possible ambiguities in the senses of “likely”, or “commit”, or the meaning of “informed”.

But whatever it is, I cannot for the life of me fathom what it is in substantive terms that Neo’s acquaintances were, in the final analysis positively asserting, apart from some expression of considerable discontent with Hillary’s character.

Neo contended and I earlier granted that they intended no categorical commitment to any individual Republican contender.

I then allowed as how failing a categorical formulation, their intentions still might mean something less than zero, in positive terms, if those intentions were reformulated as a hypothetical proposition. Thus, say for example, and since his name was most mentioned: If Rubio or Hillary; then, Rubio.

But even this was, I believe I have been informed, too strong a formulation. Back when they opened the door a crack, it was too early to know much about Rubio. And subsequently, at the time of the initial debates, perhaps there was no communication with Neo.

Which leaves a palpable what, exactly? It seems to me, merely with certain – quite possibly posturing – professions that their disquietude had them diligently shopping around; even to browsing in the Republican bin.

That is all very nice and civil and broadminded of course. But what it counted for in substantive terms, and in terms of comprehensible logical alternatives, is precisely nothing.

It counts as a no money down, no test drive, no specific model, suggestion that a brand switch might be in the offing and that your Make might be in contention, and that a couple of your models don’t look so bad that one might not categorically rule out a switch.

Which is the only categorical or substantive proposition in the whole schmear, i.e.,: I will not rule an alternative to Hillary out of court.

Now I make no claim whatsoever to know better than Neo, what her acquaintances said to her. I don’t have their actual words, I have never met them, do not know who they are, their character nor their minds; and have only her description of the framing of their overtures.

And based on that recounting of those overtures, I believe, unlike her, that they added up in terms of logic and substance, to virtually nothing.

Nothing that is, but an eruption of some inner turmoil, which in all probability and experience, would finally resolve itself with the decision, after all was said and done, that: “No thanks, I’ve done my civic duty, and I’ve concluded that I’ll stick with the devil I know. The one who has at least the same sociopolitical values I do.”

They weren’t going to buy. They were just trying to feel less guilty regarding what they were already almost certain to do.

Now of course, Neo could probably cast this into further relief, if she were to encounter them again, and also have the opportunity to ask them this question. “Knowing what you know now, if Rubio had been the Republican nominee, can you say that you would be sure to vote for him in preference to Hillary or anyone else?”

If we had that, we would at least have some kind of positive assertion to work with.

Of course you would still have to ask yourself if you believed what they said.

I find it astounding that DNW considers his interpretation plausible, second hand, not knowing any of the particulars of your interactions. You are patient, and gracious.

You are wrong.

They very much were indicating that (a) they detested Hillary and didn’t want to vote for her (b) they were extremely interested in alternatives other than Trump, and were strongly considering voting for any of those people, and were asking me which one I preferred because they trusted me. They planned to look into that candidate (and others) further. They knew I had studied the Republican candidates longer and in greater detail than they, and had thought about the question a lot.

They brought this up to me, which was unprecedented in my experience. And there were quite a few people who felt that way. All of them mentioned Rubio and Kasich in particular as being the ones that they might indeed choose as alternatives.

In other words (and in your own words)—yes they all “stated that there was in fact a Republican who impressed them enough as a hypothetical alternative to affirm that they would likely vote for him if offered the choice.” That is exactly what they were saying; only difference is how you interpret the word “likely” (and there wasn’t just one of the candidates they were interested in, there were usually at least two). We weren’t talking percentages; I didn’t ask them “How likely? 50% likely or 90% likely?” It was likely enough that they were very serious, very interested, and they had spontaneously told me how upset they were with Hillary and how they were seriously thinking of voting for a Republican if one that was acceptable to them was nominated, and at the time that looked as though it had a chance of happening.

In addition, now that it’s Trump vs. Hillary, they have not wavered in their extreme upset with Hillary, and they have continued to mention it to me. It’s just that Trump is completely unacceptable to them. They are quite depressed about the situation, by the way. Very distressed about the state of the country and this election. About as distressed as most of the people on this blog.

I believe that several of them would have voted for Rubio or Kasich or some of the others (maybe not Cruz, though) had any of them been the nominee.