When the stakes are this high, not voting is voting for the winner.

By not voting, they are signaling they are fine with the situation, and will not stand with any opposition to the winner.

Edit to respond to below comment due to hitting posting limit:

>98M of the 185M total population of non-voters had the pretty rock solid excuse of not being eligible to vote, right? Almost a third of the country can’t vote (permanent residents, children, ex-cons in certain states, etc.)

Children seem irrelevant to consider, especially with voting trends of the youngest generations. Same with permanent residents and ex-cons, I don't see any reason these would have cast votes in different proportions. The most damning thing is this is after already seeing the evidence of 2017 to 2020 and the response to Jan 6, 2021.

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2025/06/26/voting-patte...

>55% of White naturalized citizens voted for Trump in 2024, compared with 41% in 2020.

>51% of Hispanic naturalized citizens voted for Trump, up from 39% in 2020.

>46% of Asian naturalized citizens voted for Trump, an increase from 35% in 2020.

>This is without needing to get into the very real voter suppression effort that took place (we’ll assume every one of those “stands” with the winner).

I am assuming the number of people whose votes were prevented were negligible in comparison to the number of people who were apathetic (or boycotting).

>They also probably skew more to your position given their demographics.

A valuable lesson I have learned from 2016 and 2024 elections is that this is not true. What is most important is that people's feelings about their status relative to others not be disturbed (i.e. man over woman and white over non white), and the candidate willing to preserve that, no matter how horrible, is likelier to win more votes.

>I am not sure why you insist on going out of your way to dramatically overrepresent the size of your opposition

Obviously, the measure of the size of the opposition is subjective, and people are free to make bets as they see fit. However, based on the aforementioned "rolling over", it seems others are making the same bet I am.

You’re aware that, just for starters, 98M of the 185M total population of non-voters had the pretty rock solid excuse of not being eligible to vote, right? Almost a third of the country can’t vote (permanent residents, children, ex-cons in certain states, etc.) This is without needing to get into the very real voter suppression effort that took place (we’ll assume every one of those “stands” with the winner). These people may not be able to vote, but they’re still people, and able to participate in the political process in other ways, and thus not worth ignoring (for example, they can donate). They also probably skew more to your position given their demographics.

I am not sure why you insist on going out of your way to dramatically overrepresent the size of your opposition. If there’s some sort of underdog psychology you are trying to tap into, you should maybe also consider the possibility that staunchly presenting the current situation as “we’re outnumbered and most of our population stands with these abhorrent values” may actually be more demoralizing than invigorating as a battle cry, which is even more of a shame when it isn’t true.