A Party that loses an election and blames voters for not showing up at the polls . . .

[markpkessinger]

72. You are arguing a logical non-sequitur

Branford's quote does not remotely suggest that "not voting is a winning strategy." That cannot be inferred from his statement.

You seem to think you are merely inferring the inverse of Branford's statement, but you are not. The subject clause of Branford's sentence is "Blaming the voters"'; therefore, the opposite condition from that stated in Branford's sentence would be, "NOT Blaming voters is a winnable electoral strategy." But you cannot even infer that much. Let's say that 'A' equals "blaming voters, " that 'B' equals "not blaming voters" and 'C' equals "a winning strategy. Branford's sentence is thus:

A = not C (or A <> C)

But you cannot infer from that that since B = not A (or B <> A), that therefore B=C.

The point here is that Branford's statement was not even about whether voting or not voting was a winning strategy; rather, it was about whether or not BLAMING voters for not voting is a winning electoral strategy.