The excuse of the faint-hearted: "You have to vote PSOE, even holding your nose"

The expression "voting PSOE while holding your nose" describes a resigned tactical vote, based on antiestéticar of what the PP would do rather than confidence in the party itself. That argument has been repeated since 2008 and intensified after 2020.

## A vote justified by antiestéticar of the other

The formula "you have to vote PSOE, even if it means holding your nose" has been circulating since **2008**. It is not a rallying cry of party activists: it is how many voters describe a vote that does not excite them but that they consider necessary. The reasoning that usually goes with it is that the PP alternative would bring worse consequences: amending the Constitution and privatising the public sector.

That antiestéticar works as the central argument. The claim that the PP would change the Constitution or sell off public services is repeated as a warning, not as a detailed programme. Those who make it present it as reason enough to hold their nose and vote anyway.

The result is a defensive logic: voting against something, not for something. That explains the discomfort many express when doing it.

## The 2020 turning point and the test of lockdown

Those who defend this vote argue that these voters' independent judgment has deteriorated especially since **2020**, with the pandemic. The thesis is that they were already unbearable before, and became even more faint-hearted afterwards.

There is a test they are often given: if the **PP** had been in government on **14 March 2020** and had decreed the same lockdown, would they have stayed home? The most common answer recorded is yes, that they would have complied and even taken the PCR tests. The objection added is that, with the PP in government, they would probably have burned up the streets.

That contrast between what is said and what would have been done is the core of the criticism. It is not the health measure that is questioned, but the coherence of those who would have accepted it depending on who signed it.

## The same old arguments

Other beliefs are attributed to this vote and repeated insistently: that immigrants do not vote, that they receive no benefits, that rents rise because of Russians, the English and tourist flats, that there is a lot of sens to correct, and that if the PP governs Franco returns, or that Vox would force women to wear burkas and ban abortion.

These are claims presented as certainties and not backed by data. The criticism is not only of their content, but of the fact that they are held with the same independent judgment one would apply to anything else.

It is also pointed out that PP voters are just as useless, though less unbearable, because you know where their weaknesses lie.

## A country that can only be saved by extremes

The conclusion drawn from all this is that the only ones who could save the country would be the **PCPE** (a small Spanish communist party) or **Falange** (a far-right movement), and that everything else is a kind of global satanic conspiracy. It is a maximalist way out, with no room for middle ground.

That claim should be taken for what it is: an extreme opinion, not an analysis. The idea that only extremes can save the country is not supported by data and dismisses every other voter.

On political and electoral matters, any decision should be checked against verifiable sources, not repeated slogans.