>I have family who can't afford [cotton pickers]. And those same people would vote against a president promising [to use violence to coerce cotton pickers to work at a wage lower than in a freed market or coerce money out of other people to pay the cotton pickers].

>I don't understand it.

You don't understand because your voting principles are based on "I'll vote for whomever gives me 'free' things, regardless of the ethical implications". You don't understand why someone wouldn't vote for increasing the scope of state aggression. If you couldn't afford to drive a car because of gas prices, should we use state aggression to take oil from an oil-rich country?