Wait, Didnt Jill Stein Cost Clinton the Presidency?

[applegrove]

https://politicalwire.com/2016/11/25/wait-didnt-jill-stein-cost-clinton-presidency/

"SNP.............



David Weigel on Jill Stein’s efforts to wage a recount in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania:

“Someone was going to tap into mounting liberal anger that — for the second time this century — a Democrat has lost the presidency while winning the popular vote. But Democrats can’t believe that the someone was Stein. In all three of the contested states, Stein campaigned for votes; in Michigan and Wisconsin, her total was greater than the gap between Clinton and Trump.”

“For Democrats, Stein’s role in the campaign resurrects some of the worst aspects of the campaign. It directs liberal anger toward a hopeless goal.”


.............SNIP"

[JI7]

1. i wouldn't say cost but she did nothing to help and thought she was as bad as trump

[oberliner]

16. Jill Stein thought Hillary would be worse than Trump

And said so repeatedly.

[msongs]

2. no she did not - rant presumes all stein voters would have chosen hillary, or even voted at all nt

[oberliner]

17. Yes she did

She could have encouraged all her voters to vote for Hillary. If even half of them did, that would have been enough.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

32. No question!

[KittyWampus]

41. There most certainly is question. Neither you nor the other poster

provide ANYTHING to back up your opinions.

"Even half" LOL!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

44. Seems obvious to me... indeed, 3 out of 4 friends & relatives - 75% of the sampling - who voted for Jill Stein said they would have voted for Hillary, albeit reluctantly...

The one holdout wasn't sure how she otherwise would have voted... but, given her strong desire to see a female president, I'm guessin that she too would have thrown her vote over to Hillary.

So, with all due respect, your statement that my opinion was not backed up by "anything" is incorrect.

[KittyWampus]

40. And you just post your opinion with zero facts to back it up. "Even half". And you even

came up with a mythical percentage.

[oberliner]

43. Here are some facts to back up my assertion

In Michigan, HRC lost by 11,623 voters. Jill Stein got 50,700 votes. Half of that is 25,350 votes. If that group of people (half of Stein's voters) had voted for HRC instead, then she would have carried the state.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

45. I think your assumption of 50% of Jill Stein voters throwin their support to Hillary had their candidate not run is LOW... no question Hillary would have won had Dr. Stein not been in the race.

[oberliner]

46. Probably

Jill Stein is as much our enemy as any Republican.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

47. Yes... and the irony that Dr. Stein is now challenging the election results is too rich.

[Statistical]

18. Not all. In MI it would only needed 1 in 5.

If 80% of Stein voters stayed home but a mere 20% had voted Clinton then Clinton would have taken the state. The ratio varies from state to state but is a minority in all cases.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

3. We're supposed to forget about that

Because Jill is going to atone for that by winning it back for Hillary.

[LisaL]

4. Hopeless goal.

All it does is giving people false hopes.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

6. I agree 100% n/t

[LisaL]

10. And then they are going to be crushed again when these states don't flip.

Jill Stein clearly isn't doing it to help Hillary, but I presume vast majority of people who donated doing it in hopes the votes flip to Hillary.
This sets them up for another disappointment.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

12. That's kind of been my beef with Stein in this

She's taking advantage of people who are desperate, and potentially building up her coffers at the same time. If she were truly concerned about the integrity of the vote, why didn't she call for New Hampshire to be recounted? It has one of the closest margins in the country. But she knew that Republicans weren't going to dump money into her campaign account with Trump having already won the number of EC votes he needs.

And if she says that she needs $7 million for WI, PA and MI, then why, when she doesn't have the money for MI, is she now saying that she'll file in any state where the deadline hasn't passed? That tells me that she (or the party) has already raised the $7 million, but it's not showing because it's being raised by state parties on their sites.

It just seems fishy. But, not my money, so if people want to donate, it's their loss, not mine.

[oberliner]

23. She also initially said she need 1 million for lawyer fees

Then, after she hit her goal, she changed it to 2-3 million.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

28. Yep n/t

[KittyWampus]

42. Who is going to be "crushed". I haven't seen a whole lot of people expecting any state to flip.

What may be exposed is corrupted elections.

And what will be accomplished is a correct count that includes ballots that were improperly excluded, thrown out.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

33. Afraid you're right Lisa... hope we're both wrong!

[tandem5]

5. Oh... that ol' thing? Come'on.

[saltpoint]

7. The recount may not overturn the election

results but it may give voters a more accurate account.

I think that's what they wanted in the first place and that they have no specific collective distrust of Dr. Stein, even if they did not vote for her. Which would be nearly everybody.

[HipHipHillary]

8. Yep

And now she is trying to make nice by getting the recount.

Shameless

[saltpoint]

9. I would say that anti-intellectualism

is to blame for the election outcome.

With more than a dash of racism.

Trump's bigotry couldn't have been this successful unless he had a voting base to manipulate.

[guillaumeb]

11. Assuming that there was only one reason for the loss, Stein is a convenient target.

But if there are in fact multiple reasons, where does Stein rank?

Among voter suppression, perhaps election machine fraud, Comey and his "October surprise", general anger directed toward "the establishment", third parties, and I am certain I am forgetting some, where does Stein rank?

[regnaD kciN]

15. Actually, very little...

I'm guessing that, had Stein not been on the ballot, the vast majority of her voters would simply have stayed home.

In fact, I think that her role was less than the (apparently considerable) number of voters in swing states who voted for the Democratic nominee for Senate, House, and/or the Governorship of their state, but who left their presidential vote blank.

[rzemanfl]

30. Stein could have urged the people who supported her to vote for Hillary in swing

states to spare us from Cheeto Sporkhands.

[guillaumeb]

38. Excellent point about the blank votes.

Combine these blank votes with the 41% of registered voters who could not be bothered to vote, or who refused to vote, and there is much to consider among Democratic voters and Party leaders. But will they learn the lesson?

[milestogo]

13. No.

People are entitled to vote for whomever they want to.

[underthematrix]

14. No. I think we have to wait for the state audits to understand

how the corrupted software and hackers spread Clinton votes across the third party candidates.

[Raine]

19. NO ... I know some Stein voters and if she hadn't been on the ballot

they would've left it blank.

[Arazi]

20. No. Hillary had to earn their votes like any other candidate

[randr]

21. Lets move on and seek answers to election

issues. Validity of our system is far above petty partisan politics
Election integrity is probably the most important thing we may accomplish.

[oberliner]

24. Election integrity in every state?

Or just a few?

[randr]

34. Ultimately we come up with a national solution for every State

It has long bewildered me that if we can count the trillions of dollars spent by millions upon millions of people in multiple millions of manners each and every day and not have one red cent unaccounted for we can certainly come up with a way to count a few million votes every two years.

[bhikkhu]

22. No

Stupid OP. I don't like Stein at all on the issues, and I do agree that third party candidates can be spoilers, but in this case its just not the case. Her numbers were very small, and as an anti-establishment candidate she probably pulled more from trump.

Why is politicalwire implying "liberal anger" should be vented Stein's way? It seems more like made-up news, the kind of clickbait that has infested the internet for the last year.

[oberliner]

25. You think Jill Stein pulled more from Trump?

There is no way that is true.

[RandySF]

26. Stein aided and abetted Trump's election

"A vote for Hillary is a vote for war."

[sfwriter]

27. I find this argument bizarre.

Aside from the inability to know the voters sympathies, it presumes the voters OWED Clinton their vote. They did not. Clinton lost for a LOT of reasons. Her failure to win their votes is a small one. Much larger are the Trump voters who previously voted for Obama. Those are the voters that more directly deserve the blame. But what is that worth?

Will this win them back?

Hey you, Trump is your fault.

"Wait, I voted for Stein..."

And cost Hillary the election. Its all on you. He is your fault now. Oh, and by the way, we need your vote in four years. You had better mend your ways!

"Well, F**k you buddy!"

It takes very little imagination to see this line of accusation as folly.

-Sfwriter

[saltpoint]

29. Voters decide for themselves who gets their

vote.

Trump won the electoral college. HRC won the popular vote. Third Party candidates picked up a very small percentage of the remaining votes.

That's it. If the electors in the electoral college cast votes for Trump, Trump is president in January.

[CK_John]

31. Stein is just getting a head start on the new politics, if Trump

can do it so can I.

[HassleCat]

35. No

Many Greens would not vote for a Democrat, and others might vote Democratic, but only for certain Democrats.

[Tom Rinaldo]

36. The Democrats never had a chance at many of Stein's votes

It can't be assumed that all supporters of a candidate more to the left or right of a major candidate would all migrate toward the major party closest to them on the left right spectrum if their favored third party candidate wasn't an option. Many simply wouldn't vote, others vote third party routinely because they don't want to support the major parties - they would find another third party or write in someone rather than back a perceived establishment candidate. Some people self identify as contrarians and don't vote for favorites. Others think they are building a brave new world by thinking outside the box.

When Gore lost Florida to Bush by 500 votes I think it was safe to assume he would have picked up more than that amount had Nader not run. But Hillary harvesting 10,000 to 50,000 votes per state from Stein backers? Not necessarily.

[ZX86]

37. Blaming 3rd parties for our election losses

is like a sports team blaming the the other team's score for their not winning. It's the lamest of excuses.

Votes are earned. Not owed.

There will always be opposition and 3rd parties. If your reason for losing is always going to be there were other people participating in the election you're not going to inspire much confidence in your ability to win.

[milestogo]

49. a brazillion

[KittyWampus]

39. Those voters most likely wouldn't have voted Clinton. STEIN HAS A RIGHT TO RUN!

I have my own opinion about Third Party Voters and their Candidates.. but guess what?

It's their freaking RIGHT to run.

Clinton lost because she didn't get enough voters out in the necessary districts/states. END OF STORY.

If there was voter suppression etc, it was up to Clinton to counteract it.

[gulliver]

48. "Murder on the Orient Express"

Yep, Stein did cost us the Presidency. So did Sanders, Comey, Colin Kaepernick, Putin, the media, lazy voters, and Clinton herself.