Switch Jill Stein votes to Clinton, and just half of Gary Johnson votes, and here's what you get:

[scheming daemons]

Not even talking about all Gary Johnson voters... *JUST* Jill Stein voters and *HALF* of Gary Johnson voters:

Wisconsin:

Clinton: 1,466,411
Trump: 1,409,467

Michigan:

Clinton: 2,404,999
Trump: 2,279.221

Pennsylvania:

Clinton: 2,964,943
Trump: 2,912,941

Florida:

Clinton: 4,652,867
Trump: 4,605,515


New EV: Clinton=307, Trump 231




The next time you want to throw away your vote on a third-party candidate.... remember that. Jill Stein votes *ALONE* cost us Michigan and Wisconsin. Jill Stein votes + half of Gary Johnson votes cost us PA and Florida.

Exit polls showed that nearly 15% of millennials voted for Stein or Johnson. No doubt, many of them because they thought it was "cool" to show they didn't have allegiance to either party.

Well... those folks are as responsible for the pain Trump is going to impose on them for the rest of their lives as anyone. The SCOTUS will be at least 5-4 conservative for the next few decades now.

You thought Trump and Clinton were tweedledum and tweedledee? Well, Stein and Johnson voters, you're about to find out how different they truly were. And it will hurt.

[LP2K12]

1. While I agree with you...

This trend wont change. Especially because while the numbers didn't support recognition federally, the third-party candidates made ground in certain states.

For example, Michigan. It's been all over the news that because Johnson and the Libertarian party pulled in enough votes to meet the state criteria they will now have their candidates listed during the primary and they will be recognized in state held debates.

Basically... they aren't going anywhere.

Unofficial state results show that third-party candidates in Michigan earned a combined 233,249 votes compared with 51,136 in 2012 — more than double the 108,944 third-party votes cast in 2000 when the Green Party’s Ralph Nader garnered 84,165 votes.

We need to do better at swinging these votes.

[Duckhunter935]

2. Maybe it would be better to be inclusive

And trying to get those voters instead of attacking them. Attacking them won't ever get their votes. The Hillary supporters did a fine job of turning off some Bernie voters. In fact I think I remember them proudly proclaiming they were not needed or wanted.

[rzemanfl]

3. That's like telling someone their tire is flat

then cheering them on as they drive on it.

[boston bean]

4. They attacked. And don't you forget it. They attacked and blew the whole fucking thing up!

[yallerdawg]

16. Just pointing out again what throwing away votes results in.

Independents, Greens, even confused Libertarians are welcome to join us Democrats. Isn't that the point?

Does it occur to you "some Bernie voters" turned us off, and we didn't need or want them here?

But America sure could of used them.

[Lil Missy]

43. Your suggestion got us dubya and trump. Time to dump those voters who are spoilers

and expand in the center - LOTS more voters there than on the way end.

[DirkGently]

5. Specious reasoning.

You can't assume people who voted independent would have picked your preferred candidate if they didn't have a choice. Voters always have a choice, and if they didn't pick your person, they were never "your" voters to begin with.

We didn't lose because of Jill Stein or Comey or sexism or racism. Our candidate did not inspire people. She was competent and smart and accomplished, but that is not enough to win.

[Paladin]

9. Yeah, none of that competent/smart/accomplished shit for us, this time.

Instead, we get to bask in the inspiration radiating off of Trump and his brood. Glory, glory, hallelujah.....

[DirkGently]

13. Obama was all those things, AND inspiring.

Let this be the death of the technocrat Presidential candidate. National elections are not about being the teacher's pet or having the most important friends.

You HAVE to give people something to aspire to. A vision of a different and better world.

Apparently even a terrible vision is more inspiring than, "Let's incrementally seek to improve without upsetting the powers that be."

[guillaumeb]

37. Agreed. Trump was following Reagan's lead with his own simple slogan.

And Trump recognized that people desperately want to believe that someone has the answer to economic stagnation and rising debt.

[DirkGently]

72. A bad emotional appeal beat a bloodless technocratic appeal.

If we have a takeaway here, that needs to be part of it. Hedging her bets with Wall Street, dialing back Sanders' calls for reform, squelching and deriding optimism and aspiration in favor of deal making and maneuvering.

It could have worked in a less divided country, with a more evenly recovered economy. But, "No we can't," was not going to cut it this time.

Clinton and her people need to own this, so we don't make this mistake again, because they will surely want to.

[guillaumeb]

94. I think part of the problem is that the corporate media has been "defining" the Clintons for years.

And Clinton's policies were Obama's policies, including the tendency to compromise with people who equate compromise with surrender.

The Democrats have to offer an actual alternative and if they do not address working class insecurity they will be analyzing and explaining again in 2020.

[frazzled]

12. They had a choice, and they used it selfishly and stupidly and immorally

The only real choice was between Clinton and Trump. No one in their right mind would think either Johnson or Stein had a chance to win. Either Clinton or Trump was going to be president. That was the choice.

"Voting your conscience" is an immoral choice. You have choice, and you have responsibility. She didn't "inspire" them? I hope they're inspired by Trump. That was the choice. It was a choice for the nation, not for your conscience or your gut or your excitement level. It is selfish to vote for a certain loser when you know what the consequences for your nation and millions of people will be. Medicare privatized, immigrants barred, foreign alliances and treaties shredded, a Supreme Court decimated ... and on and on.

The numbers above are incontrovertible proof that third party voters and those who didn't vote at all bear full responsibility for the current situation.

[DirkGently]

18. It's the candidate's job to convince voters.

Not the voters' job to buy what what you're selling. This gets at a fundamental attitude problem with Clinton and her segment of the Democratic Party.

We don't win being a smarter, more socially sensitive version of the same thing the same powers that be always want. We need to convince people without access to power that we will empower them.

Clinton did not do that. She thought it was the 1990s and Wall Street is fine and corporate power is fine and the minimum wage should go up a little but not too much and education should be just a little more affordable so on. She wanted to talk about gentle tweaks to the status quo, and that does not inspire people.

Trump didn't pull as many votes as McCain or Romney, and she still lost.

Hers is not the approach to winning over the country.

[frazzled]

20. Bull

Anyone who voted third party knew, or should have known, the stakes.

Because you despise the Democratic Party, I hope you get everything you deserve from the Republicans. You just couldn't get that into her. Well, I have news for you: there was no other candidate who could have done better. Anyone else would have been slaughtered. It would have been a bloodbath.

Get wise.

[DirkGently]

21. I support Dems making just arguments that can win.

Blind partisanship and a bad candidate lost the election and summoned the disastrous results that will follow.

You can blame progressives and independents and the weather if you want, but Hillary Clinton lost to literally the worst candidate any of us have ever seen. The joke was that a "ham sandwich" could beat Trump, right?

That is her failing, and the failing of those who refused to acknowledge that her neoliberal approach is a losing one.

[frazzled]

23. No, your arguments and language show you clearly do not

I'm not a fool.

[DirkGently]

27. Do you have a substantive response to the post?

Do you think Clinton was actually a great candidate whose ideas inspired people?

Do you think she would have beaten any Republican, given Trump pulled fewer votes than McCain or Romney?

I hear you being angry, and that's fine -- I am too if you want to know -- but I also think we can do better by listening to better ideas, rather than blaming a million things that we cannot control.

[R B Garr]

41. There was plenty of substance in those responses. And your same empty rhetoric was used

against Al Gore.

[DirkGently]

48. "Bull." is not substance. And independents didn't beat Al Gore.

Really, that is a ludicrous premise, if that's where you're going. Gore won the election, popular and EC, and was defeated by a combination of bumbling local districts and an effective Republican campaign to prevent a recount.

Blaming independents is logically wrong and a colossal waste of time as well.

[R B Garr]

50. I clearly remember "independents" being interviewed during that election.

They happily repeated the lies that Nader spouted that Bush and Gore were the same. The independent voters clearly made a difference in that election and that was their intention. What you are talking about is the management of the aftermath of the voting, but the independents that voted in Florida were clearly sending a message that was meant to damage the Democratic nominee by saying the parties were the same and they were holier and more pure by being "independent".

[DirkGently]

58. What are you going to do, punish the voters for disagreeing with you?

Because that strategy is going to work exactly as well as Clinton's presidential run.

It's the candidate's job to convince the voters, and the voters' job to decide what they are convinced of.

Clinton laid down plenty of her own nonsense in this campaign, from hiring people to argue on message boards, to the truly weird theorem that black voters simply would never accept Sanders for no discernible reason.

If the other side's rhetoric won, you're just not doing it right.

[R B Garr]

67. But she had already convinced the voters. She was winning, and that's

the point. Bernie chose to stay in a race he was clearly losing. He should have been led off the stage and put on a bus back home when it was clear he was losing. There was no path to victory for him, so she had convinced people. It was an obvious strategy on his part and other Bern it down types to continue to damage the party for vindictive purposes.

And, LOL, that "hiring on people to argue on message boards" means that you get to label anyone who supports Clinton a troll. Only certified pure "independents" are allowed legitimacy.

Why even bring black voters into this since that was already shown to be accurate -- he lost on every level with minorities. I remember people getting votes hidden for quoting Sanders own words on the emphasis of his campaign, which was white working class voters.

[DirkGently]

69. Clinton stayed well past inevitability in 2008 as well.

She made some very dark remark about remembering Bobby Kennedy, which a lot of people took to mean we should bear in mind Obama might be assassinated, since there was no other logic to what she said.

BRANDON, S.D. — Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton defended staying in the Democratic nominating contest on Friday by pointing out that her husband had not wrapped up the nomination until June 1992, adding, “We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California.”

Her remarks were met with quick criticism from the campaign of Senator Barack Obama, and within hours of making them Mrs. Clinton expressed regret, saying, “The Kennedys have been much on my mind the last days because of Senator Kennedy,” referring to the recent diagnosis of Senator Edward M. Kennedy’s brain tumor. She added, “And I regret that if my referencing that moment of trauma for our entire nation and in particular the Kennedy family was in any way offensive.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/24/us/politics/24clinton.html

June? She was toast well before then.

And yet Obama won, by a lot, with the votes of a lot of people who weren't interested in Clinton.

No one loses a campaign except the candidates.

Sorry, but there's just no one else to blame.

[R B Garr]

73. Your statement is not even true and it is out of context. But that is the hallmark

of the "independent" arguments. Everything is taken grossly out of context and distorted so you can legitimize the destruction. Clinton was closely competitive until the end in 2008, and she basically won that popular vote. This year was not the same situation at all. She was the clear and consistent frontrunner and she had to muzzle herself so as not to alienate Sanders voters.

What's funny about your claim of "no one loses a campaign except the candidates" is all the phony arguments here about Clinton stealing the election from Sanders, but in Clinton's GE loss, the "independents" don't even take that into consideration. Clinton's loss is all on her.

Seriously, there is precedent with the 2000 election and now. Two perfectly good candidates thrown out for the likes of Bush and Trump. Instead of Al Gore's environmental policies, we got Bush's war. Clinton wanted to expand on Obama's policies like every Democratic administration should do, and she was dumped on for being from New York where Wall Street is. What a shame. edit: and now you have a billionaire in charge when all the "independents" did was condemn billionaires -- more out of context messages from that crowd.

[DirkGently]

75. Well, no. Clinton was widely criticized for overstaying in 2008.

That is precisely why she didn't openly complain about Sanders hanging in, pushing for platform influence. It's also pretty likely she traded her cooperation with Obama for her State position, which clearly was supposed to be a stepping stone to the Presidency in 2016.

This Is Why Hillary Clinton Can't Tell Bernie Sanders to Drop Out
Her choices in 2008 dictate what she can say now.

Eight years ago this month, Clinton was trailing hopelessly behind then-Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination. On May 1, 2008, Clinton loaned her bankrupt campaign $1 million (following at least $10 million in earlier loans). Before the end of that week, pundits were calling the contest for Obama, whose May 6 win in the North Carolina primary, by 14 points, had made his delegate lead essentially insurmountable. "We now know who the Democratic nominee will be," Tim Russert said on MSNBC after the results came in. Less than a week later, Obama surpassed Clinton in the superdelegate count, signaling that the party establishment was shifting behind the presumptive nominee.

But Clinton was determined to fight until the last votes had been cast. She would go on to win contests in West Virginia, Kentucky, and South Dakota before the primary ended on June 3, even though there was no way for her to make up her deficit in the delegate count.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/04/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-drop-out-election

Respectfully, this is just flailing on your part. Sanders strengthened the Democratic Party by injecting a level of appeal Clinton simply could not match. Blaming independents is a non-starter like all of the other excuses.

We picked the wrong candidate.

[R B Garr]

81. This is self-serving and out of context again, the hallmark of the Clinton bashers.

Your statement that she traded her cooperation with Obama for a State position is just more out-of-context wishful thinking. Obviously you haven't read her book where she starts out detailing how that offer for the position came about at Obama's lead and insistence. Ascribing something underhanded or sinister and hinting there was some kind of pay to play about two Democrats working together sounds like Guiliani's rhetoric.

And rehashing the 2008 primaries blow by blow still doesn't equal the realities of what happened with Sanders who was clearly out of contention early on. Sanders main crutch was unabated Clinton bashing. It was just plain irresponsible what he was doing, which is probably why he lost the primary. Hating billionaires is not a policy proposal. Hating Clinton is not a policy proposal.

What is flailing is insisting that third party voters who openly stated they wanted to influence elections with protest votes didn't happen. It did happen.

[DirkGently]

85. So we agree Hillary stayed in way past viability in 2008.

I don't know how that is "out of context," as you suggested Sanders was bad for staying in to increase his influence, but seem to be arguing it was okay for Clinton for reasons you don't mention. But it's a simple historical fact Clinton stayed in the 2008 race beyond the mathematical possibility of her winning and I note you don't try to contradict that basic truth.

Shifting gears to your complaint about independents, blaming independents is an old canard that's false for reasons previously mentioned. You don't own independent votes on the theory that people could have or should have voted for your candidate. They didn't want to vote for your candidate, and could just as easily stayed home, left it blank, or voted the other way. It's a ridiculous fallacy from the beginning.

Besides that, though, voter turnout was what killed Clinton. She pulled some six million fewer votes than Obama, and did not stimulate black and Latino voters to the same degree.

We're always going to have independents, and you can't do anything to change that by complaining about them. But you can pull MORE VOTES across the country with a candidate that inspires people.

[R B Garr]

91. This same tired rhetoric was used about Al Gore. He was picked to death, including

such petty comments he was actually questioned about by reporters about wearing khaki. He was lied about by Nader with the obvious whopper that both parties are the same. The bottom line is indisputable that "independents" claimed to want progressive policies, but have no problem letting those goals go to achieve disruption; so we got Bush. Every candidate is going to have close margins in states that are up for grabs. That's not new to Clinton, but obviously if you don't mind Republican policies, then you don't mind throwing away your vote and living with the consequences.

And, LOL, the Republicans sure found someone "inspiring". So what does "inspiring" even mean. The Fox News type and Republicans find unreality "inspiring". Now we have a reality star as President.

And Sanders stayed in because of her email situation hoping she would be indicted. His wife even admitted that under her breath in interviews. He saw she was defeated in 2008 and saw an opening to push her aside, so he exploited that without being accountable for anything he said. He should never have been allowed to continue his attacks against her without proving his comments to be true. He was asked to substantiate his smears against her and he was unable to do so. That was completely unacceptable.

What's funny is how some purists/independents have now turned on Sanders because he endorsed Hillary. It shows the destructive and disjointed mindset of the third party.

[DirkGently]

93. Gore was robbed by Republicans and the Supreme Court.

Good lord. The all-powerful Ralph Nader beat Al Gore? How do you even begin to reach that conclusion?

It is just plain silly to blame Nader or anyone else. Gore WON the popular and electoral votes in the eventual, not-counted recount.

To pick all of the things that should have gone differently and be angry at people who simply didn't want to vote for him on the basis they "should" have is the height of illogic. More than half of independents in this election said their second choice would have been to "stay home."

It's really odd, and a bit disturbing that anyone would let the Republicans, with their obstructionism in Florida and elsewhere, and fake "protests" of the recount (remember the picture of "angry Florida voters" full of Republican staffers?) and the b.s. Supreme Court decision skate out of rage that anyone would dare not vote within one of the two parties.

And yes, Gore himself should have spoken up. He would have been right to do so in that screwed up circumstance.

We're not entitled to anyone's vote, and just deciding that people are somehow worse for voting indie rather than Republican or "none of the above" is the height of logical fallacy and a strange sense of entitlement.

[R B Garr]

99. Oh, absolutely correct that it was the Bush bro Florida connection and the Supremes

that put the final nails in the 2000 election coffin, but that opening for their chaos started before the election with Nader and his lies about both parties being the same. It provided the GOP a razor thin margin to exploit, which was all they needed in a state with a Republican governor named Bush. ----As an aside, I did LOL at your out-of-context comment that I said Nader beat Al Gore. Such out-of-context conclusions seem to be the hallmark of the independents, which is probably why they haven't gained much traction to date.----

Look, I'm mainly saying that some kind of continuity of government that most closely matches your ideals should be "inspiring". It's obvious from the 2000 election until this 2016 election that the progressives/Democrats have the edge in terms of the popular vote. The GOP obviously knows that and that's why the GOP is busy trying to redistrict, implement stricter voter ID laws and all manner of obstructions to get elections close enough to exploit in their column. So what is a strange sense of entitlement is to expect people voting for Democrats should only consider the current progressive purity standards instead of winning elections.

[DirkGently]

102. I doubt progressive purity drove 3rd party votes.

I am on the idealist end of the Dem pool, and couldn't make head or tails out of the appeal of Stein or Johnson. They frankly sounded like idiots to me.

One area where maybe we could all intersect is the possibility voter suppression worked, or something even more crooked went down.

This was the first Presidential election with the stripped-down Voting Rights Act, and Trump set up the Dems perfectly to not raise a fuss. His "it's fixed" rant got everyone to insist that the system is safe and reliable, and that not accepting the results would be terrible.

And Clinton lost by dint of black and Latino votes; millions shy of Obama's. It's possible suppression and purging made the difference, but it doesn't appear Clinton will challenge anything now, having been boxed in to arguing for the sanctity of the process and the peaceful transition of power.

[R B Garr]

105. Great points. We know that Obama is a tough act to follow and is almost a once-in-a-lifetime

type candidate, so it's understandable that he had a larger voting coalition. He is exceptionally gifted, as was Bill Clinton, and he is more self-contained than Bill. But it's a shame that good Democrats like Al Gore and now Hillary Clinton were thrown over by third party types. Even if they weren't perfect, they would have given some stability to allow other Dems to come up in the ranks. Now it's back to swimming with the sharks.

I am glad to hear you saw through Stein and Johnson and wish more people hadn't thrown away their votes on them. Since it's a liability to have a public service record now because you have to spend so much time getting attacked over it, people off the street like Donald can waltz in and humiliate people with impunity because he has no record to scrutinize. I think people understand that the more national exposure a candidate has, the more watered down and compromising they are (hence the negative attacks on third way Dems), but look at Bernie now -- he's willing to work with Trump on a $10/hr minimum wage instead of his $15/hr proposal. That's the reality of national politics -- compromise.

So we see with clarity that the other side of the aisle keeps promoting candidates who get crazier and more anti-intellectual than ever, but Republicans vote for them so they don't lose power. Retaining that power allows them to enact their long-term policies, and we see what George Jr. had in mind when he started a war with the wrong country and blew through Bill Clinton's hard-earned surplus.

I liked your thoughts on the voter suppression and also hope we are looking into the oddities of this election. Hillary's popular votes keep adding up in an unprecedented margin that is not going to go unnoticed. I am hoping there is some challenge to that outcome, but the Dems do back away from these situations while the Republicans have no problem taking what they didn't earn. So, yes, your ideas of unity around voter suppression and Donald's duplicitous calls about a rigged system are a great rallying point. Something is wrong with how he hoodwinked everyone into looking the other way, and now we want to see what he was possibly covering up. Let's do this!

[Grey Lemercier]

63. "Anyone else would have been slaughtered". ... no.. one word... Biden

No way he would have been slaughtered, and I think he would have won, actually.

Bernie would have gotten slaughtered (taxes).

[Historic NY]

38. Yeah Stein really convinced me breaking bread with Putin and Trumps man Flynn in Russia....

she isn't green but a shade of RED.

[Lil Missy]

106. HRC was the Democratic nominee.

If you voted other than the Democratic nominee, you are part of the problem.

Perhaps there's a nice anti-Hillary website out there for you? This particular site is Democratic Underground.

[jmg257]

25. "That was the choice. It was a choice for the nation, not for your..."

Good luck selling that one. Likely plenty of people who voted trump have their own views on what's better for the nation too.

[DemonGoddess]

30. oh ye gods

so competence, intelligence and accomplishments should no longer be considered for election to our highest office?

[mcar]

35. We're back to voting for the candidate we want to have a beer with

[DemonGoddess]

36. arrrrghhh

[Javaman]

47. in trumps case...

We're back to voting for the candidate we want to snort coke with.

[greatauntoftriplets]

49. At least Hillary drinks beer!

Having a drink with Trump would require a couple of bottles of the Irish. Just for me!

[mcar]

66. I'd love to have a beer or a glass (or two) of wine with Hillary

I think she'd be a blast. This whole "she has no charisma" line of thought is just ridiculous.

[DirkGently]

101. That's a rather radical reading of the post.

You'd have to add "wildly unpopular," "scandal-plagued" and "unelectable in America" to get the full picture.

I try to give Clinton credit for what she had going for her as well as for her defining flaws, but apparently even that enrages some people.

She was a bad candidate, is what she was. A smart, accomplished, center-right technocrat who was too hawkish, too soft on Wall Street, too dismissive of progressives and working people, and too dependent on insider maneuvering to win.

I voted for her.

Happy?

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

95. In hindsight Ms Clinton had some obstacles to overcome

1. With a same party incumbent there will be those that have pet peeves about the incumbent which will be associated with the new candidate. Some of those folks will take a share the blame tact and may either not vote or vote for an opponent. (Voting third party isn't as bad as voting Republican but still we lose votes.)

2. When an incumbent runs for reelection, they have advantages of being a known quantity.

3. There may have been those among us who just refused to vote for a woman. I find that hard to believe in this century and see it as completely reprehensible but still a possibility.

4. There are those who weren't happy with their candidate not being selected. This is a big point. The ugly fact is that nothing unites people better than a common enemy. All the negatives about DWS, the email crap and even going back to folks who just didn't/don't like Bill all may have played a part in suppressing if not turning votes.

5. Having local folks that get votes out is biggest answer.

[Hekate]

6. Ah, but they bask in the glow of the pure fire of their anger as it burns down advances made....

....before they were born.

[DemonGoddess]

31. EXACTLY. thank you n/t

[hrmjustin]

7. To those who voted third party instead of Clinton because of principles I say....

...I can't afford you principles or your temper tantrum.

When Trump's policies hurt them they get what they deserve.

[Buzz Clik]

8. Sorry, but I'm not putting this one on the "third party" candidates.

I was happy to give full blame to Nader for Gore vs Bush, but not this time.

[DirkGently]

28. No owns "independent" votes.

They're cast by people who didn't pick the candidate people wanted them to, which means nothing. They might have stayed home, or left the top spot blank like 87,000 ( wasn't it?) people in Michigan did.

It's a sore loser's argument, aimed at angrily enforcing conformity.

[R B Garr]

46. Ahem, an "independent" was running as a Democrat and did nothing but

tear the frontrunner down in ways she couldn't respond to so she didn't alienate his voters. So much for independents. Had Hillary been able to respond to his smears, she might have run a very different campaign but she was hamstrung while he played provocateur and poisoned the discourse with innuendo about her he could never prove when asked to do so.

He stayed in the race months after there was no clear path to victory. So much for independents. It sounds like the sore loser arguments are all yours. In fact, that is the premise of the Bern it down voters. If they can't have Bernie, then we can't have anyone at all.

[DirkGently]

54. Oh dear. Sorry, but no, it's not Sanders' fault either.

Sanders ran as a Democrat, and was actually a more viable candidate. He didn't run negative on Clinton, and he didn't have the DNC running ethically questionable interference for him as Clinton did. If Sanders hurt Clinton in any way, it was by so overtly laying off her "damn emails," which turned out to be a real shot in her foot delivered by Clinton herself.

As for being an independent running as a Democrat, that's well within all the rules, and if anything it seemed more palatable to people divided by our increasingly polarized politics. Maybe next time the party should seek out an independent to run on our ticket.

Clinton was never as popular nationwide as Sanders. Putting all the right-wing mythology aside, she had a built an image as a sharp-elbowed insider whose best skill was navigating the system for her own benefit. She ignored the rust-belt where Sanders won, tamped down progressive enthusiasm about everything from healthcare to education to the minimum wage, and tried to win on the basis Trump was too terrible to win, which he should have been.

The candidate lost. No one lost for her or made her lose.

[HassleCat]

57. Yes, that bandwagon is roling now!

I wondered how long it would take to blame Sanders.

[R B Garr]

60. Attacking Clinton from March/April when he had no clear path to victory

was pretty selfish. And I love how Donald Trump thanked Bernie for all his general election attacks on her.

[HassleCat]

71. And how did we respond to these "attacks?"

By stopping to consider that there might be some substance to them? Or did we just rag on Bernie for trying to be a progressive gadfly? The Clinton campaign was always supposed to be a juggernaut, rolling down the rails at top speed, crushing everything in its way. Sanders suggested the train should slow down to take on more passengers, but our party was so thrilled by the speed and power of the locomotive... Well, we know what happened.

[R B Garr]

78. It is not ragging on someone to notice that they have no clear path to victory.

Those were the mathematical facts in every realistic situation. In every other election it has been common knowledge and wisdom that primary candidates don't beat each other up too much so that they don't give the opposition ammo in the general election. But Clinton was not allowed that professional courtesy.

Now, if you want to talk about issues, more common sense and wisdom says it is easier to effect change with control of the three branches of government than without them. I think the reason that independents haven't gained traction much is that most people understand that and are willing to work with the candidate they have then to allow the opposition to take power. The Republicans clearly understand that. Their candidates get increasingly crazy, but they vote for them anyway. Giving up power for an unrealistic beauty contest within the party is sheer political suicide. Pointing out political realities is not ragging on people, and Clinton taking a more realistic approach did not mean she rejected the ideology of the purists, but she didn't want to mislead them. Sanders clearly had no problem with overpromising.

And seriously, no one I know of, including Clinton, had said she was inevitable or was a runaway train. That is all more out-of-context emotional baggage that is attributed to her and her supporters.

[DirkGently]

68. I know, right? It can't be that Clinton just lost.

With all the advantages. All the money. All the approval from all the .orgs and celebrities and carefully curated Congressional surrogates.

The kitchen sink piling on of all the reasons Clinton must have lost besides the one where she simply did not get enough people to want to vote for her was inevitable, but it's not helpful.

She's not terrible. She's not the black-hat monster the Republicans claimed. But we knew back in 2008 she did not have the chops to pull the whole country together, and she simply did not.

[leftofcool]

61. Well, they did stick to their guns.

They don't have to worry about their medicare being abolished. They don't have to worry about their social security being gutted. They don't have to worry about being run out of the country or rounded up. They don't have to worry about discrimination. They stuck to their principles and voted 3rd party. I hop that free college under a Trump presidency works out for them.

[R B Garr]

44. The margins show exactly what happened, and the third party voters

achieved their stated Bern it Down goal. It was intentional on their part, an intentional strategy.

[Buzz Clik]

52. Made possible only by the fact that the Democrat nominee...

... despite running against an overt racist, misogynist, lying, xenophobic, unqualified candidate, could not put him away.

"Not Hillary" was good enough for a huge number of those who voted for Trump. And you blame a pot head and friggin' lunatic (and their supporters) for that? I most certainly do not.

[Grey Lemercier]

53. 308,000 registered Democrats in Florida 2000 election voted for Bush

No one ever brings this up.


http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth

http://www.salon.com/2000/11/28/hightower/

http://reason.com/blog/2016/08/03/ralph-nader-did-not-hand-2000-election

http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/06/06/the-myth-of-the-spoiler-why-the-machine-elites-fear-democracy/

[Buzz Clik]

62. No one ever brings this up?

Christ. Let it lie.

[Grey Lemercier]

65. I was 9 then, but in university we studied the 2000 elections and I see so much "Nader as spoiler"

posturing on here.

[DirkGently]

79. And this year voters left the top space blank.

The number of Oklahoma voters who left their presidential ballot blank this year or wrote in a candidate nearly doubled from the 2012 election, according to data from the Oklahoma State Election Board.

Some 15,931 Oklahoma voters rejected Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton and Gary Johnson last Tuesday, leaving all three boxes blank. In 2012, just 8,161 Oklahoma ballots did not include a vote for president.

http://newsok.com/article/5527003

I saw a report it was 87,000 in Michigan who did the same, but can't pull it up at the moment.

THIS is where "At least I'm not as bad as that other guy" fails as an electoral strategy.

[Grey Lemercier]

82. I wonder how many Registered Democrats voted Trump in the swings?

I get a feeling it it will dwarf the Stein numbers.

[DirkGently]

89. Found a few anecdotes that may have happened, but nothing more.

Working people in Pennsylvania saying that Trump "had their back." Hard to fight promises that coal will come back by magic I suppose.

The demographic data suggests Hillary split white votes about the same as Obama vs. the Republicans, but did not pull the black and Latino numbers he did by a long shot.

However, although Trump fared little better among blacks and Hispanics than Romney did four years ago, Hillary Clinton did not run as strongly among these core Democratic groups as Obama did in 2012. Clinton held an 80-point advantage among blacks (88% to 8%) compared with Obama’s 87-point edge four years ago (93% to 6%). In 2008, Obama had a 91-point advantage among blacks.

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/09/behind-trumps-victory-divisions-by-race-gender-education/

[Grey Lemercier]

90. I know only 4 people here in London who voted Trump. All 4 voted against Hillary

not for Trump. 3 of the 4 are women. All are non religious, 3 of the 4 are white, the other, the male, is Chinese. All 4 were bitterly disappointed when Biden did not run. All 4 are in the financial industry here. All 4 did not support Bernie. After Biden said no way, they all detached from US Democratic politics. It is somewhat easier due to the fact we live in Europe. The 3 women said the threat of war with Hillary (no fly zone in syria) outweighed the sexism of Trump. The male is a Romney Republican type. All 4 predicted a Trump win, and I (foolishly) laughed in their face. I have never been more wrong about a giant thing in my life.

I did almost nail the Senate, I had it 51-49 Repubs keep control, so missed it by one.

[DirkGently]

92. I was as wrong about Trump as you.

I laughed, too, like John Oliver, and said, "Please nominate the reality show goofball, Republicans."

Gah.

Interesting observations on the ex-pats. I don't think Hillary's hawkishness hurt her in America, although I didn't like it.

I think Biden would have won, and likely (although certainly not for sure) Sanders as well.

It was never fair the degree of hatred Hillary engendered, but some of her baggage was real, and we were all fools to think the massive disdain for her in large swaths of the country could be overcome by simply not being as terrible as the alternative.

Now we know.

[Grey Lemercier]

96. The Average US-dwelling American has no idea how much the US foreign policy with the constant

wars is HATED here by the average European. I have a huge network of friends and colleagues from so many different Europeans nations. So much of the nightmarish social strife that is occurring is the direct result of truly massive inflows of refugees fleeing the US wars in the Middle East. We are so so much more impacted by it than the US is. I know so so many completely left-wing people who in the last 5 years have went from staunch "we need to help the innocent" advocates to now admitting that we are being overwhelmed and our open, tolerant societies being negatively impacted. THIS is driving the rise of the RW nationalist fascist scum, and fuels shit like Brexit as well. It is almost impossible to explain this to Americans who have not travelled outside the country.

finally, an aside:

My Swedish relatives (and myself) are extremely strong proponents of social democracy, and are gobsmacked that Bernie Sanders calls himself a democratic socialist, when he is NOT. A social democrat (what I am) believes in using the power of the government to institute and maintain a society-wide broad, expansive safety net, and to tilt the playing field to greater income equality via tax policy combined with regulation and steerage of the private sector. They do NOT favour the abolition of the private sector, they do NOT advocate complete, or near complete state control of most of the means of production.

A democratic socialist DOES believe that the state should take over much, if not all of the means of production, aka the private sector, especial at the large large corporation level. They just believe that you have to use the democratic voting process to achieve this, versus the authoritarian, non-democratic arc that almost all socialist and communist nations have taken in the past.

Bernie does NOT advocate state control of the means of production, and the US is so reactionary against the very word "socialist" (and also mistakenly directly equates it with communism) due to the Cold War mentality writ large for 40 years plus that Sanders really hurts his chances to do much, and opens himself up for unfair attacks by incorrectly self-labeling.

Social democracy is not democratic socialism, they are profoundly different at multiple key levels.

[DirkGently]

100. Yes, Bernie gets his terminology wrong.

He clearly means "Social democracy," that thing that maintains free enterprise and already works all around the world. I thought he was a little too limited in the way he articulated it, and focused too much on Scandanavia when talking about it.

Part of the issue may be that American conservatives routinely label any kind of governmemt work for the collective good as "socialism," so it's the language we all (mis) understand in the same way?

If it helps, I think Americans are wearying of military interventionism -- the cost and the chaos. The more reasonable conservative people I know --particularly veterans -- aren't itching to continue in that vein.

Unfortunately, war is both a trillion-dollar business proposition and an easy thing to talk fearful Americans into supporting.

I hope we can do better for all our sakes.

[LenaBaby61]

10. scheming daemons, I read and see what you're saying .....

And if I could feel confident about the numbers as far as this election goes...

However, the more I read and see plausible information concerning these voting discrepancies where it relates to numbers in several "key" states which Hillary "allegedly" lost to tRump by the smallest of margins, and the more I factor in all of the "noise" from interference IE: WikiLeaks, Russians hacking into our elections which was backed up by our intelligence, Comey, voting suppression, and loud proclamations from a candidate who kept talking about how the election was rigged against HIM, I'm growing more skeptical by the minute about WHAT exactly happened in the 2016 elections.

Paranoia is not my thing generally, but this year's General Election is beginning to look more to ME (And I'm only speaking for myself) like there was rotten in Denmark.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. Even worse

If even 20% of Democrats who voted for Trump (per exit polls) had voted for Clinton instead, she would have won all four states easily.

[Raster]

15. Ding! Ding! Ding!

The question should be: why did 20% of registered Democrats that voted, vote for Trump?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

19. I haven't seen a state where 20% voted for Trump

But in all four states in question, Democrats voted for Trump in numbers ranging from 7% to 11%. If even 20% of those voters in each state had stuck to the party to which they claim to belong, Trump loses.

[Pathwalker]

22. Because they're racists! At least in Michigan, I know several

people who always voted Democratic, until that racist talking yam came along! They are on mine and my husband's "no longer our friends list" after the crap they said this last election cycle. They love, love, love his hate!

[Grey Lemercier]

83. this

[longship]

14. And if my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon.

(Thank you Montgomery Scott.)

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

17. What if we had simply just switched nominees?

Last edited Sun Nov 20, 2016, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)

Bernie & Elizabeth 2020!!!

[jmg257]

24. I would blame ALL the people who didn't vote for her, not just 3rd party voters.

Why pick and choose to limit the anger to only a few percent?

[Grey Lemercier]

45. yep, MILLIONS of Democrats, including my fellow PoC, stayed home

[DirkGently]

97. It's the IDEA of 3d parties that enrages authoritarians.

It's de-legitimizing framing. Forget that most independent voters say their second choice would have been to "stay home." What angers some people is that anyone dares to exist outside of their prescribed boundaries. A personality apparently strong among Hillary's supporters.

She got six million fewer votes than Obama. And Trump got no more of the white vote than past Republicans. She did not convince black or Latino voters to come out in the numbers they did for Obama.

But we'll hear endlessly it was everything else. The electoral college. Independents. Sanders supporters who didn't come through. Comey's letter.

Anything but, "People were not moved to vote for Hillary Clinton," which unfortunately is what actually happened.

[jmg257]

98. Agree - nitpicking everywhere but where the real problem lies. Ah well. nt

[Wilms]

26. I blame Quatar for not hacking Trump's email.

That would have been a game-changer, no doubt.

[sfwriter]

29. Good Point!

I wonder why the DNC and Hillary's people didn't reach out to them and did so poorly with them?

I think it had something to do with the mantle of inevitability they projected. That turned off a lot of people or gave them cover to vote conscience in the assumption she would win.

It proves that Trump has no mandate, that is for sure.

-SFwriter

[SQUEE]

32. At least they voted. Showed up fulfilled their responsibility.

How many "Democrats" didn't even do that? or worse how many voted Trump?
I think you have this all backwards. Those are not "our" votes until they are cast for us. Until that they are just potential, and we failed to properly cultivate this potential.
Remember and lament, only 25% of America even showed up to vote for our party, that is what we have to examine. Why did we not fire up people to trust Hillary with their choice.

And to tell someone they threw away their vote, or that they were just being thoughtless is hubris, and not the way to get them to turn up in 2018 and 2020.

I had the horrible experience of casting my "protest vote" for David Kent, because we all knew Diane Black was a shoe in.. No chance to win, did I throw my vote away?

[kenfrequed]

33. "But...subtract one Kadem..."

First though you have to subtract the Green party votes that voted for Stein in 2012 from the totals in each of these states. These are hard core green party people. They *might* have come out for Bernie. They were not going to vote for most democrats though.

And as far as adding half of the Johnson voters, that is just absurd. These are fairly stubborn (and annoying) libertarians that are basically against Hillary on most issues (save possibly religion). Some of these people might have voted for Bernie for is reluctance towards interventionism or his positions on his war on drugs. Hillary was never going to get these votes either. Some of them were republicans that didn't feel they looked good in white sheets and for those guys neither Hillary nor Bernie was likely to win them over.


The very idea that someone is trying to push this media myth in is ridiculous. In every election there are always a few percentage points of third and fourth party voters. It is silly and arrogant to presume that those automatically would have gone to the second least popular candidate in modern American history.

If your election strategy absolutely falls onto those people that rarely ever vote for your party (or bother to vote at all) then your strategy is to lose.

[mcar]

34. Yes

Now we gets to go through another stretch where 3rd party voters try to claim their hands are clean.

They deny Nader cost us in 2000 and here we are again.

[oasis]

39. Stein/Johnson voters are added to my basket of dimwit deplorables.

shit for brains morons.

[Omaha Steve]

40. Be honest

Johnson votes would go to Trump! Many were other choice R's in the primary.

[Grey Lemercier]

42. good luck getting 50% of Libertarians to vote for Hillary

1. They detest big government, so free college tuition at public colleges is a deal breaker.
2. They do not trust her at all on the war on drugs.
3. They HATE her foreign policy. They are non-interventionist.

The entire premiss you built is faulty and serves divisive ends.

[HughBeaumont]

56. Let's not forget that they're even further to the right of Republicans on the Economy.

I wouldn't even count on 5-10% of that Libertarian Party vote.

Libertarian Party members are NOT on the Democratic side, let alone the progressive one.

[CajunBlazer]

51. K&R

[HassleCat]

55. I'm getting a little tired of this.

An individual vote is a person's own business. Many people who vote third party do so for specific reasons. Sometimes these are bad reasons, but certainly not always. This tendency to label voters irresponsible, immoral, selfish, etc. will certainly not bring them back to our party. For the past thirty-plus years, we have given many voters several legitimate reasons to look toward a third party, so we should not be surprised when they vote for Lyndon LaRouche, Ralph Nader, etc. "The fault, dear Brutus, lies not in our stars, but in ourselves."

[Grey Lemercier]

59. this!!!

We should be more worried about why millions of Dems stayed home versus 2012 and especially versus 2008.

[onecaliberal]

64. I detest these people. I really do. Look where we are now.

[Else You Are Mad]

70. Most of those that voted for a third party...

Would not have voted for Hillary. Period. They are libertarians that are to the right of the Tea Party wing of the GOP. And, likewise, most of the people that voted Green would never have voted for Hillary because they are to the left of the progressive wing of the Democrats.

The real question is "why did those that voted for Obama two times not vote for or even come out to vote for Hillary."

Instead of projecting Hillary's failures onto those that would never have voted for her, maybe we should delve into why life long Democrats did not vote for her or voted for Trump.

Yet, there is such an anger when anyone points the finger to the person most responsible for the Trump victory: Hillary Rodham Clinton.

[DemocraticWing]

74. How the hell does adding half of Johnson voters change anything?

The only way that makes sense is if you assume half of them would have preferred Hillary if Johnson wouldn't have been on the ballot. But presumably the other half would have preferred Trump! In fact, knowing Gary Johnson voters, many probably would have preferred Trump since they're all right-wingers!

Also you have to add McMullin and Castle's votes to Trump too. Does he still lose?

And we don't even know that all of Stein voters would have picked Hillary. Many 3rd Party voters do not like either candidate and pick another at random...so you get Republicans for Stein sometimes even.

[Else You Are Mad]

77. Exactly.

There are a lot of theories going around that assume that the only reason why Stein received any votes was because they were disheartened Democrats that were Bernie or Bursters. This disregards the fact that there are die hard Green party members that never vote anything but Green. The same goes even more so to Johnson voters. There is no way that any significant amount of Johnson voters would have voted for Hillary -- they are to the right of the tea party.

This projection is just an extension of the belief that Hillary was inevitable and that everyone would have voted for her but for (Bernie Sanders, Emails, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, the FBI, ad nauseum.) And it is faulty at best.

[HassleCat]

76. And switch some votes from Democrats.

How many registered Democratic votes would we have to switch to change the result?

[Scruffy1]

80. There is a problem with the whole logic of this.

Some people simply would rather let a Trump takeover than vote for Clinton. They are small and not a problem and are entitled to their vote. The real problem is the 40% who didn't show up because neither candidate earned their vote. Blaming others for your electoral failures will get us nowhere. We need to be objective and realize that votes are earned. Obviously a whole lot of people felt that it made no difference to them because they felt that they would get screwed either way or just could see no difference it would make in their daily lives. Yeah, the media is against us and it always will be because it's corporate big business. Yeah, the Republican Party will always be shit throwing monkeys because that's what they are good at. Elections will be hacked and voters repressed and their will always be some third party voters. We know this going into the game. They are obstacles to be overcome, and any good candidate knows this. No self centered creep like Jill Stein is going to give you anything, so you might just as well get over it. You knew when the race started the field was not level and so you have to be a lot better than the opponents to win. Going around blaming others isn't going to accomplish anything. Instead we need to keep working on rebuilding the Party to be more inclusive of those on the left, center and the non motivated voters.

[NurseJackie]

84. Because every snowflake is special.

[BlueProgressive]

86. "Shit in one hand, and Wish in the other...."

And we'll get what we got.

[INdemo]

87. So how are you so sure some DU

Members voted for a third party candidate?
Isn't that a blind assumption?

[scheming daemons]

88. I didn't say any DU members did.

I am just pointing out how the third-party voters have as much blame as the Trump voters.

[Omaha Steve]

103. I don't see libertarians (T party Jr.) voting Hillary

With the Johnson name removed they don't vote or they vote Trump.

[progressoid]

104. Meh. It's the hundreds of thousands of registered Democrats that didn't bother to vote that we

should be addressing.