Why do I hate Greens? Here's why

[Recursion]

Trump won Pennsylvania by 44,000 votes; Stein received 50,000 votes

Trump won Michigan by 11,000 votes; Stein received 51,000 votes

Trump won Wisconsin by 24,000 votes; Stein received 31,000

The woman in the gray shawl here, at the table with Flynn and Putin, is Dr. Jill Stein.



Fuck the Green party.

[still_one]

1. Third party voters were the final nail. Comey/FBI, media's false equivalency, and

Russian interference, made it so the Greens were that final nail

[Upthevibe]

8. DISTURBING NUMBERS!..Jill Stein, Ralph Nader.. F***them and the idiots who supported them. N/T

[we can do it]

52. This x 100000

[Gman]

2. Greens have been the enemy since 2000

No better than Republicans at screwing people.

[brettdale]

3. +1

Stein doesnt run, and Clinton is president now.

[BainsBane]

4. Greens, write-ins and other ratfuckers

They own Trump and every horrible thing he does.

[William769]

24. They must be very happy right now over at JPR.

[Archae]

5. Jill Stein is also an anti-vaxx asshole.

[Recursion]

7. Oh, and she's the worst kind of anti-vax: she knows better

But she refuses to say it, because she knows the crazy contingent loves her.

[SirBrockington]

6. They only seem to show up during Presidential elections

No presence on local politics or house senate etc but mysteriously pop up to siphon off votes. They seem to find/recruit self-righteous unapologetic false-equavelency narcissists to run. Wouldn't surprise in the least if it was just another arm of Koch industries

[herding cats]

16. Oh, I've seen them sway governor races and even state level congressional seats.

It's funny how someone who had little to no funding can suddenly become funded contenders to siphon off votes.

[JHB]

40. As of last November they claim about 140 office holders in 17 states...

...about half of which are in California, according to http://www.gp.org/officeholders

All local stuff (town clerk, water district board, etc.). Sometime last summer I looked up if they had any higher-level office holders. It seems that the handful of people they've ever managed to elect to state office later switched to the Democrats, to Independent, or just plain lost the next election.

As for running presidential candidates? The fact that Nader had disappeared between 1996 and 2000 was all one needed to take their measure. Pure grandstanding. Even if one agrees with positions they nominally hold, they can't get anything done.

That's what happens when you want to be the lefty party in parliament in a country that doesn't have a parliamentary system.

They had 20 years following Nader's 1996 run to build an effective liberal-left voting bloc, and have nothing (good) to show for it.

[MFM008]

61. Or Russia

......

[Proud Liberal Dem]

73. What's weirder (I just thought of this)

is that they mostly tend to show up (at least since 2000) at every election following a 2-term Democratic Administration. Curiouser and curiouser......It's like they show up to ensure that Democrats won't win another term in office and so that a Republican can win.....

[SaschaHM]

9. But...but...

By calling them out, we're just going to push away a party that has next to no interest in working with us anyway.

Hell, 2016 showed that the Green Party preferred the Republicans over us so much so that even Jill Stein took heat from them for her Recount/early campaign effort. We could adopt their platform in it's entirety, yet they'd find a way to be to the left of us because they are an opposition party and opposition parties try to grasp at power no matter the fallout.

[Recursion]

11. Yep. The 2016 Democratic platform was literally the most progressive in US history

Did that matter to them? No.

Why not? Because upper middle class white people (i.e., Greens) are more concerned with signalling than with results.

[brush]

53. What pisses me off is they run against the Dems, constantly bash us but never the repugs

and of course they siphon off votes from us every presidential cycle.

Then you don't hear from them for four years where they are magically funded again to run against Dems again.

[milestogo]

10. I hate the two party system.

[Recursion]

15. I hate the fact that I don't captain a tall ship

Do you have any suggestions?

[milestogo]

17. Have you tried applying for a job as a tall ship captain?

Or apply to be Captain Obvious, at least.

[Recursion]

58. I'm certified as a deckhand and pilot for tall ships

The problem is there's maybe 6 of them in the country; I'll need to build my own if I want to captain one.

Which, hey, retirement is a few decades away...

[Cha]

18. Too bad.. the 3rd party fucked it up and we got

fucking trump with their gd LIES

[Docreed2003]

78. Preach!!

[MyNameGoesHere]

35. I hate any party systems

Make people run as individuals with no backing corrupt party apparatus.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

77. Sounds great to me. n/t

[we can do it]

54. I hate vanity voters and the shit they have brought us.

[Bradical79]

71. So what?

Good for you. The Greens certainly don't have anything to offer as far as changing that.

[JI7]

12. the Greens purpose is mostly to defeat Democrats and help Republicans

nothing else.

[Recursion]

13. Getting Republicans Elected Every November

They even gave us the acronym...

[PoiBoy]

19. +100,000...

..lol..!!

[radical noodle]

20. Sure

They think if they weaken Democrats enough, we will all get on her ship of fools.

[MFM008]

62. That's exactly it

They run as a punishment to democrats for not being
' communist' enough for them...
Look at the Susan Sarandon types. They would rather democrats lose and all of us suffer to " rebuild" party to suit them.

Ps .Manchin.Heitcamp and the others aren't democrats

[noiretextatique]

69. I am Green because I didn't like Bill Clinton and the DLC

And I detest the 3rd Way. However, I am realistic, and I always vote for the candidate who is the least objectionable and has the best chance to win. That was not Nader, and it most certainly was not Stein. It was Bernie Sanders in the primary, and Clinton in the general. Nothing really sinister.

[leftstreet]

72. Excellent post n/t

[applegrove]

14. GOP supported Rev. Al Sharp back when he ran for the Democratic

Last edited Fri Apr 7, 2017, 12:42 AM - Edit history (1)

nomination. I'm sure they supported Stein and we're tickled Pink when Russian trolls seemed to be too.

[SunSeeker]

21. K & R

[tenorly]

22. Keep in mind Jill Stein was the first and only significant figure to challenge the results.

And she did it with the stated goal of shifting the result to its rightful winner: Hillary.

She might have even succeeded had those Kochsuckers Walker and Snyder - and their pet judges - not stonewalled her at every turn until time just ran out.

However much Putin tried to cajole her (as he often has with so many others around the world), she showed her mettle when it would have been so much easier to just stay out of it.

[pnwmom]

29. Not true! She did NOT do it to help shift the vote to its rightful winner. She did it to make money.

In fact, she knew from the very beginning that she wouldn't be successful. Why? Because she knew that in PA the Dems didn't have enough votes for an automatic recount, and by the time she filed she had missed the deadline. The only option was to apply to a court for a special ruling. And the judge said in the ruling that she had waited too long to file.

Without a recount in PA, her pretend effort to overturn the results was doomed before it had even started. The Michigan recount was doomed, too, because of a special state law that didn't allow any districts with discrepancies between the sign-in sheets and the tabulated votes to be counted. So the districts you'd most think SHOULD be recounted were the very ones that couldn't be recounted. BY LAW.

So why did she do it? Because she made SEVERAL MILLION DOLLARS for her party, that's why. Since she couldn't get the PA recount approved, she had several million dollars left over after the recounts, which she was allowed to retain for her purposes, just as she had told the donors would happen.

All of this is shown in her FEC filings. She had relatively small amounts in her accounts till the recount was announced, and then suddenly she made millions. And she had millions left over after the recounts were done. What a racket.

[joshcryer]

34. She pocketed that money.

And expanded her donation lists.

It was not for the country and never was.

[obamanut2012]

37. No, she did it to make money, and she did

She knew it was impossible at that point to contest the results. I saw many, many folks who gave her money in desperation, MILLIONS AND MILLIONS.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

66. And she did it with the stated goal of shifting the result to its rightful winner: Hillary.

Totally untrue - she never stated any such thing. In fact, she said repeatedly that it didn't matter to her who won, it matter that the votes be recounted.

[PaulaFarrell]

23. And Gary Johnson pulled far more votes than stein in all those states. So what?

The only people to blame for trumps presidency are trumps voters. this ridiculous demonization of green voters is self defeating.

[JI7]

25. Greens are always demonizing democrats as if there are no republicans who are preventing

things from getting done.

fuck them.

[Cha]

27. BULL. You're not seeing what's right in front of you. The fucking LIAR, pawn

for putin, stein owns a big chunk of trump

[Cha]

31. BULL.. deny it all you want. Reality will Not be Denied.

[still_one]

55. Hillary lost MI by .3%, Jill Stein received 1% of the vote. Similar results

in Wisconsin and the other critical battle ground states

Those who voted for Stein knew she couldn't win, and that the only thing it would accomplish is hurt Hillary. That is if you subscribe to the idea that those who voted green identify as progressive

The choices were more clear than at any time between Hillary and trump, and the stakes included the SC, environment, civil rights etc

Those who voted for Stein knew who they were helping.

[crazycatlady]

65. the Gary Johnson voters I know

Are Republicans who can't stand Trump.

[Tarheel_Dem]

26. Ditto!

[Warpy]

28. It's wasted effort to hate them

While you seem to think they're stealing votes that properly belong to Democrats, you're wrong about that. There is only one vote you can determine, your own. Know that none of the people who voted Green expected Stein to win. They simply couldn't manage to cast a vote for either Trump or Clinton.

Oh, don't look at me like that, they lost me over 20 years ago here in NM when they dug up an antiabortion man to run for governor here. That lost them most of their support, and they'd been growing before they dug him up.

Some of the European Greens look good on paper. Here in the US, they're a protest vote for people who won't vote for either major candidate but will vote down ticket. People cast those protest votes at the top of the ticket because they've heard of ballots being thrown out if people don't fill the whole thing out, and remember it doesn't have to be true.

You didn't vote for Stein and neither did I, she's a dingbat. However, we both thought it was worth voting for Clinton to keep Dolt 45 out. Other voters disagreed. We all get to do that, aint it great?

However, wasting your time on hate is useless, worse than useless since it plays hell with your cardiovascular and digestive systems. Instead of crying over votes that were never yours to control, try fighting against all the things you can control. Make your Rep and Senator too busy answering phone calls, letters and emails from you to come up with mischief. Talk to people you know about how bad Dolt45 is and what a bait and switch he's been to the people who voted for him.

Just don't waste your time on hating. It's a dumb thing to do and you're better than that.

[boston bean]

33. A look at the increase number of votes for third party in the 2016 over 2008 and 2012 undermines

your thesis.

[kcr]

83. It's not about votes belonging to anyone

But someone's going to win. And the point of voting is to vote for the person you want to win. I have never understood the Vote as Personal Expression Because it Belongs to Nobody but Meeeeee! argument. It's the Do Pointless Stuff For No Reason movement. It makes no sense. Therefore it's perfectly reasonable to point out how wasted and useless those votes are, and what better use they could have been put to. And the fact we now have Trump. There's that as well.

[Warpy]

90. It's exactly about that

Some Democrats think every left of center or worker's vote belongs to them.

The only vote that belongs to you is your own. If you want people to vote with you, you have to convince them to. You also have to realize that some people out there are pigheaded or low information and they're never going to "like" your candidate.

[stevenleser]

91. Nope, thats a copout argument. No one thinks someone elses vote belongs to them.

We expect people to be accountable for their votes and to vote the obvious way that is if not the best, the least harmful way to vote.

If you claim to be on the left, voting in such a way to enable a far right lunatic to come to power makes it pretty easy to determine your vote was foolish.

[Warpy]

94. You seem to, else you wouldn't be expressing such fury at the Greens

I can tell you what splinter parties expect to accomplish, they expect to budge the Democrats on key issues by taking votes away.

The Democrats have not budged for over 40 years, not since the conservatives took over and promised to move the party just enough to the right to counteract Nixon's southern strategy. That was a spectacular failure, but once they got in, they were impossible to dislodge and as long as the cash flow was positive, they didn't seem to care who got in.

Well, until this year. This was enough of a shock that Perez and Ellison were able to go in and clean house. As long as those people don't get rehired, there is more hope for the party now than there has been since liberals went out of power in 1969.

Just don't expect splinter parties to go away because you don't like them. They appeal very much to the young and will likely stay on both sides of the aisle.

[stevenleser]

95. Nope. Its very simple. We all make choices like this in our lives all the time. This is nothing

special.

Since we all became adults, we have had to make choices where we had to choose some thing or some course of action that was much more likely to be achievable than something more desireable that was much more unlikely for us to get/achieve.

That's simply good decision-making. And other people in our lives who are affected by our decisions judge us based on those decisions and their results whether we want them to or not and regardless of our motives.

[Warpy]

96. You didn't think like that in your late teens

Nobody did.

[betsuni]

32. K&R

[RandiFan1290]

36. Greens were told they were irrelevant

and their votes were not needed.

[oberliner]

84. No, they weren't

In fact, they were specifically courted.

[RandiFan1290]

87. Nice try

You're wrong

[oberliner]

88. Hillary Clinton Takes Aim at Voters Drifting Toward Third Party

Mrs. Clinton may also get an assist from one Democrat who has been largely quiet about the race, but can testify to the importance of resisting the third-party temptation: former Vice President Al Gore. Her staff has had conversations with aides to Mr. Gore about bringing him onto the campaign trail to emphasize the importance of supporting Mrs. Clinton if they want to make progress on combating climate change.

“I can assure you from personal experience that every vote counts,” Mr. Gore wrote in an email to The New York Times on Thursday, after a new CBS/New York Times poll showed Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump virtually tied. “The stakes are high for so many Americans. So I will vote for Hillary Clinton and I strongly encourage others to vote for her as well.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/16/us/politics/hillary-clinton-presidential-race.html

[bettyellen]

108. She did but ironically, they didn't actually give enough of a shot about the environment

[Orsino]

38. I advise saving most of the hate for the hundred million people...

...who decided to vote for Trump, or who decided not to vote at all.

It's easy to pretend non-voters don't exist--hell, in a way they advocate for it, if the decision was theirs--but in the tens of millions they make our quibbling over tens of thousands here and there look petty.

[DanTex]

42. It's possible to do both.

The insidiousness of the Green Party is that they pretend to be progressive but in reality serve the interests of the GOP. So Jill Stein deserves every bit of criticism she gets.

But, of course, Stein is just one of many people who helped put Trump into office.

[Orsino]

43. I'm not sure I agree.

On the Green influence in the election, that is. There may have been an effect, but It will be impossible to prove that any Stein voter would have instead cast a ballot for Clinton.

But some degree of complicity is also impossible to disprove.

[DanTex]

44. This isn't a hard science, there isn't hard proof of anything.

But there's a pretty strong case that having Jill Stein and a bunch of other far-lefties going on about how Hillary and Trump are the same and even that Hillary is worse had the effect of pushing voters either to vote Green or not to vote at all.

Consider a different world, both in 2000 and 2016, where instead of the "two evils" meme, Nader, Stein, and the rest of the far left instead went around explaining how important the election was and not to waste votes even if the Democratic candidate was imperfect.

Hard to imagine that wouldn't have had an effect on the vote totals.

[LanternWaste]

46. There would however, be evidence...

There would however, be evidence... evidence directly pointing towards the alleged motive, method aqnd means of the specific agenda of getting the GOP elected.

No one has supplied any direct, objective evidence of that though, only allegations and simplistic correlation lacking any causation.

It appears there are times when even the rational will discard observation, measurement and testing in favor of bias if circumstances are friendly towards doing so.

It appears this is one of those instances when the skeptic and cynic discard premise and hypothesis in favor of self-validating bumper stickers.




I'm guessing that lack of critical thought will be rationalized... because "it's not hard science" or some other empty, meaningless excuse.

[DanTex]

50. There are plenty of quotes from Stein and Nader indicating their preference

for having Bush/Trump elected over Gore/Clinton.

It's not "simplistic correlation." It's a pretty open-and-shut case:
1) Stein/Nader make it clear that they prefer that the GOP candidate wins
2) They take actions that have the obvious effect of making the GOP candidate more likely to win

I'm not sure how much clearer it gets. If I say "I love the beach" and then I buy tickets to Cancun, it's not much of a stretch to conclude that Cancun's nice beaches motivated my choice of vacation destination.

[BainsBane]

49. They did vote for Trump

It's the same damn thing. They chose to turn the country over to fascism, which makes them fucking fascists. Fascism is as fascism does.

[Orsino]

63. It feels the same to those of us who are engaged...

...and probably is the same in the minds of some of those non-voters. Many, however, are just potential voters we failed to reach, or who enfranchisement we failed to defend vigorously enough. Some concluded, with some validity, that neither party does much to help their lot.

It's hard to tell when they don't make their preferences known officially.

[FDRsGhost]

39. How about all the people who stayed home?

Those numbers trounce any of this. We need to ask WHY they did and we need to GOTV!

[BainsBane]

51. Voter disenfranchisement

SCOTUS striking down Article V of the Voting Rights Act. Reduced voting hours and days in communities of color. Shutting down polling places. Voter ID laws. All designed to reduce turnout among people of color, yet we don't hear a word about this. Instead, we are continually told how important white male Republican voters are.

[noiretextatique]

68. low voter turnout hurt clinton

Registered voters who didn’t vote were less Republican-leaning
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/registered-voters-who-stayed-home-probably-cost-clinton-the-election/
2016 REGISTERED VOTERS
SELF IDENTIFICATION SHARE REGISTERED TO VOTE VOTED IN 2016 ELECTION DIDN’T VOTE DIFFERENCE
Democratic 44% 44% 35% +9
Republican 43 46 32 +14
Neither 13 10 33 -23


and these DEMOCRATS hurt her too:

http://time.com/voices-from-democratic-counties-where-trump-won-big/

Among Donald Trump’s supporters, the real estate mogul’s victory was akin to a revolution, a mandate delivered en masse by working class voters sidelined in the modern economy.
“On Election Night, I couldn’t believe it was happening. I was up late watching every state go Trump and I was baffled,” said Sue Stavish-O’Boyle, a long-time Democrat from Forty Fort, Pennsylvania who voted enthusiastically for Trump. “I thought, wow, I can’t believe it! The little people have a voice!”

Blaming Stein voters is just thinly-veiled left-bashing of the kind that has been happening here since Nader in 2000. 200k registered Democrats voted for Bush in Florida, but we are still and only hearing about the 90k (not all Democrats) who voted for Nader.

[FDRsGhost]

70. Yup I agree

[Jake Stern]

107. On another thread I explained my experience with the polls during a past election

Saw elderly voters standing patiently in line in the rain to cast their ballots. I was the youngest one there by far. In that region (SW Missouri) it doesn't take a psychic to figure out which party they were likely voting for. Went back there in the evening (around 5:30 or 6) to see if any younger voters showed up after work. Nope. Still a snake like line of middle aged and elderly voters.

Republicans Steve and Martha will stand in the rain for over an hour to see to it their votes are cast. They are committed to the process.

[dembotoz]

41. Did u ever have Dinner​ with someone u don't like??

I have
Yes we lost some votes to the greens
I know a number of folks who went green cause the Dems were to centrist
They still feel that way
I feel that way too but have decided to hang around

[MineralMan]

45. Who is "u?"

This is not Twitter. It is not a text. You can type entire words into your DU post. Honest!

[dembotoz]

67. i do many posts from my phone or tablet

i type as i type...don't much care for capital letters either

[WillowTree]

97. Just sayin'

[url=https://postimg.org/image/xz2n8s0gv/][img][/img][/url]

[dembotoz]

104. U r bright figure it out

[jalan48]

47. If we become less centrist we pick up the Green vote.

It's our choice.

[Recursion]

48. And we lose more centrists than we gain greens. That's the problem (nt)

[jalan48]

80. Actually, we've been doing the centrist thing for decades.

It ain't working. We need to get back to being Democrats.

[Recursion]

82. Huh? It is working. What are you talking about?

Obama ran as a moderate and won. Clinton ran to the left of him and lost.

Do you really not understand that that is the party's takeaway from the past three elections?

[jalan48]

89. Sorry-it's time to get away from the "Reagan Democrats" thing.

[stevenleser]

93. No, its time to stop imagining that 1968-1988 didnt happen and that things didnt change

for the better with Clinton.

[jalan48]

99. And here we are today. Things are better now than years ago?

[stevenleser]

100. Most definitely. nt

[jalan48]

102. LOL-The best of all possible worlds Candide.

[Recursion]

106. Oh God yes

Much, much better. Bill Clinton's term saw the only real increase in median wages and incomes over the past 40 years (Obama's term mostly just arrested a fall in wages, which is all you could really expect given what he was handed).

[redgreenandblue]

105. So centrists are a much more unreliable voting block, and yet you hate thre Greens more.

That itself speaks volumes.

A few points:

-Obama ran to the left of Hillary in 2008 and won.
-It is very presumtuous to assume that protest votes are votes that the Democrats "own" but that were stolen from them somehow.
-Why single out Stein and not Johnson? He was the one who "stole" those precious centrist votes.

And furthermoe:

Do tell what a move to the center looks like. I am assuming you don't think we should put gay marriage and abortion back on the table. But these are exactly the issues that win in the "center".

Democrats won't win the center by taking more Wall Street cash. It certainly didn't help Hillary.

[stevenleser]

92. Reality is exactly the opposite of what you claim and its easy to prove it. Before Bill Clinton and

after.

Before Bill Clinton and a move to the center, we lost the previous three elections (1980, 1984, 1988) by a massive margin. In fact, without Watergate intervening to give the momentum temporarily back to Democrats in 1976, the Republicans owned elections against the Liberal wing of the Democratic party for twenty years. Most of those elections were won by Republicans by landslide margins between 1968-1988.

Since moving more toward the Center, with Bill Clinton, Democrats have been in every single Presidential race and won almost all the popular votes.

So reality is completely the opposite of what you claim.

[noiretextatique]

57. I am a Green, and I voted for Clinton

Do you hate me too? How about those Trump Democrats? Funny, some Democrats love to bitch about Greens and 3rd parties, but never about the traitors in their own party who voted for Trump, or the people who didn't bother to vote at all. So...since you are determined to hate, add Democrats who voted for Trump, and Democrats who did not vote to your hitlist.

[Gothmog]

59. Stein and the greenies gave us Trump

[Bonx]

60. I love collards. Mustard too :)

[NCTraveler]

64. She is personally responsible for the belief that our voting system is solid.

The fraud she pulled over on us with her recount was deplorable. Right wing patsy. She is one of the deplorables.

I say this as someone who has a long history of respecting the GP. I have zero respect for them today as Stein is their leader.

[Bradical79]

74. It's a fraud political party

The person they nominated is more fond of a Russian authoritarian than our liberal leaning party. She asked Americans why choose between a fascist and a warmonger while siding with a foreign fascist warmonger.

The party, at least those in charge, are pretend leftists supported by a foreign far right government.

Despite their protests and activism, the biggest way they've affected America and the world is aiding and enabling two of the more destructive human beings on the face of the planet Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.

Jill, if you want to do good, get the fuck out of politics and do some volunteer work.

[Portland_Anni]

75. I recently rejoined the Democratic Party now that we have a criminal in the White House causing...

... a dangerous national crisis. But I have been a Pacific Green for many years and always voted Democrat when it was important to as it was in this election. I don't appreciate the blanket condemnation of Greens. With all due respect, I would submit your criticism should be more reasoned and focused. I worked for and voted for Hillary Rodham Clinton this last election and Obama both times he ran.

[PsychoBabble]

76. "Jill, meet Mike; Mike this is Jill ..."

Oh, wait ... are they linked in the middle by ... OMG. Could it be?

[TSIAS]

79. This needs to be an issue coming into 2020

Too many people have been allowed to access the ballot as a 3rd party candidate. Make them pay financially for their reckless runs for office. Have a filing fee of millions in order to get on the ballot. And if they aren't polling at 15 %, like the debates, kick them off the ballots and refuse to refund their filing fees.

I see no other way to solve this problem. The Greens and their decision to run candidates for president have cost Democrats two elections we should have won. We need to find a way to incorporate ballot restrictions into the resistance movement.

[VOX]

81. Nader in 2000, Stein in 2016.

That's enough green.

[ucrdem]

85. Well, that what they reported, but I don't think it's so.

Trump wining each of those three states by less than 1% after never beating Clinton in the run-ups (per RCP aggregates) was suspicious enough but the sh#t they kicked up when Stein tried to get recounts was the smoking gun. Trump appears to have stolen votes from Stein too which was probably a factor in her deciding to throw down. The official numbers are as artfully arranged as the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, no doubt to inspire hostility at Stein, whom I imagine the Houston guys hate as much or more than Hillary. But the real harm was done in the primary fight, which inflicted enough damage to make the prestidigitation look real.

RCP Michigan: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/mi/michigan_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-6008.html
RCP PA:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/pa/pennsylvania_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5964.html
RCP WI:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/wi/wisconsin_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5976.html

[Spider Jerusalem]

86. So?

It seems pretty simpleminded to presume that all, or indeed any, of those people would have voted for Clinton in the absence of a Green candidate. Many of them may not have voted at all. To conclude that Clinton would've gotten those votes, rather than them being split between Clinton and Trump or going to some other third-party candidate (Libertarian, Reform, whatever) is to assume facts not in evidence.

[TheFrenchRazor]

98. clue: dems are not ENTITLED to all left-of-center votes, and if they expect their competition to

to just drop out of every election, they might as well get used to losing. a better strategy might be actually shifting their platform slightly to bring potential green voters into the party.

[creeksneakers2]

103. Slightly wouldn't begin to cut it.

[Kali]

101. mmm sauteed swiss chard