2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAre Ultra Progressives Responsible for Trumps Victory?
You know the type after the Democratic primary they were the ultra progressive Bernie Sanders supporters who vowed never to vote for Hillary Clinton. That boisterous group that loudly claimed that they would either vote for Green Party candidate Jill Stein or, since their conscious would not let them vote for either Clinton or Trump, they would simply stay at home election day. While their numbers shrank, especially in battle ground states, as the polls tightened near election day, they still had a major effect on the election results and may well have cost Hillary the White House.
In each battleground state there were several third party candidates, the most prominent being Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein, the Green Party candidate. It is difficult to analyze the votes which went to Gary Johnson because no one knows which of the major party candidates his supporters might have voted for had the Libertarian Party not had a candidate, or if they would have voted at all. The same is true for most of the other 3rd Party candidates. However, we are reasonably sure that those individuals who voted for Jill Stein are very progressive so their choices were probably limited to Stein and Hillary Clinton or not voting. I think it would be interesting to investigate if the results of the election would have been affected if the Stein voters in three of the largest swing states, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (all parts of the former Blue Wall) had they voted for Clinton instead.
However, let me first point out that Hillary won the popular vote and given her strong support in California, when the millions of uncounted votes in that state are added in, her victory in the popular vote will be substantial. According to the New York Times: By the time all the ballots are counted, she seems likely to be ahead by more than 2 million votes and more than 1.5 percentage points, according to my Times colleague Nate Cohn. She will have won by a wider percentage margin than not only Al Gore in 2000, but also Richard Nixon in 1968 and John F. Kennedy in 1960. And while Trump electoral vote margin appears to be significant 306 to 232 - it was possible only because of his very narrow victories in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
You might think that because Jill Stein receive less than 1% of the vote in each of those three states, her votes could not have affected the results, but you would be wrong. Lets take a close look at the state by state results:
Wisconsin 10 electoral votes:
Trump: 1,409,467
Clinton: 1,382,210
Difference: 27,257
Stein: 30,980
Obviously if the Stein voters had voted for Hillary Clinton, Wisconsin and its 10 electoral votes would have been added to Hillarys column and subtracted from Trumps. In addition, this is not taking into consideration those progressives who were turned off by all of their choices and decided not to vote.
Rest of article with analysis of Michigan, and Pennsylvania here:
Are Ultra Progressives Responsible for Trumps Victory?
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Stein's numbers wouldn't have been much lower even if Bernie was the Dems Presidential or VP nominee.
The defection of white moderates who voted for Obama in 2008 and 2012 to the Racist-in-Chief in 2016 is what lost it for us. While many of his voters are avowed racists who are coming out of the woodwork in droves now, large numbers of non-racist whites voted for him who should have backed Clinton. I believe economic worries caused them to shift allegiance to the R-i-C because of his completely ridiculous claims of bringing the jobs back. His rhetoric soared despite being completely fictional and impossible. Clinton's economic positions - much like many of her other positions - were unknown to most Americans because the media did not cover issues in this election.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,176 posts)Bang on!
jalan48
(13,888 posts)eridani
(51,907 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)They'd probably just stay home if there was no Green Party.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Looks like we were right in Michigan and Wisconsin at least..
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)6% under 45, under 2% over 65.
There are lots of small things that added up here. But the big things are our inability to win without a superstar talent at the top of the ticket (big difference between Obama and Bill Clinton on one hand and Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and Hillary) and our failure to reach white voters. It's understood we'll lose some areas 60-40, but Trump started winning those areas 80-20.
forjusticethunders
(1,151 posts)I thought he was suppressing DJT votes, but apparently a lot of """""""""""""""""leftists"""""""""""""""""" don't actually care about policy, only about ego and feeling revolutionary.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)involved in their business
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)... about how their stupidity could get Trump elected and about which party really wants the government in their business.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)The real problem was the party's decision, even while adopting some of Bernie's policies, to make Sanders supporters totally unwelcome during and after the convention.
There was no good reason, for example, for Sanders supporters to be forbidden to silently hold up "No TPP" signs while Tim Kaine spoke. By then, only people who were going to vote straight ticket GOP were still supporting that treaty, and holding the signs up silently would have harmed nothing and done no disrespect to Senator Kaine.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 16, 2016, 02:10 PM - Edit history (1)
or you would have known that Stein cost Hillary Wisconsin as well and probably Pennsylvania as well. That's the whole ballgame dude.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)mcar
(42,376 posts)AmericanMan1958
(520 posts)Knowing we have 4 years of Trump and total GOP control
Because people couldn't hold up their "NO TPP" signs
Now there's a hill worth dying on!!!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I'm thinking that's crazy. Didn't grab any headlines this cycle.
AmericanMan1958
(520 posts)But I am not a Republican, so I read up on it's effects.
I work in the auto industry and many plants have been closed.
But guess what we produce just as many vehicles, if not more than we produced back in the 80's.
According to my research 13% of job loses due too Free Trade agreements.
Approximately, 80% of job loses were due to automation. ( Robotics)
I have tried to tell every young person to go into robotic's programming.
I have told hundred and their parent, no one does it.
So people are hired from overseas, I have personally watched it.
There is more to job loss than Free Trade
I do agree TPP wasn't much of issue in this election.
Just my opinion!
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)In every state other than Michigan, the Stein vote was smaller than the Trump plurality.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Try reading the entire article before you comment.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)required by new Republican voter suppression laws.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)He mentions it here, but you can find more on Crosscheck purge with a Google search.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)BainsBane
(53,072 posts)Hell yeah.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)For Clinton's loss. She was the candidate and she failed to be the kind of candidate who get enough votes.
Instead of blaming liberals, maybe we should figure out how our candidate failed to get their votes? And then figure out how to get more votes than the Republican candidate next time.
And if you REALLY want to blame a voting bloc, how about we blame Republicans?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I'm not going to blame the Republicans - they nominated Donald Trump and got him elected - that what they set out to do and that's what they did.
I am not going to blame the majority of the voters - they exercised their constitutional rights and and weren't stupid enough to throw their vote away on a third party candidate. Besides Hillary won the popular vote by 1 Million to 2 Million votes, so who are you to say that she wasn't the right candidate.
I am not even blaming the tin head liberals that were stupid enough to throw their vote away on a candidate who was totally unqualified to be be President of the United State and didn't have snow ball's chance in hell of getting elected.
The article simple points out that in three critical states - Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - Trump won the Presidency by razor thin margins. The liberal idiots who voted for Stein and those progressives who sat home and didn't vote for reasons of conscience in those states were very likely were the difference and now they they will have to face the fact that the candidate who most opposes their basic values has become President because they chose not to try and stop him.
Now because of their "it's all about me and liberal values" mindset, millions of people who can least afford it, those who we progressives are supposed to protect, will have to endure at least four years Trump as he destroys all of the progress we have made on health care, the environment, global warming, etc., etc. And you know what, they are probably have the resources such that Trump's terror will have little affect on them. In other words, they can afford to be selfish.
nashville_brook
(20,958 posts)Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Hillary was the candidate -- and she has to take most of the blame. She ran a campaign that did not motivate enough people in states that went to Obama in 2008 and 2012 to vote for her. It is not the responsibility of people to vote for a candidate, it is the responsibility of the candidate to motivate people to vote for them.
Hillary did not campaign enough outside of her bubble to get the once Obama voters to vote for her. She ran a campaign like it was in the bag for her, and she dismissed middle Americans that are hurting and Trump reached out to them.
We can complain about how she won the popular vote, but the EC existed when she ran her campaign and should have campaigned accordingly. She spent too much time convincing the people that were already voting for her to vote for her and ignored those that voted for Obama in the middle states because she assumed they would fall in line.
redwitch
(14,948 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... couldn't bother to register as ACTUAL Democrats in order to participate in DEMOCRATIC primaries?
Are those the ones you're referring to?
The ones who started the LIE about "rigged elections" that Trump picked up and carried to the finish line?
The "Never Hillary" and "both the same" crowd?
The "I'm gonna write in Bernie" idiots?
The vanity crowd of "my vote counts so I'm going to cast a protest-vote to send a message"?
The ones who think HA Goodman was sent from Heaven?
Yep... they're a BIG part of the problem. Naive and VAIN. Impulsive "greenie" and "indie" idiots.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)What was vain was that Hillary thought she didn't need those voters and refused to court those voters. Hillary spent most of her campaign trying to convince those that were already voting for her to vote for her. She ignored the middle American voters that voted twice for Obama and that cost her the election. And, because she ignored them.
Hillary needed to campaign outside of her bubble and, for the most part, she didn't. Hillary needed to run her campaign like she needed every vote, and she didn't.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... they're nice to have, but not at the expense of gaining ONE "fringe" voter and LOSING a half-dozen reasonable centrist voters.
Don't flatter yourselves. That's just more indication of the VANITY of the crybaby emoprogs.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)My point was that Hillary didn't try to get anyone that was already voting for her to vote for her. Hillary ignored the working class Americans in the middle states that voted for Obama twice.
That cost her WAY more votes than the cry-baby progressives that voted for Stein, Trump and wrote in Sanders combined. Trust me, those working class voters would not have voted for Stein or Sanders.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Trump lied. And those folks were just gullible enough to believe it.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)Did Obama lie to them? No, he didn't. He just made an effort to court their vote. Unlike Hillary who stuck with campaigning the sure vote.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)There are white, working class voters that voted for a black man with a Muslim sounding name that all the right wingers called a communist in 2008, but they didn't vote for Clinton. So, there is more going on there than just saying that voting bloc are all racist bigots that voted for Trump because of that.
We need to come to terms on why that is, instead of just summarily dismissing any critiques of Hillary.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)You don't have any follow up, you just mock anyone that has any negative opinions of Hillary. People aren't morons, and when you treat them as such, you lose their support.
Maybe, instead of just responding with cocky disdain and dismissal, Hillary supporters like yourself responded with some outside of the bubble rationalizations and explanations, she would have won. No one is ever won over by haughty dismissals of legitimate concerns.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)You don't explain why I am wrong, you just mock me without any defense but emoticons.
You have not proven your point.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... that we've had to put up with forever. Blah blah blah. It's lost all meaning.
Else You Are Mad
(3,040 posts)We aren't anticipating the president elect Hillary Clinton, and, it is attitudes like yours that ruined this country. You just assumed Hillary would win and called the pragmatic Democrats (I have been one since I could vote) concern trolls and ignored constructive criticism. I was no Bernie or Buster or a Stein voter, but I saw problems with Hillary's CAMPAIGN. Not her person, not because she was a woman, not because she wasn't qualified, and not because of right wing conspiracies.
But, if it helps you to live with the fact that your attitude was the reason that Hillary lost, keep being obnoxious.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... it's starting to blend into the background. All the Hillary-Hate(tm) has just gotten jumbled together into one big hodgepodge of alphabet soup. It's the same as it was before the election. It's just hate hate hate... what exactly are you expecting to accomplish?
You'll never get Hillary's supporters to agree with you. So, what are the actual goals? Blah blah blah hate hate hate.
Get over it. Bernie lost to Hillary, and Hillary lost to Trump. Cope.
"Constructive criticism" ... I love that one. You guys REALLY crack me up sometime!
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Obama voter + 8 years of misery brought on by George W. Bush = Trump voter.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Had their votes for Stein in Michigan and Wisconsin gone to Hillary instead, Hillary not Trump would have won those two states.
Had Stein's votes in Pennsylvania gone instead Hillary, Trump would have still won that state, but only by a few thousand votes. Then if you figure in all of the those ultra progressives who who through their votes away writing in Bernie Sanders or who made decisions to sit out the election at home because "their conscience would not allow them to vote for any of the candidates", Hillary could have won Pennsylvania as well and the Presidency to boot.
Your votes matter matter folks - even they votes of the ideologically pure progressives who now, like the rest of us, have to endure at least 4 years of Trump while he tries his best to dismantle everything we have worked so hard to build
mcar
(42,376 posts)They Nader'd Florida again.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)....found that Stein voters in Florida really would not have made much of a difference had they voted for Hill arty. Did you see something different?
mcar
(42,376 posts)Maybe the numbers were wrong and I don't recall them. A couple hundred thousand, I think.
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I don't even see it being an argument. She was just a very, very bad candidate. But to lose to an orange-faced bigot? I am at a loss for words as how anyone could think otherwise.
Doesn't mean she is not a great person or a great democrat. But as candidate? There are not many that are worse.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)hueymahl
(2,510 posts)But perhaps you would care to share your reasoning on how a brilliant democratic candidate lost Pennsylvania and Michigan? How a brilliant candidate chose not to campaign there full throttle and instead diverted resources to Georgia and Arizona? How a brilliant candidate, the first female major party nominee, did not get a majority of votes from white women? My definition of brilliant does not accommodate these discrepancies.
Again, I think she is a great person and a great democrat. But not a great candidate.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)hueymahl
(2,510 posts)It would be nice if we did not have the electoral college. But even if that were true, you can't assume she would have won as both sides electoral strategy would have been different.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)This accomplishes nothing.
You guys are too much.
hueymahl
(2,510 posts)Other Democrats? Liberals? What exactly is the point to your insinuation?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)BlueProgressive
(229 posts)with campaigning in Wisconsin.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)Oh how I hate that women. I change the channel every time she's on.
People like her helped Trump win! When did she ever say anything nice about Hillary or ask someone to vote for her? I won't go on because I'll say something that isn't lady like.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)She's not a good speaker. I end up paying more attention to HOW she talks (and how freaking annoying it is) rather than what it is she's trying to say.
Thank GOODNESS she was scrubbed from the Democratic convention speaker's list. What an embarrassment that would have been, in my opinion. Maybe with some lessons in deportment and public speaking she could learn to improve her demeanor, and to get people to actually listen to what she's trying to say, rather than immediately go on defense, or just shield themselves from the flurry of shouting and words.
Ugh.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)like NAFTA?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I would actually call that a populist issue because it isn't concern of some progressives and is a concern of some very conservative working people. As you recall emphasis on that issue was part of both Sander's and Trump's populist messages, so it isn't just a progressive issue.
Here are the characteristics that I attributed to "ultra progressives":
They consider themselves pure ideologically.
They believe every one else who does not totally ascribe to their ideology is at best misled.
The believe that their solutions to the countries problems are the only ones that will work.
They call other progressives that they believe are not as ideologically pure as themselves, conservatives, or worse.
Usually they are ruled by emotion, not reason.
Since they know they are absolutely right, they refuse to compromise.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)The working class in the rust belt ( who use to be strong democrats ) see these free trade
deals as a conservative idea to lower the cost of their labor. Trump won a lot of them over
because he tapped into their anger.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)... and that trade deals are our only hope to keep the process sane, we don't have anything to talk about. The only alternative is trade wars which benefit no one.
If you don't realize that outsourcing of manufacturing jobs to other countries, which caused most of the real anger, has absolutely nothing to do with with trade deals, then an intelligent conversation between you and I is just not going to be possible.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)but in Mexico. Those free trade deals are looking for the cheapest labor
possible at the expense of hard working labor. Continue to ignore this
faction of the Democratic party and if the results of Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Michigan and Minnesota don't wake the party up, nothing will.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)You hit the nail on the head - your job went to Mexico precisely because your former company thought they could get your job done just as well in Mexico and for a lot less than they were paying you.
Trade deals only dictate what tariffs will be charged when trade goods cross boarders. Actually NAFTA has had the desired affect with regard to regard to Mexico. In 2010 our trade deficit with Mexico was $66 Billion and in 2015 it has shrunk to $50 Billion which means that we gained more jobs than we lost to Mexico, but in the long run both countries benefited by the increased trade.
Don't be insulted - wise up! Jobs in my company are being outsourced to counties like the Indonesia, Slovenia and to Southeast Asia and it certainly isn't because the US has any special trade deals with those countries. If you want to blame someone, blame people like you and me who want to buy products for the cheapest possible price. If one company in an industry outsources, the rest of are bound to follow because otherwise they won't be able to compete price wise.
If you want blame anything, blame the immutable laws of economics which dictates that money will flow to the supplier who can produce the same quality product for a cheaper price. You can also blame the world for becoming so interconnected economically.
But assuming you want to blame something more personal, unless over the years you have bought only American products even if they were more expensive, then you too are responsible for someone's job being moved out of the country. So maybe, just maybe, the guy you should be blaming is the one who looks back at you in the mirror because he did the same thing to you.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)it's a race to the bottom.
We need trade deals that protect US workers. If it costs a dollar worth of labor to make a product in the USA,, but you can make the very same product in South America, China, etc for let's say for sake of argument 10 cents, we need a ninety cent tariff if the manufacturer wants to sell it here. Now from my working class opinion that would make for a fair trade deal.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Protectionist treaties don't work because the other countries involved erect similar tariff barriers on the products that we export to them leading eventually trade wars and run away inflation similar to what we saw during the oil crisis during the Carter era except on a much larger scale.
Because of trade deals which have been enacted over the years we have not seen a real trade war in our lifetimes, but they can be brutal and usually lead to world wide depressions. The diplomatists and economic experts from the various countries involved aren't stupid. No country is going to enter any agreement if it theoretically will harm their people - that would be stupid. Yes, they realize that any such deal which removes tariffs is going to hurt some people - heck, for years sugar cane farming in Southwest Louisiana remained strong because Louisiana legislators were able to keep in place high tariffs on sugar coming into the country that tripled the price of sugar in the grocery store. But ultimately trade deals are put in place because each country involved expects to gain more than it loses. It is not a zero sum game.
And yes, since the government is indirectly responsible for the loss of some jobs when they are replaced by products coming in from other countries that are cheaper - I believe the the government has an obligation to retrain those people to do jobs with a future in this country. But that's not what Trump is offering - he is offering to start trade wars which have the potential of greatly increasing inflation and causing a world wide panic.
Yes, it is unfortunate that the people that are angry are not educated enough to understand exactly what is going on - so they voted for a con man.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)( who were historically democrats ) go in the next election if the party continues to down this neoliberal path
to the bottom? I fear from what I'm hearing the party will split and that guarantees republican victories for
years to come.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Logical conclusion...
B Calm
(28,762 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)But she came so close you could mention a hundred things that could put her over the edge.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)He won over enough working class democrats in the rust belt who are sick and tired of Democratic politicians
pushing Free Trade agreements. That's a fact.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)It was barely mentioned. No one gives a shit.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)DinahMoeHum
(21,812 posts). . .struck again.
get the red out
(13,468 posts)I really don't think it would have made the electoral difference, maybe a little, but not enough to win.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)The article states why it actually cost's Hillary Wisconsin and Michigan for sure and probably Pennsylvania to boot.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)This article is your own damned op-ed. Yet you comment on it like it is some source of weight and authority.
There is no goddamn way to guarantee that every single one of those green voters would of gone to Hillary anyhow. In 2012 Stein got 21,000 votes or so running against Obama and Romney. She got that many votes by barely even having a presence in the race.
The only reason that third parties got even the slightest bit of attention this time around is because both of the main party candidates were not well liked and both had sum negative approval ratings (when you subtract their negatives from their positives). So no, it is absurd to suggest otherwise.
In fact, it is remarkable that Stein only barely got slightly over twice the number of votes that she normally does.
And there is no way that this election should have been anywhere near this close. The fact it was close enough that less than a percentage point is not a great failing of the left or any such sad and pathetic nonsense.
As dicey as it is to say that Bernie would have automatically won, at least there are some polls that suggest that it may have been possible. You are taking numbers from this one election while ignoring total turn out (which was a much bigger problem) and the aforementioned comparisons to third party voting in previous years.
And trying to hang this on angry lefty Bernie voters is the biggest pile of steaming hippie punching garbage I have ever heard.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)First - I will put up my political against yours are any of the established experts.
Second - I didn't say any of the idiots who threw their vote away on Jill Stein would ever have voted for Hillary Clinton. What I said was that if they had any brains at all they would have realized that as progressives Hillary Clinton would have been a vastly better candidate for them than Donald Trump and by throwing their vote away they helped elect him.
Let's remember that Hillary won the popular vote by over 2.3 Million votes and that total is probably only going to increase. She only lost because of razor thin margins in 5 states and two of those states she would have won outright if the Stein voters had brains enough to vote in their own self interests. If your point is that they were never going to have the brains to do that - then i agree with you, that's likely to be true.
Lastly, Trump would have chewed up Bernie and spit him out in peaces. Sure some young people would have been excited, but many Hillary supporters would not have been at all enthusiastic even if we would have voted for him. It would have been an entirely different election with Bernie dedicated to staying out of Putin's way in Eastern Europe and Trump displaying himself as the protector of freedom around the world. Meanwhile he would have depicted Bernie as the Socialist (that he is) and Commie loving traitor who would take all of working people's tax dollars and give it to those who are to lazy to work - the typical disgusting Republican dog whistle except Trump would have said it out loud.
Bernie would have lost by a landslide and instead gaining in both the House in the
Senate the Republicans would have picked up seats in both chambers. So let's keep the "Bernie would have been better" talk on the sane side. He couldn't even convince fellow progressives he was the better choice.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)None.
You have feelings. Sure
But when I pointed out the absurdity of the numbers that took up center mass on your little op ed you explode in a tirade of red-baiting nonsense. Like I said I cannot prove that Bernie would win, but at least those people that are convinced of it (right or wrong) can point to approval numbers and comparative polling. All you have is angry promises that you would stay home (which makes you sooo much better than the Bernie supporters you despise). By the way, I actually turned out and voted for your deeply flawed candidate. For all the good that did.
Your projection that Bernie would have lost even more house seats is far, far, far less supportable than the contention that Bernie would have won. (again, no numbers on that one support you)
But again, the numbers.
You cited three states Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin in your little article and all I had to do was reduce the vote for Stein by the number of people that turned out for her and the Greens in 2012 and your silly argument utterly evaporates.
I suppose you could try to pretend (as Maddow did) that the libertarian turn out would automatically vote for Clinton if he hadn't run. I would suggest that any libertarians that supported Sanders were probably non-transferable and not even guaranteed to vote for Bernie when the chips were down. Certainly there was no way even had Bernie personally begged each of these young libertarians, that they would have magically supported your candidate.
Really, your argument only looks plausible until someone breaths on it lightly.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Had Stein voters voted instead voted for Clinton. Bernie backers seem to have a problem with political math, but can't we do simple arithmetic?
BlueProgressive
(229 posts)and without Pennsylvania Clinton would still have lost.
So the whole argument is pretty much moot. Stein didn't cost Clinton the election.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Can you say with any certainty that that the progressives who loudly proclaimed that they would sit out the election because their "conscience" would not allow them to vote for any of the candidates wouldn't have easily made up the difference?
Let me answer that one for you - no you can't - especially in light of the many people on DU before the conclusion of the primaries who said they would do exactly that.
BlueProgressive
(229 posts)If you want to drag them in now, OF COURSE 100 million people who didn't vote could have made a difference.
As far as progressives sitting out the election entirely, I don't have any interest in defending them, I was certainly not one of them--- but you have no statistics to show how many there actually may have been.
Polling before the election showed almost all of Bernie's primary supporters intended to support Clinton in the general election.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)...were too busy or too lazy.
I am talking about well informed people who normally would have voted but chose not to because their guy wasn't the Democratic nominee. And don't tell me those people don't exist in droves, they wee certainly well represented here on DU before the primaries ended.
And by the way the polling accurately represented those people - almost every poll showed 2% to 3% of registered voters who said they didn't intend to vote. Look at the poling data yourself; they are listed among the fairly large percentage of those polled who preferred no candidate.
McCamy Taylor
(19,240 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)... no explanation and expects everyone to bow to their superior knowledge without dispute.
budkin
(6,717 posts)So that Donald Trump would not be elected.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)0rganism
(23,971 posts)3 million votes cast and you're fixating on 1% of them, that could potentially have given HRC a 0.1% lead if all of them had voted for HRC instead. HRC had to earn those votes and she did not.
just stop.
the truth is, it "should never have been this close". the question we need to ask and answer is "how did we lose to an opponent as repulsive as Trump when we should have won by 20?" that's where our future is, not bargaining and backbiting around the marginal fringe.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)Go back and subtract the number of people that voted Green during Obama v Romney from the totals and then tell me how impressive the numbers were or how likely that number would have affected whether or not Hillary won.
It's just a ridiculous argument to cover for the fact that Hill could not turn out her base.
TrekLuver
(2,573 posts)which of course I couldn't believe. One of them I know is in no way an "ultra progressive"...she just hated both so voted for neither. When someone hates Hillary - and there are a lot of those folks - there is just no talking to them about false equivalences.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Some people can't get woke- I think they just couldn't get the starts out of their eyes. They all were hoping for something impossible to happen at the convention.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)The candidate who couldn't beat a guy that didn't get as many votes as McCain or Romney.
http://www.inquisitr.com/3704461/hillary-voters-owe-it-to-america-to-stop-calling-everyone-a-nazi-and-start-reading-wikileaks/
That would be the feckless "Democrats for corporations" "center left." They got their candidate, and she couldn't beat a racist conman with a dead ferret on his head.
Time for progressive-hating Dems to own this one. Jill Stein didn't beat Hillary. She just wasn't good enough.
sfwriter
(3,032 posts)I believe realistically, you need to subtract the green party voters from last cycle, right? Or are you arguing that Hillary had somehow converted them all before Sanders ran? Or are you arguing that every vote for anyone other than Clinton was hers?
Here is your math with the Green Party's 7,665 votes subtracted:
Wisconsin 10 electoral votes:
Trump: 1,409,467
Clinton: 1,382,210
Difference: 27,257
Stein: 30,980
Less 2012 Green Voters: 7,665
Total: 23,315
It is still awfully close. Rather than BLAMING those voters, perhaps we could discuss how to win them back? After all, they voted against Clinton for some very specific reasons, and Clinton will not be the candidate next time. That's 23,000 Wisconsin votes back in play!
-Sfwriter
The_Casual_Observer
(27,742 posts)Forever. There was never a good word spoken about her anyplace, it was emails,
Benghazi, NAFTA and that persistent vague stuff about being a liar and untrustworthy.
It sunk in and became the basic narrative,
till the point where it wasn't enough just
To vote for her to prevent Trump.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)and the democrats that didn't care to pinch their nose to vote and instead wrote in Bernie.
The truth is, if the Democratic party don't change their leadershp and direction it will be a long time before the party ever recovers. I truly believe the party will split if it stays the same course. There is already talk about leaving the party for a new party.
TrekLuver
(2,573 posts)divided??? It was the Repub's that were supposed to be imploding and fracturing!! I really believe we need to stick together...and we must come to the realization that we are not all going to agree on everything.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)inspire new voters into the party? With over 50% of voters now registered as independents, shouldn't they have a say in who inspires them to vote?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)The independents (mostly young people) were inspired not by Bernie's liberal ideology, but by his give aways - they wanted to not have to pay for college or they wanted to be rid of their student debit. I know several people in exactly that situation and I can't blame them for voting for Bernie. If he was promising me a $$40K to $120K windfall I would have probably voted for him also.
Hey, if that is the way to get a Democratic President elected let's just promise everyone everything whether we can make that happen or not. But don't make the mistake that the country is ready for your brand of socialism. There is absolutely no reason to believe it is.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)party can't win without their votes.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Courting you guys costs us more votes than we gain. On the other hand, there are far fewer of you than there are of us so unless you want to stand on the sidelines without a say, you guys need to hold your noses to join us.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Unlike many in your ranks, we don't make decisions on feelings. We are mostly rational and reason indicates that the smaller group needs to join the larger group, not the other way around. Reason also indicates that since far more people and most independents are politically in the center rather than on either fringe, the obvious way forward is to appeal to them instead of the those further to the left than ourselves.
Trump taught everyone a lesson - the way to victory is no longer pure conservationism or pure liberalism. The key to victory is populism mixed with enough ideology to bring along much of a party's base. This time Hillary won the popular vote by 2.3 million. Combine another good left center candidate with a health dose of populism - that is a receipt for electoral success next time around.
You guys are never going to join a coalition with the far right so you can never be able to form a majority of your own. Your only avenue alone is to try to screw up the group which somewhat matches your political views and aspirations. Your only other choice is to join us, or be forever on the outside looking in like the Stein voters.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)the president and congress for years to come,
That's just commonsense.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)And will never be in the majorly by themselves. The Ultra right - like the Stein voters maybe 2% to 3%. I think that was made very clear during the primaries when a very large majority of Democrats voted for Hillary. Sanders drew most of his strength and enthusiasm from independents and most of them young people drawn by his promise of free college and an escape from college debt that is crushing them.
There is no reason the next center left Democratic candidate can't offer the the kids the very same thing and they will flock to him/her like they did to Sanders.
Sanders was your best chance in your lifetime. If Warren moderates and becomes more of a populist instead of a firebrand liberal she might have a future, but only if she does. Notice that unlike many on DU before the primaries, she stuck with the party. That pissed of many on the far left who disowned her, but she too is a reasoning human being. She knows if she is to have a brighter future she must stay within the confines of the party rather than trying appeal to her far left constituents.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Indies and Greens who are never Dems.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)B Calm
(28,762 posts)asuhornets
(2,405 posts)had to do was hold nose and vote for her.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)Generator
(7,770 posts)Period. Now that all blame is over. We need every American that didn't vote for this fascist sexual molester racist creep to fight this man and his policies or there will be no more country.
elleng
(131,140 posts)https://hbr.org/2016/11/what-so-many-people-dont-get-about-the-u-s-working-class
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/15/us/politics/democrats-economy.html?
http://www.dw.com/en/rise-of-the-working-poor-across-europe/a-36380201?maca=fb-en-dw
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/14/opinion/the-incendiary-appeal-of-demagoguery-in-our-time.html?
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/13/us/politics/ohioans-tired-of-status-quo-flipped-to-trump-for-change.html?
http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/213780-republicans-block-bill-to-end-tax-breaks-for-outsourcing
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Hillary won the popular vote by 2.3 million and counting while she only lost Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan by razor thin margins despite all of the BS you posted. And nothing will change the fact that had Stein's votes in Michigan and Wisconsin had gone to Hillary, she would have won those states. Also, not can change the probability that had the Stein votes in Pennsylvania had gone to Clinton and the many big progressives who sat out the election because they were too good to vote, Hillary would have taken Pennsylvania as well and Trump would not be the President-elect.
All of the bullshit you posted may be perfectly true, but we could have still won this election had some progressives had more brains than emotions.
elleng
(131,140 posts)Vogon_Glory
(9,132 posts)They never admit their responsibility for anything!
Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)And they elected to vote third party instead of Hillary then complain to one's self, think about how fortunate you are, say the progressive ideas was not important and therefore the votes went to the third party.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)it was voter suppression and stupid Stein voters.
Duckhunter935
(16,974 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)otohara
(24,135 posts)when they said #NeverHillary - they meant it.
INdemo
(6,994 posts)Last edited Thu Nov 17, 2016, 12:11 AM - Edit history (1)
Ever think of pointing the finger at Clinton's incompetent advisors, The DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz and the fact that yes Hillary was a flawed candidate and no way in hell could she convince voters she was different. No way Hillary could convince voters she could bring about change.
Remember Obama that said "A change we can believe in" well that was all bullshit. The only change he brought us was a Health Care Bill drafted by the Insurance Companies and Lobbyists.
Oh sure he brought us through the financial ruins that Bush and the Republicans put us in..
But what about the broken promises he made..What about the TPP he was shoving down our throats,what about the preaching about unfair trade practices by China and other countries.
Not everyone are political junkies like us and the only thing they see is whats on the surface and what they hear on the right wing media. They cant look beyond that. It was Hillary's campaign managers and advisors to do that and to take them beyond the reich wing propaganda and they failed miserably.
The thing about Obama he had some very outstanding campaign advisors that got us to believe his bullshit twice,,Hell I voted for him twice..I voted for Hillary not be because I liked her but because I hated that son-of-bitch Fascist Nazi.
But many Democrats just couldn't bring themselves to do what I did and that is why Hillary lost.
B Calm
(28,762 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)That piece of legislation which you nonchalantly criticize now provides 20 Million people with insurance who weren't insured before. And many of those people would never been insured because of preexisting conditions. That insurance is keeping people from dying and keeping others from being ruined financially.
What kind of "progressive" are you if you can blithely criticize that accomplishment? Democrats in the Senate and the House as well as the President worked their asses off and spent untold amounts of political capital to make ACA a reality.
Yes, it was a compromise because it was the most that could be accomplished at the time. And it was by no means a sure thing. The House passed the bill with only a seven vote margin, 219212, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it. Ever since then the Republicans have thrown everything in their arsenal at it, both legislative and judicial.
I am sick and tired of so call "progressives" criticizing amazing efforts like the ACA because it doesn't live up to their impossible standards! Grow up! Politics is a big boys and girls game where pragmatism is the only reality, and compromise is a necessity if you want anything done. If it were up to the far left it would have been a single payer system or bust and they would with ended up with NOTHING. Too many people would still be dying. Other families would be wiped out financially trying to ensue that their loved one didn't die. Unlike the dreamers who can afford to bitch and moan because their ideal was not met (since they have all of the health insurance they need), thank heavens for the Democrats who dreamed big, but were then smart enough to take what they could get.
And oh, I appreciate that you agree with me when you say that Hillary lost because, "many Democrats just couldn't bring themselves to do what I did (vote for her) and that is why Hillary lost." I hold those selfish "progressives" who cared more about their self righteousness than the fate of millions of poor people totally responsible. I hold them responsible for those who defenseless ones will now have to endure four years of Donald Trump, at least two years of Republican control congress, and maybe 20 years of conservative controlled Supreme Court because of their arrogance and stupidity. I curse them, and I curse anyone who would dares to defend them! But they will never admit that they were wrong - that's just the kind pompous asses that they are.