OPDENY270.ORG
Submitted by the_poorly_educated on Wed, 10/05/2016 - 7:22am
Time to stop talking and start organizing our voting strategy. We all know the faults of both candidates and finding new faults is a waste of time and energy. More faults is not going to change our minds. The website opdeny270.org has the plan. Go there and read the plan and spread the word. Convince HRC supporters in states like California to vote Jill Stein because we need more political parties to choose from. HRC doesn't need their vote in California. Get as many people as you can to vote Jill Stein in states like CA. Read the plan , it's a good one.
Comments
This is just reported donors
The same data used by the original tweet.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
No one polled me.
I donated all the law allows, maybe more. I stopped counting. I also signed up at his website before he even announced and signed up again when the website changed format to an official Presidential candidate's website.
No offense to the OP
I've seen that picture any number of times, and I'll never believe it's anything other than wishful thinking bullshit.
but luna...the same can be said of those who ignore data
I know a lot of people who voted for Bernie who now support Hillary "because Trump". It's awful! It's illogical. They yell at me because I'm not sufficiently fearful.
I believe that high number is close to accurate and saying, for no reason other than your gut feeling, it's not is, in my opinion, your own wishful thinking.
It doesn't much matter today which of us is right. She'll either get those votes or not. Believing that she'll get 75% of the Bernie vote doesn't stop anyone from supporting Jill Stein.
No, of course not
but don't you know a good propaganda dump when you see one? Polls are that for me. I think they're bullshit. I've always thought they were bullshit. Whether they are or not is not what I would want to argue now, but the fact of the matter is, in my reality, of all the Sanders supporters I know, not a damned one is voting for Her Heinous.
Not one.
Believing that Hillary will get 75% of Sanders vote is stupid, because it plays right into the hands of those who you know will try to fuck with the ballots once they're cast. A lot of people never bought it and they're still not buying it--It's not even close to that. And that's why you see panic from Camp Clinton, because how's she gonna fix it if people don't believe A) it's close and B) that she got most of Sanders supporters as votes?
I'm so voting for Jill Stein. FWIW, I think Donald Trump has a real good shot at winning Florida, too--I'd be tempted to vote for him here, but ever since he put that asshole Pence on his ticket, he killed his chance to get my vote.
That's not even what those numbers say.
I made a mistake initially, when I said that the 73.4% wouldn't show up to the polls--the data isn't measuring voters, or supporters, it's measuring donors. And someone, Hawkfish I think, pointed out that there are other problems with the data--like it looks like the person constructing the survey confused donations with donors; like the study might not even include Stein's latest donation info, because it wasn't reported on time. (therefore, unless the surveyor/consultant/whatever entered the data manually, the most recent Stein data is not even there).
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
On this board, we had been focused, I thought, on getting Jill
to 5% of the popular vote so that the Greens automatically get ballot access in 2020. That is the most we can do this time around. We have a realistic shot at that. This House of Representatives stuff is not going to happen and, if it does, they will not choose Bernie anyway.
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/187189#comment-187189
1% switching is not unusually low
As I reported in my last crunch of this data at the national level, only about 1-2% of donors give to multiple candidates.
I'd also be careful about his data summary. As I mentioned in the essay, the Greens missed the August filing deadline by a couple of hours and weren't included in the unified data drop. Since their donor list went up by 50% in August, this guys data may be off by a third unless he manually processed the Green filing data like I did. I'll try to filter my data down to just Seattle later and see if his numbers match.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
This guys's numbers are whacked
It looks to me like he is confusing supporters with donations. I count ~35K Sanders donations from Seattle as of August 31st, but only 4300 distinct contributors. Stein's numbers are 57 and 35 respectively. In fact, to get numbers this low, he would have to be using the July data - which is just lame when he is posting this week!
After doing the loyalty analysis for Seattle Berners, I get about the same numbers as nationally: 77% (55) moving to Clinton and 18% (13) moving to Stein (Johnson and Trump pick up the rest.)
I'm not sure what point he was trying to make. Almost nobody contributes to multiple candidates. Seattle is not particularly unusual in that regard, not are the statistics on the few who do.
(Edit: Consistent terminology)
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Your not missing anything.
It's a good plan with multiple goals. It "could" do many things if everyone got on board and stopped being so pessimistic. Right now if everyone goes off and does what they want we will probably win nothing. If we stick together we have a chance. Remember, divide and conquer has been used for 1000's of years. Filter the FUD you see on this site and don't be influenced by it. You are right to be skeptical. HRC is spending millions on web FUD.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
We were sticking together: voting for Jill to get to 5% or more
of the popular vote in order to get the Greens ballot access. The more newer parties that get ballot access, the better.
Writing in Bernie will accomplish absolutely nothing other than making it much harder to get the Greens to 5%. In some states, it could even invalidate the vote for Bernie and in some, it could invalidate the entire ballot.
5 pointlessly, that doesn't mean we were not unified.
How would writing in Bernie in VT invalidate the the entire ball
ballot?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
Is your plan limited to writing in Bernie in Vermont? Did I say
Vermont? Since the answer to both my questions is no, what's is the point of your question? Are you a Vermonter?
VT
In VT it wouldn't. The votes would even be counted. I understand that there are a small number of states where it would invalidate the entire ballot. There are definitely states where an effort to vote for someone not on the ballot will not be included in the tally.
I don't know, I don't see the House electing Bernie. If it were
the Senate, where he actually works, maybe, barely. I too think the House will elect Clinton or Trump, probably Clinton.
It seems to me that this will just take votes away from Jill. If Vermont or other states could go to Bernie, then a concerted effort to attract those voters to Jill would probably be successful, then she can have a few states and deny Clinton the win. Or who knows? Maybe a lot of hidden Jill supporters (who aren't' being polled because the corporations own the media) will show up and vote on election day, while a lot of unexcited LOTE voters stay home, and Jill will win outright.
But it doesn't matter to me. I'm in KY, so per either plan I vote for Jill. I hope those in VT and elsewhere will consider their choices carefully.
BTW, I renewed my driver's license the other day. Lexington now has put the DL station way out of town in a bad neighborhood with no convenient bus stop, so to get to it by bus you have to walk through several blocks of what are nearly slums. I felt very unsafe but did it anyway. It took 3 hours (the whole trip, not the walking). You have to be very determined, if you don't have a car or your license is expired, to renew that sucker.
Then there were signs in the buses about "register to vote in person at the Transit Center". I searched all over the Transit Center, no one was there to register anyone. So you also have to be very determined, if you don't have an Internet connection, to register to vote.
I am sure this is all on purpose.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Let the Republican House elect the next Pres.
The vote is public. dare the republican house to publicly elect HRC. That would be fun to watch. If they elect Trump it'll be the end of the Rep. party as we know it. Ask yourself why Cheney and Bush are endorsing HRC? HRC has many Rep. endorsements. I'd love to see them vote HRC as next Pres.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
No, helping the duopoly is not fun to watch. Not even a little.
This is not a game.
First, this is not going to the House except in a pipe dream. Second if it does Hillary or Trumps wins, which is the same thing that happens if we vote for Jill. The ONLY thing this plan has a realistic shot at doing is splintering the left even further and denying Greens ballot access in 2020, to the delight of the Democratic Party. Maybe that's even the goal since that is all it will do. NO THANKS.
Well it's not up to me. I live in KY.
I'll consider my job done if I manage to get Rand Paul out of the Senate.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
C'mon folks, let's get real
There are 34 - count 'em, 34 - days left before the election. Current polling averages, according to USA Today, are:
Democrat: 43.9
Republican: 40.1
Libertarian: 7.4
Green: 2.5
Actual results for 2012 election:
Democrat: 51.2
Republican: 47.3
Libertarian: 1.0
Green: 0.3
Does anyone seriously believe that in the space of less than 5 weeks, enough minds can be changed that the 2016 results are going to look radically different than those of 2012? If you do - well, I know of a slightly used bridge over the East River that can be had for a modest price.
Clinton's lead in the polls at this point almost exactly mirror's Obama's margin of victory four years ago. Barring some kind of meltdown on her part, Hillary almost surely will be the next President. There is realistically nothing that can now be done to prevent that. So by all means, encourage people to vote for Jill Stein - she is more than deserving of not only our votes, but also our donations, our time and our energy. But don't be deluded into thinking there is some magical Ghost Shirt that can allow a few bedraggled partisans to somehow defeat a modern mechanized army. That's just not the real world.
The real focus at this point should be on organizing for the future, beyond 2016. Towards crafting a message and a means of presenting it that will attract not just the usual "basket of terminally disgruntled" - i.e, those who are always more comfortable residing on the political fringes - but also a significant chunk of those who in the past have been reliable supporters of the duopoly. Which, as you can see from above, in 2012 constituted 98.5 percent of the electorate.
One thing we can be quite certain of is that Hillary Clinton will be a horrible president. She will unfailingly pursue policies that further elevate the mighty, and that further grind the weak and vulnerable into dust. What we should do now is face that reality squarely, and begin to lay the groundwork for a sustained and ongoing effort that will win enough hearts and minds so that at some point in the not too distant future the Left in America can be a truly formidable force, rather than just a bit player impotently shaking its fist from the sidelines.
inactive account
They're already different than those of 2012.
People are disgusted, in a way they certainly weren't in 2012, and it's showing up even in the numbers you quoted.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Agree that the amount of disillusionment
is significantly higher this year than it was in 2012. But exactly how many of those people who now say they will be voting for Stein or Johnson will actually follow through and do so remains to be seen. Personally, I doubt the two of them together will capture anything close to 10 percent of the total vote.
inactive account
It's not the ones who say they will that are the problem.
I doubt whether there's going to be anything like the fleeing to mainstream candidates we've seen in the past.
No, the problem is that 63% of the population doesn't know who Gary Johnson is and 68% of the population doesn't know who Jill Stein is.
If you're talking about the people who say they will vote Stein or Johnson right now, the only problem is getting them out to the polls. There will be very little drift toward Hillump.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
And the other problem is election fraud
We may never know how many voted for whom.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Both valid points
The MSM does a very effective job of quarantining any candidate who doesn't represent the interests of the ruling elite, and the election system itself has become so debased that the legitimacy of election results cannot be objectively verified. These are just a couple of the ways in which the oligarchy subtly implants the idea in people's heads that they should simply abandon hope, because all potential avenues of redress are blocked. But a true revolution is one that dedicates itself to creating new avenues. This is basically the challenge that now confronts us.
inactive account
Organizing for 2020 can't wait until the first week in November
2016? If we can't even agree on how to vote in five weeks, which takes no money and relatively little effort, can we agree on what to do in 2020? I just don't want to do what the left has always done since Lincoln: Form a new party with no plan and next to no money that focuses exclusively or almost exclusively on the Presidency and that goes nowhere slowly, like the Green Party over the last 30 to 35 years* or nowhere fast, like a myriad of other parties whose names no one even recalls.
*Damn! I hate saying that and then asking people to vote Green, so let me qualify: one of the options might be to unify enough to transform the Greens from within, but only one. There are other options.
Considering the way the Lamestream media is
going out of its' way to ridicule the Libertarian candidate, I wonder if the Killary campaign itself is not worried about not reaching 270. I think maybe the Koches put up the libertarian ticket as a backup in case Trump flames out.
Don't get me wrong here, I intend to vote for Stein and have no brief for Johnson, an intellectually challenged goofball, who is in over his head. He is apparently a decent administrator would probably make a good cabinet secretary and would have been a much better choice for interior than the guy from Colorado, who in any case was needed in the senate. But, nowadays, cabinet secretaries are chosen for loyalty instead of competence.
Mary Bennett
A good question to ask
since the following appears to actually be true:
(sources: Ballotpedia and Circa dot com)
Oddly enough, I cannot find anywhere whether that spoils the whole ballot or just the POTUS vote.
OTOH, the more I think about it, the more I wonder if "write in votes" can be stolen? IMO, that may really be something to think about, because it's probably easy as hell to write a code line for the ballot tabulator that says "If user votes for Candidate C box, count those votes for Candidate A", but in the case of a write-in ballot, what "box" is that? And if every state has someone on-hand to dispose of "spoiled ballots", well, wouldn't it be something if a whole shitload of ballots were so spoiled that neither R or D candidate gets to 270?
Boy, now I don't know what to do. I've been worried all along that Green or Libertarian votes (or any other party vote) could be flipped--but how do they "flip" a write-in vote? Maybe "write in" is the way to go, because what the feck would they do if there were (say, example) a hundred million ballots and a third of them were deemed spoiled because of write ins?. I wouldn't put it past them to spoil that many, but how do you make *that* math add up when you're trying to fix the overall totals at the same time?
Oooooh, decisions, decisions...
Pages