No, it wasn't FREAKING STEIN VOTERS, sheesh, do the math
The Clinton campaign either convinced wavering Stein voters to vote against the Donald, or they got discouraged enough about the whole mess that they didn't bother, but the math is real simple. And the simple math punctures part of the "denial" phase of grief that Clinton supporters will go through, in which they deny that it was Clinton's fault, since if people on the left who oppose a majority of Clinton's policy agenda had just voted for her, why, she would have pulled it off.
As of the last counting I saw (5:33pm Wednesday afternoon in Beijing, so I guess this is 4:33am Wednesday morning in the backward US) ... Stein had under 23% of the combined Stein+Johnson vote.
If 100% of Stein Voters were swing voters between Stein and Hillary ... and it's a lot less than that, many who voted for Stein where never Clinton's to win ...
... and if the Johnson/Trump swing voters were only 2/3 of the Johnson voters ...
... and if all of the rest of the Johnson voters were swing Clinton/Johnson voters ... and it's likely a lot less than that as well ...
... then the two biggest piles of 3rd party votes were a net advantage for Clinton.
In other words, if you could magically force all of the 3rd party voters to vote for one of the two Major Party candidates, Trump would have had a bigger win.
Any electoral math where this is blamed on Green voters is Unicorn Math, like the perpetual motion machines that are "expected" to work because there has been some force pushing back the other way that was ignored in the calculations ... but which reality will include if you try to build it and hope to make it run forever. It requires not only the magic wand that forces 3rd party voters to vote one of the Major parties ... but which only works on left leaning 3rd party voters and does not affect right leaning 3rd party voters.
Comments
The Green Party got about their usual
Democrats presented a poor candidate, they got hammered.
Is it possible that Stein voters were undercounted?
That Stein votes specifically were switched to Hill votes? Or are c99%ers a 1% group?
Hey! my dear friends or soon-to-be's, JtC could use the donations to keep this site functioning for those of us who can still see the life preserver or flotsam in the water.
I suspect a Repug hack.
I realize people don't always follow through, but I was sure that the polls were rigged and we'd have more than a paltry 1%.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
My last vote for the Green Party....
It shows that a third party is not the way. I don't mean we should have voted for Hillary, but I do think we need to go take what's left of the Dem Party back - quick. I've been in touch with Stabenow to blame her and her vagina for not supporting Bernie and MI primary voters. I hope there is some organization still out there to finish off what's left of the corp. Dems.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I'm as angry as anyone, and I respect your comments
but the outcome of this election had nothing to do with gender and I appreciate your removing what comes across as a gender slur.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
i disagree. i think this election had PLENTY to do with
gender. i think there were a whole lot of democrats who supported HRC in the primary mainly, if not wholly, because of her double-compliment of X chromosomes; moreover, it was popular to accuse Sanders supporters of misogyny.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
I'll be more clear: Clinton did not LOSE because of her gender
Yes, I am as disgusted as any about the mis-use of misogynistic slurs this season - I was told that I am a misogynist, and I'm pretty sure I'm not one.
But disgust at Clintonean abuse is not a good reason to use genitalia in an angry description of another female candidate. It makes the earlier mis-applied misogyny look correct.
There will be many (already are) who claim that Clinton lost because the country is not ready to be led by a woman. I believe that to be a lie. She was rejected on grounds unrelated to gender. I would hope we stay away from clouding that truth. Perhaps others here disagree.
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
I think dkmich just meant that Stabenow was one of those
supporting Clinton just because she was a woman. '
I'm sure he'll correct me if I'm wrong!
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Yes, I assumed she was riffing on Sarandon's remark
about not voting with her vagina.
The earth is a multibillion-year-old sphere.
The Nazis killed millions of Jews.
On 9/11/01 a Boeing 757 (AA77) flew into the Pentagon.
AGCC is happening.
If you cannot accept these facts, I cannot fake an interest in any of your opinions.
No, not likely ...
... remember that a majority of states have Republican governors and legislatures, and the Republicans at a state level tend to be cynical opportunists about screwing with the election process ... they are willing to screw with the election process, but only if it is in their interest. Shifting Green votes to Hillary would not be in their interest.
As far as caucus99% being a 1% group ... it's a fraction of a 1% group, since all bloggers taken together, across the political spectrum, are under 1%.
Without any amplification of caucus99percent arguments by the mess media, most of the electorate remains entirely uninfluenced by caucus99percent arguments. This was, after all, why teargas was required at Occupy encampments, since the Occupy encampments started to get the message heard, and that had to be stopped, even at the cost of some temporary tsk tsking from the more small-l "liberal" among the elites.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
Stein was missing her numbers sadly
and Richard Charnin was stating 98% chance of Trump winning popular vote as late as 3 Nov. and even before that, on 30 Oct and 1 Nov 2016 when it was at 92%.
With a tight 33.4k vote difference between Hillary and Trump overall, you have to wonder what kind of results would have played out with Sanders on the ticket.
In 2000, Gore won popular by almost 500k votes but lost election from electoral count.
Granted that Hillary lost popular and electoral, but I have to wonder if there will be any recounts that might make a difference in some key states.
Was there anywhere that Stein beat Johnson? YES!
My place! San Francisco, CA
Clinton 76.3% (152,134)
Trump 9.9% (37,996)
Stein 2.3% (5,767)
Johnson 2.1% (2,780)
We still have a pocket of progressives here despite the gentrification.
The people, united, will never be defeated.
No, Hillary lost Electoral College, likely won Popular Vote ...
... likely just a bit over 1% when it's done and dusted. Early returns under-represent the Left Coast.
Hillary did not hold onto enough of Obama's 2012 winning coalition to gain office. With a fairly high Libertarian vote, she actually had an advantage rather than a disadvantage over Obama 2012 in terms of influence of 3rd party votes.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
She had the popular vote by 209,000
The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2016/nov/08/us-electi...
'What we are left with is an agency mandated to ensure transparency and disclosure that is actually working to keep the public in the dark' - Ann M. Ravel, former FEC member
We need to strike while the iron is hot.....
We need to let the Dems know this is their fault. If 100% of the MI Jill Stein votes were given to Hillary, she still would have lost to Trump.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
They ran an espionage criminal who ran pay-to-play from State
Dept and wonder why they lost. Are they fuckin serious?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
I voted for Jill in FL and I have news for Paul
If Stein wasn't on the ballot I would have written in Bernie. This isn't about Stein, it's about Clinton and the rest of the pathetic centrist Dems that offer nothing.
I just let Paul Krugman have it for that post on Twitter
Not putting up with third party blaming BS.
Please check out Pet Vet Help, consider joining us to help pets, and follow me @ElenaCarlena on Twitter! Thank you.
Clueless Krugman
Or maybe it's "Propaganda Paul"?
I wonder how Krugman could achieve world renown as an economist without grasping basic arithmetic, or prominence as a NYT pundit without good judgment— okay, he fits in well with a crowd that includes the likes of Friedman, so maybe that later is not such a puzzle.
Economist, not a political scientist ...
... and not a real world economics economist, either, he's a New Keynesian, so he believe in all of the mainstream econ fairy tales, he just believes that it takes more time for the fairy dust to work it's magic, so will allow for a more realistic "short run".
But if he were a political scientist, he would have suspected that the margin would probably widen after he put his column in, since that's the way that absentee ballots tend to run in Florida. The latest margin puts it outside of Clinton's grasp even IF you magically gifted her Stein's vote while denying Trump Johnson's vote.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
An example of BS magical thinking.
Johnson is 2.2 and Stein 0.7 in the Florida tally as of late Wednesday, East Coast time.
So Johnson had 3.14 times the vote as Stein in Florida ... similar to the proportional break nationwide.
How do you focus on the 0.7% Stein vote that "Hillary lost" and ignore the 2.2% that "Trump lost"? When you start with your conclusion and are looking for numbers to support it, so don't keep looking at the numbers long enough to realize that your conclusion does not FOLLOW from those numbers.
-- Virtually, etc. B)
Jill's numbers were pathetic
and they failed to meet the polling numbers. I voted for Jill Stein in Florida and I'll do it again for the foreseeable future.
Did they rob Jill to pump up Hill?
They're quite capable of it, it would be so easy with Fraction Magic, and it would be difficult if not impossible to prove.
I suspect that a lot more people got the message that the only effective "Fuck you!" to the Shill was to vote Trump. Mmmm, backfire.
There is no justice. There can be no peace.
Winning friends and intending people: not!
The Shillbots, volunteer or professional, might as well have been on Trump's or Putin's payroll for the effect they had.
But 3rd party vote of all kinds ...
... most often fails to meet the polling numbers. Some people in the polling booth decide that they really do think there is a greater and lesser evil, and they want less evil. The courage to declare the intent to buck the two party system when talking to a pollster is typically stronger than when casting the vote.
-- Virtually, etc. B)