Pew Research proves Green Party didn't cost Hillary the election
Submitted by gjohnsit on Sun, 08/26/2018 - 1:16pm
Now that this survey has proven that Jill Stein isn't the cause of Hillary losing in 2016, I'm sure that everyone on DKos will line up to apologize.
Compared with validated voters, nonvoters were more likely to be younger, less educated, less affluent and nonwhite. And nonvoters were much more Democratic.
Among members of the panel who were categorized as nonvoters, 37% expressed a preference for Hillary Clinton, 30% for Donald Trump and 9% for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein; 14% preferred another candidate or declined to express a preference. Party affiliation among nonvoters skewed even more Democratic than did candidate preferences. Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents made up a 55% majority of nonvoters; about four-in-ten (41%) nonvoters were Republicans and Republican leaners. Voters were split almost evenly between Democrats and Democratic leaners (51%) and Republicans and Republican leaners (48%).
It's real simple. The Dems lost because they didn't inspire people to vote.
Blame doesn't properly rest with either Manchik or Ruzich, two combatants like those Theodore Roosevelt had in mind when saluting those willing to enter the arena with faces marred by dust, sweat, and blood. Nor is anyone who voted for either at fault with regard to the election result. If you don't like the outcomes in Ohio or Kansas, blame those who didn't vote, not the predilection of those who did.
...
Passion won the election. Trump's electorate, whether motivated by genuine support for his candidacy or by the opportunity to vote against Clinton, was more committed to showing up in those states critical to victory in the Electoral College, even if they were outnumbered among all who voted and the general populace. That's got nothing to do with third-party or other long-shot candidates and their supporters.
...
Of course, if instead you'd rather blame those who ran as long shots, or those who voted for them, you would be pleasing two constituencies – the major parties that want to continue the status quo.
Comments
Well, if they interviewed this Stein voter
I would have told them in no uncertain terms that there was no way I would have voted for Her Heinous, the war monger. That was a line I refused to cross.
Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?
“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy
i felt the same. For some reason, Democrats feel that
they own votes cast to their left. Hell, Poppy never whined about Perdot (or any of several challengers on their right, like the Constitution Party) the way that emocrats whine about anyone who dares run to their left. It's quite something, really.
Gee, I wonder why....
Nothing like doubling down on the same failed strategy for the next election.
Idiots.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Sucking it up and
voting for least worst candidate while fighting revulsion and that feeling of shame has proven effective at getting out the vote. It must be, the dems do it so often.
Shared this in an attempt to educate our FB fiends.
It is a big ask for some.
A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.
The D party will die after 2020
They just wont be needed anymore.
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ub2LjdliU-s]
I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish
"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"
Heard from Margaret Kimberley
@ggersh They'd better be careful
They'd better be careful about impeaching Trump. Hope they have another Big Bad being trained in the wings, because without it, they're sunk.
"I know Darth Vader's got you annoyed, but remember if you kill him you'll be unemployed."
"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
But Shillary won the popular vote.
So she didn't lose, but if Jill Stein had anything to do with the electoral college then that would be something.
This shit is bananas.
Jill Stein
won the State of Opprobrium. Worth null points from all sides.
Gëzuar!!
from a reasonably stable genius.
And since she won the popular vote
Then how much Russian interference could there have been? Is this a 'chicken and egg' question?
Was Humpty Dumpty pushed?
Hillary DID NOT win the popular vote
It was Bernie Sanders working as her "fluffer" that gave her those votes.
If Bernie had not been "fluffing" the electorate for Hillary, she would have lost both the election AND the popular vote.
@CB Not sure why we trust
Not sure why we trust any of those numbers after Arizona, New York, and Nevada--or California. The lesson of the general election is that apparently the Clinton machine can't rig an election successfully when they're up against another fucker who's also willing to play dirty. They can only rig elections when the opponent is a hapless old guy who wants to play fair.
"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
@snoopydawg I guess "the Russians"
I guess "the Russians" wanted Hillary to win.
"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
Of course she lost or she would be POTUS today.
The alleged popular vote victory can be easily explained by the most elementary demographics. Hillary won only states that have been reliably blue in Presidential elections, the ones that would vote for the Democrat Party's mascot, if the jackass were the nominee of the Democratic Party. Not to mention that the pied piper strategy would have worked best in the bluest states.
Blue states tend to have denser populations than red states and even most purple states, led by California and New York (aka, why Republicans try so hard to apportion the electoral votes of the once reliably Republican California). Unlike Obama, Hillary did not win a single red state or a single purple state. Hillary did not even win states that are usually, but not always, blue in Presidential elections, like Minnesota.
Not to mention how very desperate and our hillbot friends reveal themselves to be by clinging to her popular vote victory, even though the popular vote doesn't matter in Presidential elections.
https://www.270towin.com/maps/2016-actual-electoral-map
@HenryAWallace Hillary won only states
Hillary won only states that have been reliably blue in Presidential elections, the ones that would vote for the Democrat Party's mascot, if the jackass were the nominee of the Democratic Party.
Now that's a good idea.
Let's all vote for the jackass. That would adequately convey my feelings about the situation.
"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
.
"Let's all vote for the jackass."
We have--and in more than one election.
Oh, you meant literally. (-;
Sorru gj, but the Dems only believe polls tht support their
talking points, which I'm sure you already know.
That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --
Why is it suddenly a bad for a politician of one political party
To prevent a politician of another political party from winning?
Hmmm.
"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
The simplest explanation is this:
in 47 states, Jill Stein had absolutely no effect on the outcome...her vote total was less than the margin of victory for Trump. In three states, her vote total was more than the margin of victory...i.e., if everyone who voted for Stein in those three states had voted for Hillary instead (yeah, I know), Hillary would have won those states. Those states are Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.
The final electoral vote total was Hillary 227, Trump 304 (270 are needed to win). Michigan casts 16 electoral votes, Pennsylvania 4, and Wisconsin 10. If Hillary had won all three (yeah...), that's 30 more votes for her, 30 less for Trump. Hillary would get 257, Trump would get 274. (270 still needed to win). Again, if Jill Stein had not run, and ALL the voters that voted for her in real life, voted for Her Heinous instead, Hillary STILL would have lost to Trump. Hillary LOST, to TRUMP! of all people.
The only poll that means anything is the one done in the election booth (and of course, we know how questionable that one can be.)
"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X
shh, I rather enjoyed being the villain & having all that power
I could look them in their digital eye and tell them if they weren't careful, I'd be happy to do it again.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon