The Effect of Third Parties on Clinton's Loss By the Numbers

The argument is being made by many prominent people in the media that Clinton's loss is the fault of third party voters. So, for your consideration, I reviewed up a number of sources that relate to the votes cast in Tuesday's election.

Total Registered Voters

Let's start with the number of Americans who were registered to vote this year. From Politico on October 19th, entitled "America hits new landmark: 200 million registered voters."

Tom Bonier, CEO of TargetSmart, said national registration now stands at 200,081,377 voters.

According to the author, Shane Goldmacher, this represented "a symptom of the fast-growing and demographically shifting electorate that is expected to redound to the benefit of the Democratic Party in the coming years."

The Bipartisan Policy Center report on the 2012 election shows that registered voters in 2008 were higher at an estimated 153,100,000 registered voters, and slightly higher in 2012 at an estimated 153,271,300. Nonetheless, the number jumped significantly over the last four years.

2016 Turnout and Major Party Presidential Votes cast 2008-2016

Now lets look at turnout in the 2016 election and election results between the two major party candidates versus turnout and results in the 2008 and 2012 elections, when Obama ran against McCain and Romney, respectively.

In 2016, the latest numbers I could find came from CNN. They show the following numbers:

Trump received 59,793,902 votes or 47.5% of national total.
Clinton received 60,082,556 or 47.7% of national total.
Clinton won the popular vote, but Trump won enough states to win the Electoral College vote.

_______________________________________________________
Note: The two major third parties combined for about 4.02% of the total votes cast. [Source]

If we compare the 2008 and 2012 elections to the 2016 election, we immediately see that turnout was down dramatically from just over four years ago, despite an increase of newly registered voters of approximately 36 million people. Neither Clinton nor Trump came close to the number of votes Obama received in 2012 (nearly 66 million) much less the 69.5 million Obama received in 2008. Instead both received roughly the same number of votes cast for McCain and Romney, the losers in those two elections.

What is also apparent is that Republican vote totals over this time period remained remarkably consistent at roughly 60 million, plus or minus a few hundred thousand, regardless of turnout. The major drop in votes cast has all occurred on the Democratic side. Clinton barely surpassed 60 million this year. A brief comparison with Obama's totals in 2008 and 2012 is instructive:

2008 comparison
Obama (2008) - 69,498,516
Clinton (2016) - 60,082,556
Difference is 9,415,960 votes less for Clinton in 2016 than for Obama in 2008

2012 Comparison
Obama (2008) - 65,919,795
Clinton (2016) - 60,082,556
Difference is 5,837,239 votes less for Clinton in 2016 vs. Obama in 2012

In short, since 2008, Democrats have lost about 9.5 million votes cast for their Presidential nominee, while the voter totals for the Republican candidates stayed roughly the same. As for more specific information, Clinton did worse than Obama among African-Americans (88% vs. 93%), Hispanics (65% v. 71%) and Young People 18-29 (54% vs. 60%), though she still managed to win a majority of those votes. She received roughly the same percentage as Obama among women voters (about 54%).

It's impossible to know all the myriad reasons the Democratic turnout has fallen over the last eight years, or why Clinton was unable to reassemble the Obama coalition that defeated to mainstream Republican candidates handily in the prior two presidential elections, to defeat a candidate that many (myself included) considered a buffoon, a liar, a fraud, a repeated failure at a number businesses (mostly to the detriment of his investors, not himself), a sexual predator and an utterly contemptible human being. Scholars, historians and political analysts of every stripe will be reviewing the history of this election for years to come.

However, I would like to look at the numbers that relate to one claim that is being bounced around the internet and the mainstream media. in the wake of the Trump electoral (if not popular vote) victory over Clinton. Namely, that third party voters are to blame.

[Full Disclosure: I voted for Jill Stein on New York state. My main reason was that I saw her values and policies as more consistent with mine than Clinton or Trump. However, I would be a prevaricator if I did not add that I knew Clinton would win New York easily (she did) thus making it easier for me to cast a "protest" vote against the people the major parties had nominated this year. Had I lived in a swing state, I cannot tell you how I would have voted. I really don't know, other than to say it would have been a much harder decision not to vote for Clinton.]

Third Party Impact on the Election

A shown previously, third parties did much better in this election than in 2012. Specifically, the two largest third parties, the Greens and Libertarians combined for a total of 5,205,215 votes broken down by party as follows:

Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party, received 4,012,871 votes, or 3.23 percent of the national total.

Jill Stein of the Green Party received 1,192,344 votes, or about .96 percent of the national total. [Source]

Combined percentage of the Green and Libertarian parties vote totals represented 4.02% of the national total. This is an increase from 2012 when these two parties received only 1,536,246 votes or 1.2% of the total [Source]

Though both the Greens and the Libertarian candidates failed to receive the numbers that pre-election polls suggested was within the realm of possibility, they did increase their vote totals from 2012 significantly. Many have attributed that gain to a general dislike for both of the two party candidates. However, quite a number of Democrats are specifically blaming third party voters for costing Clinton the victory that they expected of her.

The major basis for the claim that third party voters cost Clinton the election (and that therefore third party voters "are to blame" for making Trump President) are set forth far better than I could present them in this article, "How Did Donald Trump Get Elected? How Third Parties Cost America Dearly," by Jason Reynolds in the Inquisitor:

[I]n a few key states, such as Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, the margin for victory for Donald Trump was less than one percent. Let’s be frank. In every single state that was close, Trump won. These three states had a voter margin of less than one percent.

So what does that mean? Well, let’s break down how the votes fell in Florida, for example. With 100 percent of all the precincts reporting, Donald Trump took 49 percent of the popular vote with 4,591,156 to Hillary Clinton’s 48 percent with 4,462,338 votes. That’s a difference of 128,818 votes. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate took two percent of the popular vote with 204,818 votes. Jill Stein got 63,658 votes. According to party ideals and polls, Libertarians will vote Democrat if there is no Libertarian candidate available. What does this tell you? Without the third party, Hillary Clinton takes Florida and those 29 electoral votes. […]

That’s just one example. Consider the election results in Michigan. With 96 percent of the districts reporting, the popular vote fell in familiar lines. Donald Trump took 48 percent with 2,166,071 votes and Hillary Clinton took 2,106,512. That’s a margin of 59,559 votes. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate took 165,416 votes. Michigan carries 16 electoral votes. [Note though not stated, Stein had 46,946 votes in Michigan] ...

Hillary Clinton was never able to overcome the distrust and suspicion that many fringe voters had for her. When WikiLeaks released the allegations that the DNC had maneuvered and forced their favorite candidate Bernie Sanders out in favor of the more political Clinton, that distrust flared. That showed up in droves at the voting booths.

Does this mean that we should abolish third party voting? No. There is a fundamental right to being able to vote for whoever you want to. But maybe the third party candidates can look at their chances to be elected with a cold and unwavering eye. And in elections such as this one, where the stakes are entirely too high, make the decision to bow out for the greater good.

Others were more blunt with their accusation that third parties are to blame for Clinton's loss.

Steve Benen of The Maddow Blog did the math to show how Hillary Clinton got Nadered in 2016:

In Florida, Hillary Clinton lost by about 1.4% of the vote – but if Jill Stein’s supporters and half of Gary Johnson’s backers had voted Democratic, Trump would have lost the state.

Similarly, in Pennsylvania, Clinton lost by about 1.1% of the vote – but if Jill Stein’s supporters and half of Gary Johnson’s backers had voted Democratic, Trump would have lost the state.

In Wisconsin, Clinton lost by about 1% of the vote – but if Stein’s supporters had voted Democratic, Trump would have lost the state.

In Michigan, Clinton appears to be on track to lose by about 0.3% of the vote – but if half of Stein’s supporters had voted Democratic, Trump would have lost the state. [...]

... Congratulations, third-party voters who thought they were protesting system, you just got Donald Trump elected. Please enjoy the four years of your worst nightmares that you brought to life through your own arrogant and self-righteous stupidity.

It turns out that Clinton and the Democrats did not run an effective campaign, but those who are directly responsible for her loss are the voters who went to the polls and cast a vote for Donald Trump when they chose Jill Stein or Gary Johnson.

I think you get the picture. Here's the problem I have with it. It assumes that all Green voters and at least half of Libertarian voters would have chosen Hillary if those parties were not on the ballot. The authors in question cite no evidence for this assumption, however. Let me present my argument as to why I believe they are wrong.

First, we have always had third party candidates in recent American elections, the most famous of which were George Wallace and Ross Perot. In the case of Perot one could certainly make a valid argument that he did cost George H.W. Bush (Bush 1) the 1992 election in which Clinton one. Perot, a fiscal conservative, captured 19% of the vote, votes that otherwise likely would have gone primarily to Mr. Bush. However, in this election we have nothing close to the Perot phenomenon at play. Polls showed a decreasing decline in third party support as the election neared. This year, there is no solid evidence that all of the Green party voters, or a significant number of Libertarian voters would have voted for Clinton.

Consider the 2012 election results. In 2012, Jill Stein captured "396,684 votes, representing 0.3% of the popular vote," and Gary Johnson ... received 1,139,562 votes which represents 0.9% of the popular vote. It's safe to say that these are the core, diehard supporters for these parties. They were unlikely to vote for either of the major party candidates in this election.

Stein improved her vote total by only .6% in 2012, or 742,878 votes. These are the new Green supporters who the authors claim might have voted for Hillary if they hadn't voted Green. However I've seen nothing that shows this to be the case. Perhaps some of them would have done so, as indeed many must have done, as her 2-3% polling numbers melted away as the election drew closer. However, we have no reason to assume that is the case. Perhaps, like many former Democratic supporters, they would have chosen not to vote at all, as stated in this Washington Post article, "Hillary Clinton’s campaign was crippled by voters who stayed home."

[A map that shows Donald Trump outperformed Mitt Romney in the Midwest] obscures Clinton's deeper problem: She received far fewer votes than Barack Obama in an election that was supposed to see a big increase in turnout. Ballots are still being counted, so these numbers will shift, but the Democratic candidate for the presidency received fewer votes in 2016 than 2012 in 46 states. Trump got more votes than Romney in 28 states. [...]

Why? One likely reason is that Hillary Clinton's get-out-the-vote effort faltered, perhaps in part because she lacked a fervent base of support outside of major metropolitan areas who would volunteer. Another possible (but iffy) reason is that the Trump campaign explicitly tried to suppress turnout among Clinton's base of support. Another is that Obama was successful in inspiring infrequent voters to go to the polls in a way that Clinton wasn't -- and in the way that Obama wasn't in 2010 and 2014 when he wasn't on the ballot. [...]

Increase Clinton's current vote totals 2 percent and Clinton wins Michigan, New Hampshire and Wisconsin. Boost her support 3 percent and she adds Florida and Pennsylvania -- and wins the presidency. Three percentage points is precisely the sort of difference that a get-out-the-vote effort is supposed to make. Part of that difference could and should have come from big cities in those states, but it didn't.

So blaming Stein's paltry number of voters for Clinton's loss seems more like "hippy punching" to me than a legitimate reason for her failure to carry critical swing states. She was supposed to have the best GOTV effort ever. In fact, a pair of Clinton GOTV folks came to my house to ask if my daughter (away at school) had voted yet, and I live in a red neighborhood in a state Hillary was going to win anyway.

But what about Gary Johnson, you might ask, the Libertarian candidate, who supposedly had a number of Democratic leaning and Independent voters among his supporters? Why weren't they the spoilers? Well, again, much of Johnson's support, which peaked at 13% around the time of the GOP convention, also began to rapidly melt away as the election got nearer.

In an ABC tracking poll in late October, Johnson's support was shown to be at 8% of all Independents, 2% of all Republicans and 2% of all Democrats. This poll was supported by a CNN/ORC poll that showed Johnson's support - then at 3% nationally - was comprised of less than one percent Democrats, as opposed to 2% Republicans and 8% Independents.

Independents are a catchall category who may lean either conservative or liberal despite lack of party affiliation, and the Libertarian party is generally aligned with many basic conservative principles. I think the better assumption is that Johnson's supporters, if they had chosen to vote for the major candidates would have been more likely to vote for Trump than Clinton. This was born out in the CNN/ORC poll where only 1% of self-described liberals claimed they supported him.

In fact, Reason magazine posted an article on November 5th, "If Hillary Clinton Wins Nevada, Florida, North Carolina and Other Close States, She Can Thank Gary Johnson," in which they claimed Johnson supporters were pulling votes away from Trump by a significant margin to the benefit of Clinton. All things considered, I suspect they have the better argument than Clinton supporters do as to how much Libertarian voters impacted the votes cast for their respective candidates.

I, of course, welcome other viewpoints on the alleged damage third parties did to Clinton, and the "blame" they bear for her loss, but in all fairness I think it's an easy excuse to make for a deeply flawed candidate who ran a poor campaign in a year when she should have wiped the floor with a person as odious as Trump. To blame voters for her failure to connect with their issues and their concerns, i.e., to earn their votes rather than expect them just to show up and deliver the presidency for her, was her and her advisors biggest mistake.

The large numbers of people who sat out this election is more than proof that the blame for her loss belongs to Hillary Clinton, her campaign, the DNC and the Democratic establishment that went along with ensuring she became the candidate no matter the cost. It's an insult to suggest that the voters, any group of voters, are to blame for why she couldn't defeat Donald Trump.

I'll leave you with this quote from a speech by Bernie Sanders from back in 2015, long before he was considered a serious rival to Clinton and long before Trump's nominations was considered likely.

"Let me be very clear. In my view, Democrats will not retain the White House, will not regain the Senate, will not gain the House and will not be successful in dozens of governor’s races unless we run a campaign which generates excitement and momentum and which produces a huge voter turnout.

With all due respect, and I do not mean to insult anyone here, that will not happen with politics as usual. The same old, same old will not be successful.

The people of our country understand that — given the collapse of the American middle class and the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality we are experiencing — we do not need more establishment politics or establishment economics.

We need a political movement which is prepared to take on the billionaire class and create a government which represents all Americans, and not just corporate America and wealthy campaign donors.

In other words, we need a movement which takes on the economic and political establishment, not one which is part of it."

~ Bernie Sanders August 28th, 2015

Prophetic to say the least.

Share
up
0 users have voted.

Comments

Steven D's picture

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Steven D's picture

Mea culpa for this worthless comment.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Because I have very clear images in my head of what I'd do to those two idiots in person. What's striking is the sheer sense of entitlement. Why, of course, all those votes rightly belonged to Her!

It's more frightening to contemplate that without Johnson, Trump might've won the popular vote as well.

up
0 users have voted.
orlbucfan's picture

Steven, good essay. I can state that Jill Stein did not cost $hrill Florida. You can look at the totals and see it. $hrill was a lousy candidate with too much baggage. The tRump vote is a tremendous protest vote. Bernie's statements are absolutely correct. It's a great shame that deceit cost a decent man a chance to lead this country. Rec'd!

up
0 users have voted.

Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

CaptainPoptart's picture

It is the fact that Clinton turned out respectively roughly 6 and 9 million less voters than Obama. All the rest is just noise. She ran a terrible campaign and lost all on her own.

up
0 users have voted.

I'd rather learn from one bird how to sing than teach ten thousand stars how not to dance. - e.e.cummings

LapsedLawyer's picture

I'm a voter for her too (write-in as she wasn't on the ballot but was qualified for said ballot status), and like you cannot help but fully disclose that I too voted my values but knew HRC would lose Indiana big so that my vote would be wasted voting for her, so why not vote my values?

Third party blaming is pathetic.

up
0 users have voted.

"Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it."
-- John Lennon

Lenzabi's picture

And the numbers in WV were overwhelming for Trump, our votes for Jill there were not enough to hurt any candidate, even Johnson, who scored higher did no harm to Trump. This is just lashing out butt-hurtedness by those who refuse to see the truth of how bad and under performing Her Heinous was. Bernie nailed it in that speech quote....same old same old was never gonna cut it.

up
0 users have voted.

So long, and thanks for all the fish

Now I have to stagger out of my heat pad cocoon, find the fn Paypal password (under p in the ancient rolladex) and contribute to c99. Can I do it tomorrow or favor? Just exhausted

up
0 users have voted.
Steven D's picture

Sad

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Neither Clinton nor Trump came close to the number of votes Obama received in 2012 (nearly 66 million) much less the 6.5 million Obama received in 2008.

Methinks the odd decimal crept into the text whilst thou wast otherwise engaged.

up
0 users have voted.

Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.

Steven D's picture

and not here for catching my mistake. And I do thank you for that.

Spent all day on this mostly doing the research and trying to make it come together without my usual seat of the pants style of blogging, but it ended up that way regardless. Such is life.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

I know you've not been at the top of your game lately.

up
0 users have voted.

Vowing To Oppose Everything Trump Attempts.

snoopydawg's picture

Right to vote for whoever they want. No one is owed my vote, they have to earn it and Bernie did because he understood how angry people were and how betrayed they felt by Obama not delivering on what he campaigned on.
And he can't hide behind republican obstruction either. How many times did he give them more than what they asked for?
I think he shares more of the blame for her loss then 3rd party voters do.
Remember when he said that he would rather try to pass decent legislation and be a one term president than not try at all?
Income inequality has gotten worse during his two terms and I'm tired of reading about families in the Middle East getting blown away from one of his drones.
Americans were upset when our innocent civilians were killed, yet give no thought when this country does it.
Good essay Steven.

up
0 users have voted.

The donor class doesn’t want it, and Americans elect the bribed. So suck it up.

Humans must not submit to policing by machine.

gulfgal98's picture

Right to vote for whoever they want. No one is owed my vote, they have to earn it

When I posted on FB this very point and along with it that I had voted my conscience. It was the conscience comment that earned such disdain and led to my being defriended.

I stand by the concept that every politician must earn every vote. It is the only power that we the people have.

up
0 users have voted.

Do I hear the sound of guillotines being constructed?

“Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable." ~ President John F. Kennedy

snoopydawg's picture

Because as I said I'm tired of reading about innocent people being killed and Hillary was telling everyone that she was willing to risk a war with Russia and they were going to vote for her anyway!
How many people voted for Obama instead of her because of her Iraq war vote?
These are the things that they decided would be okay under a Hillary presidency.
image_265.jpeg

up
0 users have voted.

The donor class doesn’t want it, and Americans elect the bribed. So suck it up.

Humans must not submit to policing by machine.

Those dipshits are going to blame us anyway. And this way we have the right to throw their "you didn't earn black/brown/woman/other-garbage-identity-monolith" argument right back at 'em. "You didn't earn my vote."

It really doesn't matter. These gormless useful idiots in the commentariat aren't capable of understanding how wrong they are, and they're going to blame us anyway, right along with all the folks who sat out, just like they always do. Fuck 'em.

up
0 users have voted.
Amanda Matthews's picture

Dark Side Jill Stein was the only one out there that represented my wants and needs. I voted my conscience, it was not a protest vote. And I'll be damned if I'll let anyone try to shame me. My vote is my vote. We all have a vote and we can use it as we wish. The idea that anyone else has a claim on my vote, your vote, or anyone else's vote is 100% pure unadulterated bullshit.

That is one of my biggest take-aways from this election. So many people thinking they have the right to demand that others vote they way that they want them to. Screw 'em.

up
0 users have voted.

I'm tired of this back-slapping "Isn't humanity neat?" bullshit. We're a virus with shoes, okay? That's all we are. - Bill Hicks

Politics is the entertainment branch of industry. - Frank Zappa

Donald Trump would have been the protest vote.

I would wager a significant number of Green voters were anyone but Hillary but could not stomach voting for Trump. Unless that was the only option to Hillary.

up
0 users have voted.
harrybothered's picture

win (CA)
I'm afraid I still wouldn't have voted for Hillary if I lived in a swing state. I was far too angry about all the primary shenanigans. Especially having the election called for her the day before the CA primary. It might make me selfish, I know, but I really believed she should not profit from cheating.

up
0 users have voted.

"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it."
Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment

polkageist's picture

I still wear a Green Party button on my hat. I live in California and don't feel I would have voted differently anywhere else. As Bay Area Lefty said above it's my vote not theirs and I can cast it how I please. I think that is the message all of the bots need to hear. No one else is entitled to my vote.

up
0 users have voted.

-Greed is not a virtue.
-Socialism: the radical idea of sharing.
-Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.
John F. Kennedy, In a speech at the White House, 1962

TheOtherMaven's picture

and I still voted for Jill Stein, and would do so again if I had to do it over.

I just wish I could have made more of a difference. Blum 3

up
0 users have voted.

There is no justice. There can be no peace.

harrybothered's picture

and they can pry it out of my car's cold, dead, er tires? Carburetor? Anyway, I should've gotten a Jill one, but never got around to it. Also still have a Giant Meteor 2016 which I still think is very appropriate.

up
0 users have voted.

"The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to those who think they've found it."
Terry Pratchett, Monstrous Regiment

ngant17's picture

and it really doesn't matter how that indirectly hurts or helps the Dems or Rethugs.

Dems can go Green if they want to get my vote, it's not the other way around.
Same for Rethugs.

What makes the 2 parties so special anyway?

up
0 users have voted.
Roger Fox's picture

Excellent point comparing Jills numbers from 2012 t 2016. Spot on.

But hey when ever my football team loses, I blame the refs, not the players or the coach.

up
0 users have voted.

FDR 9-23-33, "If we cannot do this one way, we will do it another way. But do it we will.

Steven D's picture

I blame the refs too, lol.

up
0 users have voted.

"You can't just leave those who created the problem in charge of the solution."---Tyree Scott

Bisbonian's picture

I voted for Stein, in 2016, and 2012. McKinney in 2008. Nader a couple of times, once at least as a Green, and I think once as "Peace and Freedom". Perot in 92. Anderson in, what, 84? A few times I sat out. I voted for Willie Nelson once.

I voted for Stein, this time. My only other option was not voting...I would NEVER have voted for Hillary. I was not alone.

up
0 users have voted.

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

Bisbonian's picture

And I did it...by voting for Jill Stein!

up
0 users have voted.

"I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole.” —Malcolm X

divineorder's picture

4. We don’t need a third party, we just need a party.

When and where are the next Democratic and Republican Party meetings in your neighborhood? You don’t know, because neither the Democrats nor Republicans are political parties in the historical sense. Mostly they just demand we send them money and then yell at us about voting every few years.

While it has almost passed out of Americans’ living memory, parties used to have regular, local meetings where everyone got together, yammered about politics for a while, and then drank beer. Elections were the culmination of what parties did, not the starting point.

A healthy political party would foster community and provide people with concrete things to do between elections. Mike McCurry, one of Bill Clinton’s press secretaries, once suggested that Democrats should turn themselves into a pool of neighborhood volunteers “so that when people are trying to accomplish something, they would say: Call the Democrats, they always have people.”

Or they could get members involved in a local fight for a $15 minimum wage. Or helping women get a safe abortion. Or restoring funding cuts to local colleges. Or whatever members decide. That’s politics.

In return, political parties need to provide concrete benefits to members. If the Republicans are going to murder the Affordable Care Act, the Democrats should be figuring out if they’re a big enough risk pool to provide health insurance.

I realize this is so far out of Americans’ experience that it sounds bizarre. It’s also the case that both party hierarchies would try to block any worthwhile experiments. But if the new organization based on Bernie Sanders’s campaign succeeds, it will probably look something like this.

in https://theintercept.com/2016/11/09/donald-trump-will-be-president-this-...

Donald Trump Will Be President. This Is What We Do Next.
Jon Schwarz

November 9 2016, 11:49 a.m.

up
0 users have voted.

A truth of the nuclear age/climate change: we can no longer have endless war and survive on this planet. Oh sh*t.

reflectionsv37's picture

Remember him? He could have won this year!

up
0 users have voted.

“Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.”
George W. Bush

karl pearson's picture

I believe there were some people who left the top of the ballot BLANK and then voted for down ballot nominees. Why are the Dem elite "mouthpieces" not blaming them, too?

up
0 users have voted.
Hawkfish's picture

This election was all about economics. Like every election in history, really. The Bernie quote sums it up very well.

Suppose for a moment that the Shillbots are right. What the hell could I have done? Am I going to wander around rural Pennsylvania trying to convince voters who went for Obama to go for Clinton, when all they can see is that she is taking money from the people who keep screwing them over? Exactly how was that supposed to work?

Should I have given her the money I sent Jill? Clinton was drowning in money as one of my essays documented. It didn't help her - and may even have hurt her as an expression of power in the face of the powerless.

The operatives all like to think that elections are determined by ground game and other jargon, but the reality is that they are the reflection of forces that are more statistical and historical than personal. All the candidates can do is try to ride the wave. Trump is simply a better surfer than Clinton.

Bernie understood the times and spoke to them. He was a gift dropped from heaven on the Democratic Party, and they dropped him like a hot potato, spat on him and kicked him to the curb. They misread the times and are reaping their reward. We were simply the inconvenient truth.

Here's my quote:

There is a tide in the affairs of men, Which taken at the flood, leads on to fortune. Omitted, all the voyage of their life is bound in shallows and in miseries. On such a full sea are we now afloat. And we must take the current when it serves, or lose our ventures.
- Julius Caesar, IV.iii

And yet they keep lecturing others on the value of an education...

up
0 users have voted.

We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg

1. Michigan wasn't suppose to be a swing state. Ask the pollsters.
2. I do claim Hills loss. I am as much at fault as the voters who voted for Trump, Johnson, or stayed home.
3. Mostly, I blame Hillary, Obama, the DNC, and the superdelegates. If they had given a damn about beating Trump instead of crowning Hillary and sharing in her swag, there is no way Trump would have won.

This squabble is as dumb as the Nader squabble.

up
0 users have voted.

"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon