2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumNow no one can blame Bernie if Hillary loses the GE
But mark my words - if Jill Stein steals enough votes in critical states to cause Hillary to lose, it will sign the death warrant of the Green party
Third parties are like bees, when they sting they die.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
book_worm
(15,951 posts)
LynneSin
(95,337 posts)When people watch the DNC convention and see a lack of fear-mongering there will be a serious boost for Hillary to take her to the November election and win.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)Hillary.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I have studied every pairing of polls where in one it is only Hillary vs Trump and the other conducted at the same time where Johnson and Stein are also included. Johnson always take more votes away from Trump than Clinton. Stein only steals from Clinton as you would expect. There are no Republicans or Republican leaning independents voting for Stein.
JRLeft
(7,010 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)With two 3rd party candidates siphoning off votes from the two major party candidates it is difficult to be sure which candidate is of the 3rd party candidates is siphoning off votes from one of the major party candidates, Hillary.
How ever we can take some examples on the national race and perhaps from one of the swing states and make come common sense assumptions.
This is the last paired polls (in this case from CNN/ORC both conducted with the same polled sample 7/18 -7/26) that I see posted - and I really have no clue how this analysis is going to turn out:
Trump vs. Clinton: CNN/ORC Trump 48, Clinton 45 Trump +3
Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein : Clinton 39, Trump 44, Johnson 9, Stein 3 Trump +5
Notice that when the 3rd party candidates are added Clinton's percentage drops by 6% and Trump drops by 4%. Now let's make a common sense assumption - that Stein is siphoning off votes only from Clinton - anyone who thinks a Trump voter is going to vote for Stein is a political idiot.
Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson: Clinton 42, Trump 44, Johnson 9, Stein 3 Trump +2
Using that assumption the first thing you notice is that Stein eliminated from the four person race it it is reduced to only Clinton, Trump and Johnson, the results are Clinton, 42, Trump 44, Johnson 9. Hillary's total goes up by 3%.
Now let's compare the two person race (Clinton and Trump) to the three person race (Clinton Trump and Johnson). When Johnson is included, Clinton's total decreases by 3% (45% to 42% while Trump's total decreases by 4% (48% to 44%) with the other 1% probably not voting in only a two person race.
Conclusions: Johnson hurts Trump more than Clinton with his candidacy. Stein hurts only Clinton with her candidacy. Johnson hurts Clinton for less than Stein, he actually helps her beat Trump while Stein is a total negative factor for Clinton.
obamanut2012
(26,064 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)With two 3rd party candidates siphoning off votes from the two major party candidates it is difficult to be sure which candidate is of the 3rd party candidates is siphoning off votes from one of the major party candidates, Hillary.
How ever we can take some examples on the national race and perhaps from one of the swing states and make come common sense assumptions.
This is the last paired polls (in this case from CNN/ORC both conducted with the same polled sample 7/18 -7/26 - before the DNC convention) that I see posted - and I really have no clue how this analysis is going to turn out:
Trump vs. Clinton: CNN/ORC Trump 48, Clinton 45 Trump +3
Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson vs. Stein : Clinton 39, Trump 44, Johnson 9, Stein 3 Trump +5
Notice that when the 3rd party candidates are added Clinton's percentage drops by 6% and Trump drops by 4%. Now let's make a common sense assumption - that Stein is siphoning off votes only from Clinton - anyone who thinks a Trump voter is going to vote for Stein if given a chance is a political idiot. Adding Stine's vote to Hillary's:
Trump vs. Clinton vs. Johnson: Clinton 42, Trump 44, Johnson 9, Stein 3 Trump +2
Using that assumption the first thing you notice is that Stein eliminated from the four person race it it is reduced to only Clinton, Trump and Johnson, the results are Clinton, 42, Trump 44, Johnson 9. Hillary's total goes up by 3%.
Now let's compare the two person race (Clinton and Trump) to the three person race (Clinton Trump and Johnson). When Johnson is included, Clinton's total decreases by 3% (45% to 42% while Trump's total decreases by 4% (48% to 44%) with the other 1% probably not voting in only a two person race.
Conclusions: Johnson hurts Trump more than Clinton with his candidacy. Stein hurts only Clinton with her candidacy. Johnson hurts Clinton for less than Stein, he actually helps her beat Trump while Stein is a total negative factor for Clinton.
You are more than welcome to apply this analysis to other poll pairings, but I suspect you will come out with similar results.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Lots of Cruz supporters and BOB'ers will be attracted to the libertarians, I bet.
MichiganVote
(21,086 posts)But if we are smart, we will now work hard and elect Clinton/Kaine.
GreenPartyVoter
(72,377 posts)ranked voting. There is no reason that we cannot have multiple parties and a healthy democracy.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)But given out system of government as proscribed by our constitution, parties have never been an effective force in our history except when they caused the major party most closely affiliated with them ideologically to lose. That is the origin of the political saying, "Third parties are like bees, when they sting they die".
That is not going to change unless we change our entire constitution and adopt a parliamentary system.
GreenPartyVoter
(72,377 posts)effectively address your concerns.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)We do not have a parliamentary system where small parties can survive and even thrive. For better or worse, out system of government has created a winner take situation where third parties can at best be a hindrance in a national election. Note most of the world has parliamentary democracies, were third parties and survive and sometimes rise to the status of a major party. That cannot happen in our system and we would have to dismantal our entire system of government to change it - numerous changes to the constitution. That my friend is not going to happen.
And it doesn't help when parties like the Greens can't do any better than nominating a totally unqualified candidate like Jill Stein to be President of the United State. That's embarrassing at best. The only reason that anyone should feel safe voting for Stein is knowing that she has absolute 0% chance of winning. Not a good qualification for a Presidential candidate.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)England has had conservatives who have less than 40% of the vote running the country for years.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)...totally unqualified candidates like Jill Stein to be relevant?
DanTex
(20,709 posts)But we don't have either, and as long as we don't, third parties are nothing more than spoilers -- they draw votes away from the major party that is closest to them ideologically, and end up electorally hurting the causes that they claim to stand for.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Think of how many changes to the constitution would be necessary to make those changes to our system.
Ergo, third parties will never be truly viable in our system. Major parties may change, see the the Republicans arising from the ashes of the Wigg Party, but third parties becoming truly viable - never. Not in our system of government. We do not have a Parliamentary Democracy
DanTex
(20,709 posts)A viable third party just doesn't work mathematically. So barring a constitutional overhaul, two parties it is.
Whimsey
(236 posts)On a state by state basis, the party with the most votes take the state. Are you sure you are not advocating for a parliamentary system? That would look at national totals, not state totals.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)A system that looks at national totals, as you suggest, is proportional representation. For example, in the Green Party's peak year (Nader 2000), it received a bit less than 3% of the vote nationwide, so it would have about a dozen members of the House, even if it never came close to a plurality in any one district.
People here who call for "ranked voting" probably mean what's also called instant-runoff voting (IRV). This system retains the present Congressional setup of single-member geographical districts. The change is that, instead of voting for one candidate, voters can rank all the candidates in order of preference. If no candidate has a majority based on first-place (highest preference) votes, then the candidate with the fewest such votes is dropped and that candidate's votes are re-allocated according to each voter's second choice. This process continues until some candidate has a majority. I use the legislative example but IRV can also be applied to the election within each state for that state's presidential electors.
Both systems are seen as benefiting minor parties. In IRV, a minor party might still win no seats. Its advantage, though, is that people can vote for it without worrying about the spoiler effect. To take the 2000 example, exit polling indicated that people who voted for Nader, when asked how they would have voted if Nader weren't on the ballot, were more likely to have voted for Gore than for Bush. If IRV had been in effect in Florida, the official vote count, giving Bush the plurality by a tiny margin, would not have been enough to give him the electoral votes, because he would have been short of a majority. Whichever candidate got the fewest votes (I don't know who it was, maybe the Natural Law Party) would have been dropped and those votes re-allocated, and so on up through the fourth-place finisher Pat Buchanan (Reform Party). Regardless of how those re-allocated votes broke, there would still have been no majority for any candidate, so Nader would have been dropped and his votes re-allocated. Thus, people could have voted for Nader as their first choice, knowing that, as long as they ranked Gore above Bush, they would still be voting for Gore when push came to shove. This would encourage people to vote for Nader because they'd have less fear of wasting their vote.
Of course, neither proportional representation nor IRV is likely to be adopted in federal races anytime soon. An individual state that wanted to switch to IRV in its Congressional elections or in choosing its presidential electors would be able to do so but, AFAIK, no such change has any significant level of support in any state.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)and ending up ratfucking themselves....
Having it all come out on the eve of the convention--- doesn't get much worse than that.
I guess that was DWS's "parting gift" to the party.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)John Poet
(2,510 posts)We always suspected that this was going on, and were mocked as "conspiracy theorists" by most Hillary supporters.
Turns out they were WRONG, and we were RIGHT ALL ALONG. We didn't need any hacked emails to be clued in about it.
Now it's unfortunate for the Democrats that this had to come out on the eve of the convention, but it looks like we've survived it without self-destructing.
Now if it's found that Putin is trying to win the election for Trump,
we can shove that up Trump's ass.
emulatorloo
(44,106 posts)----------------
Source: Talking Points Memo
Symone Sanders, former national press secretary for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)'s presidential campaign, went on a Twitter rant Monday as the Democratic National Convention unfolded, criticizing those who were still supporting the Vermont senator over the party's nominee, Hillary Clinton.
-snip-
Symone D. Sanders
@SymoneDSanders
Look, people are well within their rights to have passions and opinions. That is how we create change in this country. We need the passion!!
5:33 PM - 25 Jul 2016
144 144 Retweets 197 197 likes
Symone D. Sanders
@SymoneDSanders
But let me be clear - NO ONE STOLE THIS ELECTION! Team Sanders we did AMAZING WORK. But we lost. It's a hard reality for some.
5:36 PM - 25 Jul 2016
2,356 2,356 Retweets 2,648 2,648 likes
Symone D. Sanders
@SymoneDSanders
It was a hard reality for me. Because I fought hard. Now, we won some great battles, but the reality is the system didn't cheat us.
5:38 PM - 25 Jul 2016
663 663 Retweets 777 777 likes
Symone D. Sanders
@SymoneDSanders
Now the contents of the leaked emails show individuals were definitely biased, but 7 folks on an email didn't "steal" the election.
5:41 PM - 25 Jul 2016
1,119 1,119 Retweets 1,274 1,274 likes
-snip-
Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/sanders-spox-twitter-rant-support
John Poet
(2,510 posts)stole it.
Now someone tried to lecture me about being "manipulated by Putin". Well, the manipulation started at the DNC, and with the head of the fucking DNC at that.
I am voting for the Democratic party ticket,
but there is a long list of people that I will NOT forgive
for the things that have gone on.
And I mean, like, NEVER.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Yes, it maddening, but in the final analysis they were just a bunch amateurs plotting away in a teacup with no clue on how to affect anything.
Does that make their plots any less offensive? No they should be fired forthwith if for nothing else for embarrassing the party, and they probably will be. But as for trying to affect the nomination process, I am surprised some of these folks could find the way to work every morning.
Sivart
(325 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Just because burgers are incompetent doesn't absolve them of their crime. But let's not pretend for a moment that these idiots had a clue on how to break into a bank vault.
Sivart
(325 posts)who are you referring to as idiots? What bank vault?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)You are familiar with the use of analogies are you not.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)they just proved definitively what you knew all along.
But I challenge you to show how one thing these fools tried to do which caused Bernie to lose in the primaries.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)A couple of emails about how to stop Bernie in May? The primary is over. Now it seems to me you have a choice Trump or Clinton. Bernie had a chance and he lost because more people voted for her. I still do not believe he could win a general. Our best chance lies with Clinton and a minority of Bernie delegates acting in a rude fashion does not change that. The bad behavior steps on Bernies movement and probably ends it.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)Doubtful, but even if it were Putin the issue this is about the message, not the messanger.
Shame on the DNC!
Shame! Shame! Shame!
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)While partiality on the part of DNC employees may be reprehensible, I have not scene one indication that anything that DNC employees did cost Sanders the nomination. Anyone who believes that Sanders isn't the nominee because of the DNC's efforts is telling stories to themselves.
In addition, it does make a difference who committed an illegal act to obtain the information. If it can be proved that the Russians, a belligerent foreign power, who were trying to influence the election in favor of their buddy Donald, I wouldn't want to be Trump's campaign strategist.
avaistheone1
(14,626 posts)By the same token if it can be shown that members of the DNC committed unethical acts by their lack of neutrality they should be dismissed and be held legally accountable. Their acts were designed to influence an election.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)... excuse their actions in my opinion. I don't care if you claim that you are stealing for my benefit, that doesn't excuse your stealing.
As for those who hacked into the DNC's email system, hopefully the FBI, which is currently investigating the penetration, will be able to determine who was the guilty party. Again regardless of the results, that doesn't not justify the actions of a foreign power, especially a belligerent foreign power, for trying to manipulate our elections in favor of Putin's pal Trump.
If you don't think that getting you Sanders supporters all riled up again makes Donald Trump happy, you haven't been reading his tweets. The more of you who are driven way by this situation, the happier he will be. I wouldn't put it past him to contribute through PACs to the Green Party's campaign fund.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Don't be their minion & fall for being manipulated by them. That only helps Trump.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)They didn't write the emails.
I'm still voting for the ticket,
but I would like to see every single member of the DNC's head
on a platter, and I have a long memory.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Misrepresented what is in the emails. And most never looked past their claims. Wikileaks is full of shit.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)The Kremlin's email dump was meant to put the DNC in disarray, disrupt the convention, and take away the momentum of the Clinton nomination. Thereby helping Donald Trump.
If you want the heads of the DNC on a platter, the their manipulation has succeeded.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)Any "manipulation" by the Kremlin is a totally unproven "conspiracy theory" at this point. Only a fool wouldn't realize that.
The attempted manipulation of the primary race by DNC members, however, is entirely a different matter. Even the head of the DNC, who resigned over it, didn't dispute it. Whoever was responsible for the release of the material makes no difference whatsoever. They should be rightly pursued for the illegal hacking, but it does not in the least excuse the actions of members of the Democratic National Committee-- and that's exactly what you're trying to do with this redirection/diversion-- EXCUSE them.
FUCK that.
If the DNC members had not been engaged in embarrassing communications about trying to manipulate the primary race, then there never would have been a way for hackers to embarrass them. Ultimately, it is their fault we are now having this conversation.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)We can find the half-dozen most ill-advised messages that cast the organization in the worst light possible, then spend a week harping on them. Then we'll talk.
The DNC emails are the sideshow diversion. The real story is the fact that every indication shows that Putin is behind it, and the fact that he could manipulate people so easily.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)NorthCarolina
(11,197 posts)and show collusion against the Sanders campaign. Those are facts. Discuss how you find it acceptable that the DNC clearly violated it's impartiality rule and that would be relevant. This Putin sidestep is just an attempt at diversion.
baldguy
(36,649 posts)Take the half-dozen most ill-advised messages that cast the organization in the worst light, then spend a week harping on them. Then we'll talk.
The DNC emails are the sideshow diversion. The fact that Putin is behind it is the real story, and that he could manipulate people so easily.
RBInMaine
(13,570 posts)My god, will you (and those who think like you) please END the overblown mega-exaggerated drama about the emails.
There was NO widespread conspiracy whatsoever to sabotage Bernie's campaign. There were a tiny number of stupid emails with some shit talk born of emotion and a few dumb suggestions that weren't even acted on. My goodness, the paranoia and overblown dramatic reaction to some stupid-mouth emails and the asshole Russian PRO-TRUMP hackers and the PRO-TRUMP wikileaks assholes needs to STOP.
John Poet
(2,510 posts)You're probably one of the same people who claimed it was all "conspiracy theories". Now you've been proven wrong, I guess you don't like it much, eh?
Now that it's proven that there WAS some stuff going on, all the way up to the chairperson of the DNC, you're doing your best to downplay it all. Typical.
My point is NOT that this is any reason not to support the ticket.
My point is, if this all makes strong unity impossible to achieve,
and we lose the election,
then the DNC can share a large portion of the blame.
I'd like to see the whole lot of them kicked out on their asses.
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)There is nothing in any of the E-mails that shows any unfair attempt to influence the election. Its mostly just DNC officers talking among themselves. The only conflicts with Bernie were the DNC trying to defend itself against Bernie's smears.
The DNC’s Leaked Emails Show It Had No Idea How to Rig an Election
But there's also something a little ironic about this scandal. Rather than proving that the primary was deviously rigged by Clinton's cronies—as many Sandernistas clearly believe—the WikiLeaks emails suggest the opposite. The party didn't seem to have very many ideas at all for meddling with Sanders' candidacy. And the ones they cooked up were weak and quickly forgotten.
Consider the most damaging news to come out of the leak. One DNC official seems to have floated the concept of trying to make an issue of Sanders' apparent atheism, in order to hurt his standing with Southern Baptists in states like Kentucky. This was a deeply offensive idea.1 It also seems to have gone nowhere. In May, meanwhile, the DNC national press secretary suggested “pushing a narrative” that Sanders “never ever had his act together, that his campaign was a mess.” This was meant to push back against the charge that there was a DNC conspiracy against against him in the first place. But in any event, as ABC News notes, the idea was quashed.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2016/07/25/the_dnc_s_emails_show_it_had_no_idea_how_to_rig_an_election.html
The Bernie complaints against the DNC turned out to be conspiracy theories. Exactly that.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)Bernie, his supporters, and the Greens will all be blamed for years. And the Bernie movement which has such promise is gone. However, I still think she wins.
treestar
(82,383 posts)About their paranoid theories.
If Bernie could have won, he would have gotten more votes. It's pathetic. Who would have voted for him instead of Hillary because the debate was on a particular night? Insulting to the voters.
Old and In the Way
(37,540 posts)Oh wait, he has a horse in this race..
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)Nothing to worry about!
Now that Bernie's smashed, Hillary's gonna win this in a landslide!
Wounded Bear
(58,626 posts)He won a lot in the platform and the rules. He lost the delegate fight, but he was pretty classy about it.
He'll be a great help!
David__77
(23,367 posts)I think there will continue to be third parties regardless.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)until they are just successful enough to cause the major party to which they are most ideologically similar to lose. At that point they will sign their own death warrant. So the bottom line is that when they are just starting to be successful, they automatically screw themselves. This creates a glass ceiling which can never be broken,
No third party has ever been successful in our history, and there is no hope for such a break out in the future.
David__77
(23,367 posts)I think it makes much more sense to capture an existing party.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)But you can't capture a party from without - by being independents - you have to have a majority and capture it from within. Sanders lost because statistically there are more self identified moderates and conservatives in the Democratic Party than there are self identified progressives. In addition, only a small percentage of Democrats are as liberal as Sanders.
If you doubt this - look it up. If you want to capture the Democratic Party you have to have more Democrats on you side.
In addition, just because you capture a party doesn't mean you will be successful. Usually when a party drifts too far to the left or too far to the right, it loses the Presidency, the Congress and ultimately the Supreme Court. Don't take my word for it, read your history.
David__77
(23,367 posts)I also don't think it takes a majority to capture a party.
Demsrule86
(68,539 posts)timlot
(456 posts)We like to vote for winners. Not waste our vote.
jtunes
(74 posts)It's Ross Perot, or the Reform party, that took enough votes from HW Bush, for Bill Clinton to win in 1992
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)jtunes
(74 posts)creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)Perot dropped out in the middle of the race. His numbers went way down but Clinton was still ahead. That showed Perot was taking as many votes from Clinton as he was from Bush. It didn't change the race. Also, polls at the time showed Perot taking equally from both sides. Also, Bush lost by 5 points, so for him to win he would have needed about 2/3 of the Perot votes.
Perot is a GOP excuse for them losing. Its not factual. Is this a better response?
baldguy
(36,649 posts)jtunes
(74 posts)
LongtimeAZDem
(4,494 posts)"According to the exit poll data, 38% of the Perot voters said they would have voted for Clinton in a two way race, 38% would have voted for Bush, 24% would not have voted. Perot won 30% of independents, 17% of Republicans, and 13% of Democrats. Put another way, of his 19% popular vote share, 8 percentage points came from independents, 6 from Republicans, and 5 from Democrats."
The Man Who Supposedly Cost George H. W. Bush the Presidency
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)A perfect example of the saying, "Third parties are like Bees, when they sting the die."
Besides the Reform party wasn't about a third Party, it was about a well know independent running for President who practically invented a party to be his vehicle.
creeksneakers2
(7,473 posts)but I'll blame his supporters who won't support Hillary. They all claim they won't vote for Trump but they are doing everything they can to help Trump today. You can also bet that they'll spend the rest of the election online trying to pick off votes for Hillary.
Beausoir
(7,540 posts)His time, albeit brief and unproductive, is over.
Get on board or get outta the way.
Wounded Bear
(58,626 posts)Now he's gonna support Hillary.
All is good.
Go Vols
(5,902 posts)fuckin shame Bernie aint the choice tho.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)
zappaman
(20,606 posts)
BobbyDrake
(2,542 posts)Knowingly making baseless attacks against Clinton during the primary can be traced back to the candidate himself, so yeah, Bernie's still responsible for what he said, especially when it's coming out of Trump's mouth months later.
Bernie Sanders accused the DNC of money-laundering, FFS. No endorsement undoes that.
democrattotheend
(11,605 posts)Par for the course.
melman
(7,681 posts)At least they will here. Some of the most prolific and 'rec'd' posters are here for no other reason but to hate and bash.
FSogol
(45,470 posts)She's a joke.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)the state ballots? I don't think so.
apnu
(8,750 posts)Have you been to Bernie's SubReddit? 200K strong and they're in full protest mode. They won't even listen to Bernie, forget any of his surrogates. They don't recoginze that Bernie has gotten almost every single thing he demanded from the Democratic Party. No TPP, $15 minimum wage, free college, wiping out college debt, universal health care, Wall Street regulation, bank busting -- all of it.
And they act like they've got none of it and some how the election was stolen and that Bernie must be on the ballot because they voted for him once so he has to be there, even if he doesn't want to be there. Yes they're holding Bernie hostage for Bernie.
Over 200,000 people on Reddit.
Bernie started all this, he convinced them of all these conspiracy theories and vitriol. Well clearly the monster is loose in the lab and its creator can't control it.
This is all on Bernie, this is what happens when liberals and progressives run angry campaigns based on fear. The Bernie crowd on Reddit is acting no different than Trump and Tea Party people, they ignore facts and reality, they are terrified, pissed off and delusional.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)apnu
(8,750 posts)And Warren was booed and jeered during her speech. "We trusted you!" they shouted with derision. And tried to rob Warren of her voice.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)200,000 zealots amount to only 0.13% (a little more than one tenth of one percent of those voters). They are the people who would never have considered voting for a Democrat had someone like Sanders had not challenged for the nomination and they don't take orders from Sanders and never did.
Since Sanders stirred them up the zealots and gave them unfounded hope I expect the Green Party's share of the votes in November to climb from 0.36% of the total in 2012 to somewhat above 2% in November, maybe even 3%. But remember, had Sanders not appeared on the scene they would have probably sat on their hands and not voted. Well, voting for the Greens is exactly equivalent to not noting - so they will not be a factor one way or the other.
This election will not be affected by the zealots - what will affect this election is our ability to get out the vote. So forget about the zealots, contribute and work your ass off to GOTV.
There are 156,000,000 registered voters in this country
apnu
(8,750 posts)But Bernie Bros are working over time to poison the well as much as they can. Bernie egged them on in the primaries, he dithered about conceding, again leading them on, and now they're out of control. Bernie's the guy at the top, its his bag to hold. His die hard supporters are out of control, they won't even listen to Bernie at this point.
And yes, I also know that something like 75% of Bernie's supporters have already said they'll vote for Hillary. That gives me some hope.
But none of that changes that Bernie owns this.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts).... and it does nothing to help Hillary's cause. Try instead to put your energy instead into positive actions which will GOTV.
apnu
(8,750 posts)Thanks.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)It's just right now we have bigger fish to fry and I all about winning the GE.
apnu
(8,750 posts)It is frustrating, however, to see so many Bernie Bros still holding out at this point. The PUMAs in '08 had moved past their vitriol at the time. And honestly the nation was in a much more dire situation than now.
And I say this as a Bernie voter in the primaries and in general I like the guy and what he's going for. But I'm 100% behind Hillary. I think she's an amazing woman and well qualified to be President, perhaps more qualified than Bernie, given the external role the POTUS has. Nobody in the field today has the amount of International Experience that Hillary brings to the table.
I'm all about keeping the White House blue and flipping the Senate and House as well.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)The more sensible folks will find their way back into the fold, or they won't. Arguing with them at this point just drives them further away.
The zealots you are arguing with saw Sanders as a chance of a lifetime - the possibility that they could force a major political party to nominate one of their own.
They were never going to vote for any other Democratic candidate. They believe that only they know what is best for the country. And they are a frustrated small minority who will never be happy because they are never willing to compromise so they never get anything done. Because they can never get anything done they have come to feel that the world is against them so they are prone to believe in conspiracy theories which help to explain their lack of success despite the "purity of their cause"
They are not worth wasting any more time nor energy on - they are not salvageable. Let's work on something possible - the election of Hillary Clinton as the next President of the United States.
Response to CajunBlazer (Original post)
Sheepshank This message was self-deleted by its author.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Whatever effects they have will be swamped by the major campaigns, the idiot media, and the power of myth.
And us, maybe. Let's make it rain.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I fully expect the percentage of of Stein voters will climb from the 0.36% to probably 2% to 3% in November. However, I also firmly believe that most of those people would have not voted had not Sanders not riled them up. Since voting for the Green Party is exactly equivalent to not voting, I don't think they will be the difference in the election should Hillary lose. However, don't believe for a second that they won't be blamed by the vast majority of the people.
The worst thing that can happen to the Green Party is that they will appear to make a real difference in swing states. Third parties are like bees, when they sting, they die.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)If she wins or loses it's on her
During the primary her supporters were derisive of anyone who doubted her capability to win over Trump. Anyone who questioned that was shit on.
She fully owns her result from here on out. She is the Democratic candidate and now she gets to show us how it's done
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Last edited Tue Jul 26, 2016, 12:45 PM - Edit history (1)
Few know or care what went on here. What Hillary does not own, and has no control over are the far left wing zealots that Sanders stirred up, but over which he has absolutely no control, never did, never will.
if they sit on their hands as they do in some elections, no one will know they even exist. However, if they gravitate in numbers large enough to be a factor in enough swing states to make a difference in the election they will do no favors to the third party they vote for.
And yes, I'm voting for her.
But she is the candidate. She has to sell HER vision. Blaming anyone else is just silly.
Doodley
(9,078 posts)as I am, and I support his agenda. However, he is NOT a team player. IMO, it is all about HIM. He will need to take some responsibility for his reluctance to get on the Hillary train if we lose in November.
He's doing everything he can. If she loses its because she wasn't the right candidate. Period.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)So perhaps since your candidate is no longer in the running and not on the ballot you can inform us who of the remaining candidates who will be on the ballot is the right candidate: Trump, Johnson, Stein or Clinton?
FigTree
(347 posts)It's not an election, it's a referendum. On identity. And referanda are the closest we ever get to democracy, here or everywhere else.
bonemachine
(757 posts)Last I checked, in a democracy like we allegedly have, if someone chooses to vote for a candidate, you can't really say that candidate stole that vote, eh?
Or do you mean Jill Stein is going to be hacking electronic voting machines?
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)and points out it's limitation. Want to explain that.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)How can trashing the Green Party which seeks to secure votes which would otherwise go to the Democratic nominee be divisive among loyal Democrats? How is it decisive to point out that Jill Stein, the candidate of an opponent party, is not qualified to be the mayor of a small town, especially when by all objective measure that is simply the truth.
If you are going to continue to hang out here on DU, you better figure out whose side you're on. The Green Party is not some weird extension of the Democratic Party where far left Democrats can go to hang out when they feel that their candidate didn't win, again.
You are the one who should grow up and decide if you can join your leader and support our nominee.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Be cognizant of where you are.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)If you think that I am braking DU rules by trashing the Green Party and its super unqualified Presidential candidate, Jill Stein, please alert on me, now!
Would I breaking DU rules if I were to trash the Republican Party and its totally unqualified Presidential candidate, Donald Trump? No, I don't think that would not break a single DU rule.
Would I breaking DU rules if I were to trash the Libertarian Party and its Presidential candidate, Gary Johnson? No, I don't think that would not break a single DU rule.
So obviously you think there is something that makes the Green Party special and distinct from other parties in opposition to the Democratic candidate in this Presidential election, something that make Jill Stein above critical discussion Well get this straight, any political party candidate whether it is the Republican, the Libertarian or the Green which could attract Americans who would ordinarily vote for the Democratic candidate is equally dangerous and not above criticism because this election may be decided by very small percentage of people in a few swing states.
Every vote is important! It is our right, it is our duty, as Democrats who are fighting not only for ourselves, but those among us who are the most defenseless, to expose any candidate who, by their presence in the race, will make it less likely that Hillary Clinton will be elected President of the United State because the only realistic alternative is Donald Trump.
I await with anticipation your alert on my posts.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)Democratic Party nominee.
The fucking primaries are over!!
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)But you should read my response in its entirety before you alert - because you can be sure the jury will.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)And as part of that effort I see reasons for trashing the the Green Party and their totally unqualified candidate, Jill Stein. And that is not part of the primaries, that is in reference to the General Election. It you don't like it you can cease reading my posts. I suggest that you make good use of the ignore feature.
