Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
65 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
Stein voters and applies them ALL to Clinton, with zero defecting to any other candidate, zero not voting for POTUS and zero stay at homes, had Stein (or another Green party candidate) not been on the ballot. Exit polls show that nothing remotely close to 100% (in fact we are talking maybe 25-35% max on net effect, as 10 went to Trump which increases HIS tally) would have voted for Clinton had their been no Stein or any other Green candidate on the ballot. Around 10% would have gone to Trump (which is a 2-fer, as it takes away a vote from Hillary and gives one to Trump) plus a huge chunk (perhaps half, see below) would have stayed at home or simply not voted for POTUS. Some (a small amount) also would have voted for another 3rd party candidate as well.
It is all basic math.
If 85% (yes eight five per cent) of ALL Stein voters had voted for Clinton and not Stein (which is a crazy overestimate but I am using it to prove a point) and ZERO stayed home/did not vote for POTUS, and ZERO voted for Trump (again 2 more false premisses, as 10% or so would have voted Trump if no Stein, and likely half or so would have stayed home or not voted for POTUS, but again I am making a point) and you keep ALL else, everything else, the same , (including the 175,061 PA RW 3rd party voters, who drew at least 110,000 to 115,000 thousand votes from Trump in PA alone, based off pre election and post election exit polls).
Guess what?
Trump still wins the election:
Guess what?
Trump still wins the election:
Stein votes/Trump margin:
https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/federalelections2016.pdf#page=44
MI: 51,463/10,704 (this is the one (and only) state where you can definitely say that Stein DID cost Hilary the state win (albeit not the only factor, but deffo, if isolated, an actual villain), even at only 35% of her voters going to Hillary and 10% going to Trump, so BOO Stein in terms of MI)
WI: 31,072/22,748 (at 85% of Stein vote to Clinton, with zero to Trump, zero stay homes, and zero no votes, Hillary wins, but with a realistic mathematically sound distribution if no Stein, she still loses. BUT I give it to her as I said 85% etc etc for my example)
so far so good, BUT then we hit PA
PA: 49,941/44,292 (that lead cannot be overcome, even at 85% of those Stein votes straight straight to Clinton, zero to Trump, and zero stay homes/no votes, and all draw-offs from Trump from the RW (again that was at least a net 110K vote loss for him from those other RWers) allowed to stand)
The map:, after we flip WI and MI
There also is a counterpoint to this discussion of 3rd parties, another one that few ever talk about, one that works the OPPOSITE direction of Stein voters.
Gary Johnson, the RW Libertarian (who grabbed a staggering almost 4.5 million votes, and other RW 3rd party and RW Indy candidates (like Evan McMullin) who vastly outperformed Stein, and who drew heavily from the Trump vote.
As stated, Johnson alone got almost 4.5 million votes (millions more than any Libertarian candidate in US presidential election history. Johnson in 2012 only got 1.275 million votes, so it is likely that 3.2 million or so of those Johnson votes came right from Trump) , to Stein's 1.46 million. The RWer indy McMullin, who only ran in 11 states, got more than half of Stein's totals at 732,000 (and unlike Stein, almost ALL of those votes came directly from Trump). Another RWer, Darrell Castle got 203K votes. Rocky De La Fuente, another RWer got 33K.
Add up those RW 3rd party/indy totals and you have around 5.5 million RW votes, with around 4.1 million or so likely drawn straight from Trump.
Stein probably drew 500,000 to 550,000 votes straight from from Clinton (and 150,000 or so from Trump, so to be completely fair, that actually lowers the Stein impact even more at the end of the day), based off pre election, and post election exit polls.
Take the higher number (550K) and add another 50,000 from very small minor other LWer 3 parties like the Socialist Gloria La Riva, and you have 600,000 lost Clinton votes.
The RW 3rd parties took at around 3.5 million MORE from Trump than LW 3rd parties took from Clinton based off who would have actually voted for either Trump or Clinton in reality), and if you go just off the pure vote totals, the RW minor candidates got almost 4 million more (around 5.5 million versus 1.53 million) votes than the LW minor candidates.
This pattern holds true for all 3 states (MI, WI, PA) in discussion
In Michigan, 198,667 RW listed 3rd party/indy voters, versus 51,436 LW 3rd party listed (all Stein) voters (almost 4 times more RW minor part voters than than Stein LW voters)
In Wisconsin, 132,193 RW listed 3rd party/indy voters, versus 32,842 LW 3rd party listed (mostly all Stein) voters (more than 4 times more RW minor party voters than than Stein, etc LW voters)
In Pennsylvania, 175,061 RW listed 3rd party/indy voters, versus 56,004 LW 3rd party listed (mostly all Stein) voters (more than 3 times more RW minor party voters than than Stein, etc LW voters)
So, to sum it up, if you are going to look at 3rd party draw-offs, you cannot just take ONE candidate and ignore all the rest. If you removed ALL third party candidates in 2016, and then held the election only between Trump and Hillary, given how those 3rd party/indy voters would have voted between only Trump and Clinton, and how many would not have voted at all, Trump not only would have still won the EC, he very likely would have won the popular vote as well. He lost a shedload more votes (around 3.65 million more on net, when you add in those 150K Stein voters who would have voted Trump) to the 3rd party/indies than Clinton did.
was enough to cost Clinton the election) the maths simply do not bear this out.
This is what Nate Silver says about PA:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/jill-stein-democratic-spoiler-or-scapegoat/
Let's say he is MASSIVELY OFF, and all the pre election polls and post election exit polls were massively off
let's say they all were horridly off, by a factor of THREE on the stay at homes/no POTUS votes, so instead of 55%, only 18.3% stayed home or didn't vote for POTUS
furthermore, let's say they all were completely off and ZERO voted for Trump, instead of 10%
and finally, lets say ALL the rest voted for Clinton
Stein got 49,941 votes in PA
if 18.3% (instead of 55%) didn't vote for POTUS or stayed at home, and ZERO (instead of 10%) voted for Trump or anyone else, and ALL the rest voted for Clinton...............
that leaves Clinton gaining 40,802 votes
Trump won PA by 44,292 votes
Trump winning PA means he wins the electoral College and that is even if he LOST WI and MI
It as bad faith argument to single out one number and to say 100% of ALL of the Stein voters would have went to Clinton, as there is no real life model that shows that, even if you take the errors in all the polls to extreme levels (levels that in no way reflect the actual reality)
And also, remember I am leaving in ALL of the 3rd party RW votes that drew off in large numbers from Trump.
In Pennsylvania, there were 175,061 RW listed 3rd party/indy votes, versus 56,004 LW 3rd party listed (mostly all Stein) votes ( so more than 3 times more RW minor party voters than than Stein, etc LW voters)
I leave Trumps lessened numbers stay at that reduced level, all the negatives stay in and yet he still wins PA, even with Stein's voters artificially massively over-tilted to Clinton.
now
Some of the other factors that combined (some, unlike Stein alone, likely did it all by themselves) to fuck us in 2016
1. The Comey ratfuck with the emails. That did hardcore damage but it also is so hard to quantify. I think it alone was decisive.
2. The horrid timing of the Obamacare rate increases (22% on average), right before the election (why they did not wait a couple weeks until after the election I do not know, but the increases were leaked early and if you go back, you can see Clinton starting to slide in the polls BEFORE Comey and right after the leaked increases). I think this had some impact, but did not cause Clinton's loss alone. It certainly did not help, though.
3. The 'expand the map strategy' where the Clinton team tried to go for some Red states to really run up the numbers versus Trump, and neglected the Blue Midwest Firewall states to far too high of degree. Again, thsi is hard to quantify. It was talked about a lot and Trump slammed her in those those Midwest states over and over and over, painted her falsely as not giving a fuck about the 'forgotten people. A complicit media helped amp this bullshit up, and it absolutely did hurt us, although to what level we can never truly know.
4. My fellow Black American's lowered turnout (due to Rethug voter suppression laws, Russian and other bad actors supressing votes via targeting, and also Obama not being on the ticket, etc etc). If Hillary had the same AA turnout in just 4 CITIES (Milwaukee, Detroit, Philadelphia, and Pittsburgh) in 3 States as we did on average for the previous 6 elections and they voted in the same patterns, she would have won. In fact, the number of votes she lost with AA voters in just those 4 cities easily exceeded the TOTAL number of Stein voters in those three (WI, PA, MI) entire States. The falloff from just an average profile of the last 6 elections was so great that it alone cost her the election.
Black voter turnout fell in 2016, even as a record number of Americans cast ballots
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/
The black voter turnout rate declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, falling to 59.6% in 2016 after reaching a record-high 66.6% in 2012. The 7-percentage-point decline from the previous presidential election is the largest on record for blacks. (It’s also the largest percentage-point decline among any racial or ethnic group since white voter turnout dropped from 70.2% in 1992 to 60.7% in 1996.) The number of black voters also declined, falling by about 765,000 to 16.4 million in 2016, representing a sharp reversal from 2012. With Barack Obama on the ballot that year, the black voter turnout rate surpassed that of whites for the first time. Among whites, the 65.3% turnout rate in 2016 represented a slight increase from 64.1% in 2012.
Why black voter turnout fell in 2016
How voting Democratic has become integral to African Americans’ cultural identity.
https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2018/1/15/16891020/black-voter-turnout
“Black Voters Aren’t Turning Out For The Post-Obama Democratic Party.” It’s a familiar headline in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election. Indeed, post-election analysis of voter data shows black turnout in presidential elections declined 4.7 percent between 2012 and 2016 (overall turnout showed a small decline from 61.8 percent in 2012 to 61.4 percent in 2016). How do we explain it — and can it be changed? My ongoing research with Ismail White on political norms among black Americans says we ought to have expected the decline, but that the Democratic Party can do much more to cut it back by recognizing how social dynamics shape African-American politics.
Some have attributed the decline in black turnout to voter suppression tactics made possible by the Shelby v. Holder (2013) decision that rescinded key protections from the Voting Rights Act. But black turnout saw similar declines in states where no new voter laws were implemented after the Shelby decision. Others have simplistically pointed to the absence of the first black president on the ballot — as if that fact offers an explanation. Our work on the social dynamics of politics within the black community provides the missing explanation. In our recent publication in the American Political Science Review, we argue that the continued social isolation of blacks in American society has created spaces and incentives for the emergence of black political norms. Democratic partisanship has become significantly tied to black identity in the United States. The historical and continued racial segregation of black communities has produced spaces in which in-group members can leverage social sanctions against other group members to ensure compliance with group partisan norms.
snip
Study: Black turnout slumped in 2016
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/black-election-turnout-down-2016-census-survey-238226
Census shows pervasive decline in 2016 minority voter turnout
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/05/18/census-shows-pervasive-decline-in-2016-minority-voter-turnout/
Study: Black voter turnout in Wisconsin declined by nearly one-fifth in 2016
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/study-black-voter-turnout-in-wisconsin-declined-by-nearly-one/article_d3e72e41-96a0-51fb-83ba-11dfc6693daf.html
Turnout among black voters in Wisconsin dropped about 19 percent in the 2016 election from 2012, more than four times the national decline, according to a new study by a liberal group. The study, released by the Center for American Progress, made the estimates based on data from the U.S. Census, polls and state voter files. It provides the strongest evidence yet that Wisconsin’s decline in voter turnout, while seen in other demographic groups, was much more dramatic among African-Americans. The study also found in Wisconsin, as in other key states, the 2016 electorate was significantly more white and non-college- educated than was reported by exit polls immediately after the election.
snip
Many in Milwaukee Neighborhood Didn’t Vote — and Don’t Regret It
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/many-in-milwaukee-neighborhood-didnt-vote-and-dont-regret-it.html
snip
and when we did vote there was this...
Mostly black neighborhoods voted more Republican in 2016 than in 2012
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/09/25/mostly-black-neighborhoods-voted-more-republican-in-2016-than-in-2012/
snip
This Chart Shows Philadelphia Black Voters Stayed Home, Costing Clinton
A shift in Philadelphia voter turnout, which broke along racial lines, appears to have cost Hillary Clinton almost 35,000 votes.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johntemplon/this-chart-shows-philadelphia-black-voters-stayed-home-costi
One of the most surprising results of Election Day was Donald Trump winning Pennsylvania — a state that had voted for the Democrat in every election since 1988. As of the Pennsylvania Board of Elections’ latest tally, Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 57,588 votes. More than 60% of that margin comes from a shift in the vote in Philadelphia. The Philadelphia data offers a particularly clear glimpse at what went wrong for Hillary Clinton: A block of voters who showed up for Barack Obama wasn’t inspired enough by her — or scared enough by Donald Trump — to show up. And as analysts pore over the results of the campaign, the numbers in Philadelphia offer perhaps the most devastating single data point for the Clinton campaign.
snip
massive drop in 85% black Detroit too
Black voter turnout fell in 2016, even as a record number of Americans cast ballots
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/
The black voter turnout rate declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, falling to 59.6% in 2016 after reaching a record-high 66.6% in 2012. The 7-percentage-point decline from the previous presidential election is the largest on record for blacks. (It’s also the largest percentage-point decline among any racial or ethnic group since white voter turnout dropped from 70.2% in 1992 to 60.7% in 1996.) The number of black voters also declined, falling by about 765,000 to 16.4 million in 2016, representing a sharp reversal from 2012. With Barack Obama on the ballot that year, the black voter turnout rate surpassed that of whites for the first time. Among whites, the 65.3% turnout rate in 2016 represented a slight increase from 64.1% in 2012.
Why black voter turnout fell in 2016
How voting Democratic has become integral to African Americans’ cultural identity.
https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2018/1/15/16891020/black-voter-turnout
“Black Voters Aren’t Turning Out For The Post-Obama Democratic Party.” It’s a familiar headline in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election. Indeed, post-election analysis of voter data shows black turnout in presidential elections declined 4.7 percent between 2012 and 2016 (overall turnout showed a small decline from 61.8 percent in 2012 to 61.4 percent in 2016). How do we explain it — and can it be changed? My ongoing research with Ismail White on political norms among black Americans says we ought to have expected the decline, but that the Democratic Party can do much more to cut it back by recognizing how social dynamics shape African-American politics.
Some have attributed the decline in black turnout to voter suppression tactics made possible by the Shelby v. Holder (2013) decision that rescinded key protections from the Voting Rights Act. But black turnout saw similar declines in states where no new voter laws were implemented after the Shelby decision. Others have simplistically pointed to the absence of the first black president on the ballot — as if that fact offers an explanation. Our work on the social dynamics of politics within the black community provides the missing explanation. In our recent publication in the American Political Science Review, we argue that the continued social isolation of blacks in American society has created spaces and incentives for the emergence of black political norms. Democratic partisanship has become significantly tied to black identity in the United States. The historical and continued racial segregation of black communities has produced spaces in which in-group members can leverage social sanctions against other group members to ensure compliance with group partisan norms.
snip
Study: Black turnout slumped in 2016
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/black-election-turnout-down-2016-census-survey-238226
Census shows pervasive decline in 2016 minority voter turnout
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/05/18/census-shows-pervasive-decline-in-2016-minority-voter-turnout/
Study: Black voter turnout in Wisconsin declined by nearly one-fifth in 2016
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/study-black-voter-turnout-in-wisconsin-declined-by-nearly-one/article_d3e72e41-96a0-51fb-83ba-11dfc6693daf.html
Turnout among black voters in Wisconsin dropped about 19 percent in the 2016 election from 2012, more than four times the national decline, according to a new study by a liberal group. The study, released by the Center for American Progress, made the estimates based on data from the U.S. Census, polls and state voter files. It provides the strongest evidence yet that Wisconsin’s decline in voter turnout, while seen in other demographic groups, was much more dramatic among African-Americans. The study also found in Wisconsin, as in other key states, the 2016 electorate was significantly more white and non-college- educated than was reported by exit polls immediately after the election.
snip
Many in Milwaukee Neighborhood Didn’t Vote — and Don’t Regret It
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/many-in-milwaukee-neighborhood-didnt-vote-and-dont-regret-it.html
snip
and when we did vote there was this...
Mostly black neighborhoods voted more Republican in 2016 than in 2012
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/09/25/mostly-black-neighborhoods-voted-more-republican-in-2016-than-in-2012/
snip
This Chart Shows Philadelphia Black Voters Stayed Home, Costing Clinton
A shift in Philadelphia voter turnout, which broke along racial lines, appears to have cost Hillary Clinton almost 35,000 votes.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johntemplon/this-chart-shows-philadelphia-black-voters-stayed-home-costi
One of the most surprising results of Election Day was Donald Trump winning Pennsylvania — a state that had voted for the Democrat in every election since 1988. As of the Pennsylvania Board of Elections’ latest tally, Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 57,588 votes. More than 60% of that margin comes from a shift in the vote in Philadelphia. The Philadelphia data offers a particularly clear glimpse at what went wrong for Hillary Clinton: A block of voters who showed up for Barack Obama wasn’t inspired enough by her — or scared enough by Donald Trump — to show up. And as analysts pore over the results of the campaign, the numbers in Philadelphia offer perhaps the most devastating single data point for the Clinton campaign.
snip
massive drop in 85% black Detroit too
Link to tweet
5. Sanders primary voters defecting, BUT their total number in terms of net impact (over 5 million more in terms of negative net for Clinton 2008 primary voters than Sanders 2016 primary voters) was dwarfed by 2008 Clinton primary voters. People forget that in the 2008 general, around THIRTY PER CENT (staggeringly more than Sanders in 2016, both in percentage and in sheer numbers) of Hillary primary voters defected or stayed home. 5% stayed home or didn't vote for POTUS, and an amazing 24-25% defected straight to the Rethug scum McCain and his batshit cray VP Palin (plus a few voted 3rd party). Sanders primary voters had a defection rate to Trump of only between 6 to 12% depending on the state and the exit poll. Hillary in 2008 had millions more of Primary voters than Sanders did in 2016.
In fact, the 2008 Hillary primary voter betrayal rate was so bad, so large, that you could have, nationwide, in 2016, given Hillary ALL the Stein vote, increase the AA turnout to its previous 6 election norm, and Hillary would have not only still lost the Electoral College in 2016, but she would have lost the POPULAR VOTE as well too, if we had the total NET defection raw numbers in 2016 that we had from her 2008 primary voters. It's not only a lost vote in the general for a Dem primary voter to not vote Dem in the general, but it's a gained vote for the Rethug as well if they fully flip and vote, thus a double bad impact).
The total NET negative impact for the 2008 Hillary primary voters defection (stay at home/no vote for POTUS, vote 3rd party, (which I only count as a net loss of one as 3rd parties never win, they only drain or draw out otherwise non voters), OR the big one, a 2-for-1 flip straight to the Rethug McCain) was around 9.7 MILLION votes.
The only reason those massive totals of 2008 defectors are rarely spoken of (other than the occasional PUMA reference) is that Obama won easily. The long knives only come out in close elections, even if their relative numbers were so much smaller in real net impact when compared to other elections.
Around 30% total of Hillary 2008 primary voters did not vote for Obama in the general
Around 24 to 25% voted for McCain (so a two-fer, a lost vote for Obama, and a gained vote for McCain), around 5% did not vote
Even Obama primary voters defected to McCain in 2008 at similar rates (9%) to Sanders 2016 primary voters defecting to Trump (6 to 12%, depending on the study or poll).
A full 27 per cent of Rethug 2016 Primary voters who did not vote Trump in the Primary defected to either Clinton (16%) Gary Johnson (9%) or other candidates (2%, mostly Evan McMullin from his 11 states) In addition 7% from that non Trump supporting Rethug primary group likely sat out the election or left the ballot for POTUS blank.
31,183,841 voted in the Rethug Primary
Trump only got 14,015,993 votes out of that 31.2 million
That means 17,167,848 Rethugs voted in the primary for someone other than Trump
Clinton took around 2.75 MILLION votes from the non Trump primary voters, and then took around 283,000 votes directly from Trump
Clinton thus took around 3.03 MILLION votes from Republican primary voters who defected to her
That is more than BOTH ALL of the Sanders to Trump voters (if you assign a defection rate of 11% (very high on the 6 to 12% range, the chart above shows 9% but I am being generous to prove a point), that that is 1.453 million votes) PLUS ALL the Stein votes (1.457 million) COMBINED (around 2.91 million total votes)
Obviously the Sanders defections (to Trump, to Stein, a small amount to fringe 3rd parties, and the stay at homes/no votes for POTUS) were bad, bad news, but EVERY contested primary has a lot of voter defections(look at the 2008 shitshow), this is simply a truism. Trump himself had a shedload of Republican primary voters defections as well the other way, just look at huge numbers, the millions of votes rolled up by the other RW candidates, and also the 3.03 million Rethug primary voters who voted for Clinton.
Bottom line, compared to 2008, the total net impact of Dem primary defections was massively smaller, both in terms or percentages and total numbers (5 million more voters voted in the Dem primaries in 2008 than in 2016, and a shit tonne more defected in 2008 than in 2016, the vast majority straight to McCain, so a double impact, we lost one and the Rethug gained one), and also, Clinton, in 2016, more than made up for all of the 2016 Sanders to Trump defectors plus ALL of the 2016 Stein voters with just the Rethug primary voters who defected straight to her.
In fact, the 2008 Hillary primary voter betrayal rate was so bad, so large, that you could have, nationwide, in 2016, given Hillary ALL the Stein vote, increase the AA turnout to its previous 6 election norm, and Hillary would have not only still lost the Electoral College in 2016, but she would have lost the POPULAR VOTE as well too, if we had the total NET defection raw numbers in 2016 that we had from her 2008 primary voters. It's not only a lost vote in the general for a Dem primary voter to not vote Dem in the general, but it's a gained vote for the Rethug as well if they fully flip and vote, thus a double bad impact).
The total NET negative impact for the 2008 Hillary primary voters defection (stay at home/no vote for POTUS, vote 3rd party, (which I only count as a net loss of one as 3rd parties never win, they only drain or draw out otherwise non voters), OR the big one, a 2-for-1 flip straight to the Rethug McCain) was around 9.7 MILLION votes.
The only reason those massive totals of 2008 defectors are rarely spoken of (other than the occasional PUMA reference) is that Obama won easily. The long knives only come out in close elections, even if their relative numbers were so much smaller in real net impact when compared to other elections.
Around 30% total of Hillary 2008 primary voters did not vote for Obama in the general
Around 24 to 25% voted for McCain (so a two-fer, a lost vote for Obama, and a gained vote for McCain), around 5% did not vote
Even Obama primary voters defected to McCain in 2008 at similar rates (9%) to Sanders 2016 primary voters defecting to Trump (6 to 12%, depending on the study or poll).
A full 27 per cent of Rethug 2016 Primary voters who did not vote Trump in the Primary defected to either Clinton (16%) Gary Johnson (9%) or other candidates (2%, mostly Evan McMullin from his 11 states) In addition 7% from that non Trump supporting Rethug primary group likely sat out the election or left the ballot for POTUS blank.
31,183,841 voted in the Rethug Primary
Trump only got 14,015,993 votes out of that 31.2 million
That means 17,167,848 Rethugs voted in the primary for someone other than Trump
Clinton took around 2.75 MILLION votes from the non Trump primary voters, and then took around 283,000 votes directly from Trump
Clinton thus took around 3.03 MILLION votes from Republican primary voters who defected to her
That is more than BOTH ALL of the Sanders to Trump voters (if you assign a defection rate of 11% (very high on the 6 to 12% range, the chart above shows 9% but I am being generous to prove a point), that that is 1.453 million votes) PLUS ALL the Stein votes (1.457 million) COMBINED (around 2.91 million total votes)
Obviously the Sanders defections (to Trump, to Stein, a small amount to fringe 3rd parties, and the stay at homes/no votes for POTUS) were bad, bad news, but EVERY contested primary has a lot of voter defections(look at the 2008 shitshow), this is simply a truism. Trump himself had a shedload of Republican primary voters defections as well the other way, just look at huge numbers, the millions of votes rolled up by the other RW candidates, and also the 3.03 million Rethug primary voters who voted for Clinton.
Bottom line, compared to 2008, the total net impact of Dem primary defections was massively smaller, both in terms or percentages and total numbers (5 million more voters voted in the Dem primaries in 2008 than in 2016, and a shit tonne more defected in 2008 than in 2016, the vast majority straight to McCain, so a double impact, we lost one and the Rethug gained one), and also, Clinton, in 2016, more than made up for all of the 2016 Sanders to Trump defectors plus ALL of the 2016 Stein voters with just the Rethug primary voters who defected straight to her.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/08/24/did-enough-bernie-sanders-supporters-vote-for-trump-to-cost-clinton-the-election/
Another useful comparison is to 2008, when the question was whether Clinton supporters would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain (R-Ariz.) Based on data from the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, a YouGov survey that also interviewed respondents multiple times during the campaign, 24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.
An analysis of a different 2008 survey by the political scientists Michael Henderson, Sunshine Hillygus and Trevor Thompson produced a similar estimate: 25 percent. (Unsurprisingly, Clinton voters who supported McCain were more likely to have negative views of African Americans, relative to those who supported Obama.)
Thus, the 6 percent or 12 percent of Sanders supporters who may have supported Trump does not look especially large in comparison with these other examples.
snip
https://isps.yale.edu/research/data/d130
https://sites.duke.edu/hillygus/files/2014/06/hendersonhillygustompsonPOQ.pdf
Another useful comparison is to 2008, when the question was whether Clinton supporters would vote for Barack Obama or John McCain (R-Ariz.) Based on data from the 2008 Cooperative Campaign Analysis Project, a YouGov survey that also interviewed respondents multiple times during the campaign, 24 percent of people who supported Clinton in the primary as of March 2008 then reported voting for McCain in the general election.
An analysis of a different 2008 survey by the political scientists Michael Henderson, Sunshine Hillygus and Trevor Thompson produced a similar estimate: 25 percent. (Unsurprisingly, Clinton voters who supported McCain were more likely to have negative views of African Americans, relative to those who supported Obama.)
Thus, the 6 percent or 12 percent of Sanders supporters who may have supported Trump does not look especially large in comparison with these other examples.
snip
https://isps.yale.edu/research/data/d130
https://sites.duke.edu/hillygus/files/2014/06/hendersonhillygustompsonPOQ.pdf
I am sure there were other factors as well, but I have written and documented quite enough.........................................
