Andrew Yang is the greatest danger to humanity
and that's not just hyperbole.
Let me explain my reasoning, step by step.
First off, in the American system of electing Presidents, third parties endanger the party, candidate or anti-vote in which they are most closely aligned.
Ralph Nader in 2000 and Jill Stein in 2016. There is no question that a substantial net of Nader's votes would have gone to Gore. Two SC Justices were appointed by Bush. In 2016, Stein took anti-Trump votes from Hillary, costing her the election, in my opinion, giving Trump 3 SC appointments. The first result was awful, the second was catastrophic.
The key poll that came out recently described a group known as "double haters". This group of voters decide elections. They are the 10% to 15% of the electorate that have an unfavorable view of both candidates. The anti-politician "vibes" in this country contribute to this large number. The poll I refer to had a breakdown of 54% to 15% for Biden vs. Trump among this group.
If Yang eats into this race, which is likely the case, Adolf Trump could go from having no chance in 2024 to the favorite.
If that doesn't scare the living shit out of you, it should. Because it certainly scares me.
= new reply since forum marked as read
of Others through the Living Nightmare of the 2016 Election When the LIES of Stein & Sarandon etc etc Lost the Swing states for us.
Now Michigan and PA are Blue but never underestimate the EGOCentricity of 3rd Party SHIT
And the magas are Desperate Ghouls so We're in the Middle of HELL on Each Side.
Which is funny considering he's so thirsty.
I guess the guy with the funny name wins.
candidates who will likely draw from Trump in 2024. IF (and it is likely as of now) Trump wins the Rethug 2024 nomination, there most definitely will be RW 3rd party and RW indy candidates running against him in the general.
This 'only taking one side into account' style of flawed analysis was one of the biggest errors made in regards to 2016, for example.
Gary Johnson, the RW Libertarian (who grabbed a staggering almost 4.5 million votes) vastly outperformed Stein and drew heavily from Trump. Also, other RW 3rd party and RW Indy candidates (especially Evan McMullin) drew heavily from the Trump vote as well.
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 (based off of pre and post election polls, exit polls, studies, and historical trends), that 3.2 million or so of those Johnson votes came right from Trump). The RWer indy McMullin, who ran in only 11 states, still 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, from her 1.46 million total, 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), again, based off pre election, and post election pools, historical trends, and exit polls.
Take the higher number (550K) and add another 50,000 from very small minor other LW 3rd parties like the Socialist Gloria La Riva, and you have around 600,000 lost Clinton votes.
These numbers hold up in the 3 close states (WI, MI, and PA) that Clinton lost as well.
In Michigan, 198,667 RW listed 3rd party/indy voters, versus 51,463 LW 3rd party listed (all Stein) voters (almost 4 times more RW minor party/indie voters than than Stein 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/indie 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/indie voters than than Stein, etc LW voters)
In all 3 states above, even if you gave Clinton ALL (a statistical impossibility but I am just positing this for added emphasis) of the 'other and/or write-in' non candidate-specified votes, and then did a remotely accurate redistribution of all of the remaining 3rd party and indie votes to just her and Trump (minus the stay-at homes and no POTUS votes), she still clearly loses all 3 states.
Bottom line:
If you removed ALL 3rd party votes from 2016 totals, and then did any remotely accurate redistribution of them (based off dozens of pre and post election polls, exit polls, and historical patterns) to just Trump and Clinton (minus the stay at homes and no POTUS votes, which as a percentage of voters was huge for Stein), Trump not only still wins the Electoral College, but likely wins the popular vote as well.
more impactful reasons in the past. (fucking Comey, 25 plus years of constant RW smear tactics driving up her unfavorability to the point where she and Trump were the most unpopular POTUS election paring on average in modern history, misogyny, the utterly foolish release of massive Obamacare premium rate increases right before the election, and the large fall-off in black votes (not just from 2008/12, when Obama drove it, especially 2008, but even from a last 6 race average). That fall-off killed us in 4 key large cities (and thus the states they are in, the same 3 infamous Blue wall states we lost, WI, MI, and PA): Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia, where the fall off from just the voter population adjusted adjusted average from 1992 to 2012 was easily greater than ALL the Stein votes in those entire states (not just those cities).
Remember, in my first reply I posted (about PA):
The Stein argument is deeply flawed as it relies on taking close to ALL of her votes and giving it all to Clinton (and none to Trump, none to Stein, no stay at homes/no votes) which is an absolutely ludicrous assumption all based off any (let alone the consensus average of all the polls/studies) of the pre, post,and exit polls and studies.
Even if 90% (a ridiculously high number versus the average 35% or so figures garnered from the average of many pre,post, and exit polls, plus historical trends and voter studies) of ALL Stein votes went to Clinton, only 2% to Trump (a five-fold decrease from the 10% average of all the polls/studies), and only 8% total (instead of the 50-55%) stay at home/no POTUS votes, she still loses PA, and thus the election. The margin was too great.
The huge number of stay-at-homes/no votes for POTUS (if no Stein on the ticket) was borne out to a point in 2020. In 2020, with no Stein (and also in an election with 22 million MORE POTUS votes were cast than were cast than in 2016) the Greens collapsed. They lost over 1 million (around 72%) of their votes, they dropped from 1.46 million to only 407,068. and that was in another contested Dem primary election.
Contested primaries often lead to large defections versus a non contested primary election. For instance, in 2008, an insane amount of Clinton primary voters defected. 30% of her 18 million plus votes either stayed at home (5%) or, double damaging (as it was a lost vote for Obama AND a gained voted for McCain), they went straight to McCain (25%!) Thus a net negative of almost TEN million votes for Obama from Clinton primary voters). The only reason no one talks about that (a FAR greater negative impact for us in 2008 versus 2016, millions and millions more in negative vote impact in 2008 than in 2016) is that 2008 was not a close race. When a race is closely lost, the long knives come out, knives that never would be unsheathed in a non close race.
This particular little LW cohort CLAIMS our values -- but much, much superior. We always fail them by choosing candidates so corrupt they CAN'T vote for them, so they HAVE to vote for someone running on the left who can't win. Every election, decade in, decade out, new ones replacing the old.
They're a type.
Most here would have seen them polled and interviewed over this century. In the latest elections, 2016 and 2020, they chose Bernie Sanders as their most promising splinter and, always delighted to be asked, TOLD election scientists they'd only vote Democratic if he was the nominee and why. They were @20% of his primary voters in 2016 (out of the nearly 25% who refused to vote Democratic), same people in 2020. If Sanders hadn't run, they'd have chosen their next most promising.
But NEVER whoever Democratic voters choose as their nominee.
It'll be the same in 2024. No doubt they're hoping for someone who can break into double digits, but Bernies don't come along every election, and Yang certainly won't. So not infrequently their need to force "reform" on the Democratic Party require them to vote for the Republican "spoiler," as they did for Bush in 2008 (Nader only got half a percent of the popular vote), and do -- the 12.5% of "Bernie's" primary voters who voted for tRump were mostly them.
They are what they are, and they're never ours to lose.