2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumFor those think Stein will not be able to affect this election:
Everyone remembers 2000, right?
Here is the current Quinnipiac polls for the two person and four person race. I am making the assumption here that if the Green Party did not have candidate in the race trying to pull voters away from Hillary, perhaps some of the Stein voters would instead for her:
Florida: Clinton 46, Trump 45 Clinton +1
Florida: Clinton 43, Trump 43, Johnson 7, Stein 3 Tie
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)So are you saying that 2/3 are folks who currently say they are going to vote for Jill Stein are vote for Hillary. Or are they simply going to decide not to vote, because if that is the option they are going to take voting for Stein is equivalent to not voting in the final analysis.
tonyt53
(5,737 posts)With people relying on daily polls right now to decide who is winning what in November, the less her name is said, the more less likely people will remember her in November. It really is that simple.
Oh, and on that question about my "personal guarantee", where the hell did that come from? And on the matter of voting, I was in the first 18 y/o's that got to vote and I have never missed an opportunity to vote. How about yourself?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Translation: I give no credibility to those making sweeping statement like they have a view of the future with providing one fact to back up their statement.
stopbush
(24,808 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)The Greens were on 23 ballots.
Today from their website: As of August 9, 2016, we are on the ballot in 27 states and the District of Columbia, reaching over 60% of the population. Another 30% of the population is in states where we have active ballot access campaigns. Expect to see more states turning green soon. And in states where the remaining 10% of the population lives, we are working to have the courts overturn their draconian ballot access requirements.
They will probably be on the ballot in most states by November.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)oberliner
(58,724 posts)Isn't this a discussion forum?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)pnwmom
(110,261 posts)
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)With more troubling news.
http://www.investors.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/POSTING_Tables_Aug2016_Horserace_Registered-Voters.pdf
A- rated by 538
Glamrock
(12,003 posts)Ban all but two parties? If not, then we're just yelling at the wind here.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)Talk to friends and colleagues who might be inclined to vote for Jill Stein, for example, and try to convince them otherwise.
Glamrock
(12,003 posts)I'll keep it in mind if I ever meet anyone voting for Stein.
Haven't seen one in person yet.
RazBerryBeret
(3,075 posts)even tho johnson is polling better, I don't know one person leaning his way. and I live in a very red area in Ohio.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)Stein is so insignifant on a national level that no one in their right mind thinks she can win. Her negatives become irrelevant since she really is a protest vote. You have to emphasize why Clinton would be a good president rather than go negative against Stein.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)That she has no experience in management and next to none in public office. How about we take out an ad pointing that if she is elected, she wouldn't have a clue what to do on day one.
My integrity would never allow me to vote for someone who I know is absolutely unqualified for the office they are seeking. Evidently ideology trumps integrity for left wing zealots still selfish enough to vote for her.
Bradical79
(4,490 posts)They don't really care that she is unqualified for a job she will never have.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)That makes about as much sense as voting for Stein and will have exactly the same affect.
brooklynite
(96,882 posts)Virginia
North Carolina
Ohio
Arizona
Georgia
Gore lost because he was dependent on Florida because he managed to lose ten States that Clinton won; any ONE of them would have made Florida irrelevant.
Hillary is competitive across the board; she could lose Florida and it wouldn't make a difference.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)But I was only state. Here are the polls for Ohio:
Ohio: Clinton 49, Trump 45 Clinton +4
Ohio: Clinton 44, Trump 42, Johnson 8, Stein 3 Clinton +2
If Stein voters were instead voting for viable candidate who best represents thamthem ideologically, it wouldn't be that close.
It is unfortunate when other progressives are so caught up in their ideology that they would allow a candidate like Trump any semblance of a chance of occupying the White House.
Stargleamer
(2,728 posts)Hillary can lose in:
Ohio
Florida
Iowa
North Carolina
Georgia
and still have 273 electoral votes by winning in Colorado and Virginia (Kaine's home state). So the danger posed by Jill Stein is highly overblown.
I don't think the 2000 election was comparable--Al Gore was constantly a few points down in the polls until election day, unlike Hillary Clinton. Plus Al Gore really won Florida, had overvotes and undervotes been properly examined for legitimate votes.
Maru Kitteh
(31,761 posts)Credit to DU'er VOX:
Nader's Green voters *did* give us Bush -- not via Florida, but via New Hampshire's 4 electoral votes (which, had Gore won, would have rendered Florida moot):
Bush: 273,559
Gore: 266,348
Difference: 7,211
Nader votes: 22,198
If only a little over 1/3 of those Nader voters could have swallowed their pride just a bit, then...no Bush. No Cheney. No Rumsfield. No phony war. No torture, etc., etc. NO RW SUPREME COURT JUDGES.
Greens peel away Democratic votes, period.
VOX
(22,976 posts)Saw this and was on my way with the New Hampshire story (again!), but you saved me the cleanup on "Aisle 2000." Big thanks and cheers!
Maru Kitteh
(31,761 posts)
Expecting Rain
(811 posts)They are Regressives pursuing their version of the "Hitler first, then us" strategy that always worked out so well.
Maru Kitteh
(31,761 posts)
RAFisher
(466 posts)
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It's just a back-door rule-skirting attack on Hillary from the original Hillary-Haters.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)Florida is usually no more that –3 or –4 when Democats win.
2008 U.S. POPULAR VOTE
• John McCain 45.66%
✔️ Barack Obama 52.92% (D+7.26) — Pickup
2008 FLORIDA
• John McCain 48.10%
✔️ Barack Obama 50.91% (D+2.81) — Pickup
2012 U.S. POPULAR VOTE
• Mitt Romney 47.16%
✔️ Barack Obama 51.02% (D+3.86)
2012 FLORIDA
• Mitt Romney 49.03%
✔️ Barack Obama 49.91% (D+0.88)
If Hillary Clinton wins nationally by +2 to +5 … those numbers by Quinnipiac are sort of believable. If she wins at a level suggested by these very recent national polls (between +8 and +15) … she will carry Florida by plenty more than a statistical tie or +1.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I agree that there seems to be some built in bias in the Quinnipiac polling, but we'll see what happens this time around.
pnwmom
(110,261 posts)
athena
(4,187 posts)Without Nader in 2000, there would have been no Iraq War, and ISIS would not even exist today. It's even possible that 9/11 would not have happened.
People who vote third party in a system designed for two parties care only about their own feelings of purity and superiority. They don't care about what may happen to the world -- to minorities, to the environment, to international peace -- as a result of their vote.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)perhaps they believe in the candidate for whom they are voting. What any one person does within the voting booth is entirely their decision. I hope that everyone takes time to become knowledgable about the candidates and their positions and goes to vote, but it is not up to me or anyone else to make their choices for them. It is up to the candidates of any party to give us reasons to vote for them. The candidate wants the job, it is up to them to tell me why.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)And as Dems, we should make sure everyone we know understands what a dangerous nut Stein is.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)Are you indicating that it is up to you to do so?
I think it is more the job of any candidate to convince us that the positions they hold and the actions they intend to take are on the whole in the best interest of the country and of us particularly. If they do not do so, then they have failed in getting their message out to the people who will decide.
Jill Stein may have some good ideas, Gary Johnson may have some, Hillary Clinton some and even the Esteemed Candidate from the GOP may have some (haven't found anything yet myself, but it is possible). If none of those candidates offer enough ideas that an individual finds agreeable then a voter will be unconvinced to vote for them.
Again, I hope that the populace takes time to educate themselves, registers and gets to the polls, voting in all the races they find candidates acceptable to them, but their choices are their own.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)If you want to sit passively by while that nut Stein runs virulent anti-Hillary ads in swing states, that is your choice.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)MY choice.
SunSeeker
(58,283 posts)athena
(4,187 posts)Some choices are plain stupid. Voting for a third-party candidate who has no chance of winning, and thereby allowing a terrible candidate to win, may be a choice, but it is a stupid, ignorant, and selfish one.
And enough of this nonsense about how people can do what they want in the voting booth. No one is disputing that. Before you lecture people about how a person's vote is "entirely their decision", please provide some evidence that anyone on DU has attempted to go inside the voting booth with anyone to force them to vote their way, or offered them money, or coerced them any other way. A public discussion of whether voting for a third-party candidate makes sense in a two-party system is not "coersion".
Your vote is your choice. You are free to make a stupid choice, or to throw away your vote on a third party candidate who has no chance of winning. However, if you are telling yourself that this is somehow a superior or purer choice, or that you are somehow more knowledgeable or conscientious than someone who votes for the better of the two candidates who have a chance of winning, you are only kidding yourself.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)I have indeed taken all that into consideration and will continue to do so. That said at this point none of the candidates have made their case to me as to why they should be President. Some have given me reasons why they should not be, but none have made the sale as of yet.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Your opinion willfully ignores that one candidate has been pushing assassination for his political objectives and has probed his foreign policy advisors to try to get their approval for willy-nilly use of nuclear weapons.
I say willfully, because to even consider there is more to think about after that is willfully ignoring how terrifying both of those positions are. There is a strong possibility there wont be any humans to worry about trade policy, the environment and anything else if that person is elected.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)If you read my post, you might have noted that I said no candidate has made their case to me as to why they should be president, while some have made the case as to why they should not.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The fact that one candidates policies threatens the result of global armageddon is all you need to know to make the right choice.
Sherman A1
(38,958 posts)ignore. I shall not have any further discussions with you as you seem to willfully choose to ignore other points of view.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)BzaDem
(11,142 posts)But if so, they really shouldnt be surprised when no one takes their "but I'm not a Republican who wants conservative policies" schtick seriously.
misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)https://mobile.twitter.com/kkondik/status/763055478448517122
Q is bullshite polling & everyone knows it.
OnDoutside
(20,868 posts)misterhighwasted
(9,148 posts)
axiom3
(54 posts)I remember the 2000 election quite well, and all the controversy surrounding it. I thought it was a blatant violation of democracy when Bush won, despite him losing the popular vote. Hopefully people learned some hard lessons from that election, and will do everything to prevent that happening again this fall.
fun n serious
(4,451 posts)Trump beat Jeb and Rubio there. There is a lot of Hispanics there, Cubans mostly... But they don't relate to Mexican immigrants the same way. I am Mexican-American and know many Cubans.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)Last edited Wed Aug 10, 2016, 03:32 PM - Edit history (3)
The state has been 5 points from the popular-vote margin since 1996. And Florida is typically within 2 points of its companion state, Ohio. (Meaning, they vote alike—percentage-points margins.)
Florida (and Ohio) will continue its bellwether status and carry once again for the 2016 presidential winner.
In 2012, President Barack Obama, who carried Florida, won the state’s Cuban vote—which, before 2012, routinely carried for Republicans.
@ http://www.google.com/amp/s/miamiherald.relaymedia.com/amp/news/politics-government/article1944391.html
By the way: Primaries are only a fraction of the overall raw votes cast compared to those for president of the United States. If a party gets 25 to 30 million voting in their primaries—well that is not all 130 million as was the estimated average of the general-election voters over 2008 and 2012.
oberliner
(58,724 posts)She is in serious trouble without it.
Charles Bukowski
(1,132 posts)She could win Colorado, Virginia, and Nevada and claim the presidency. Ohio and Florida wouldn't even be necessary.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)there. Even allowing for the fact that 2008 was an unusual primary for the candidates there.
womanofthehills
(10,988 posts)fun n serious
(4,451 posts)I have changed my mind. 
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...next to voter suppression, gerrymandering, corporate MSM and decades of RW mythology. As with Nader.
Stein isn't going to steal an election that millions of Americans want to throw to Trump.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Nothing you wrote really argues the point.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Same as with Nader in Florida in 2000.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)...picking Stein to blame is silly. Her candidacy just happens to be the same size as we fear another Florida squeaker might be, and so we make the mistake of assigning the causation to her?
No, it doesn't work that way.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)candidate makes the difference, they threw the election.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)For the same reason we reject GOP voter suppression efforts: the handful of verifiable cases of fraudulent registration are insignificant next to the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands. The latter swamps the former.
Blaming Stein for an election loss is as stupid as was blaming Nader.
womanofthehills
(10,988 posts)from map updated 3 hrs ago.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Just published NBC/WSJ/Marist polls for Iowa:
Iowa: Clinton 41, Trump 37 Clinton +4
Iowa: Trump 35, Clinton 35, Johnson 12, Stein 6 Tie
As I recall Iowa is a BoB hotbed.
Maru Kitteh
(31,761 posts)In other words, their knapsacks of privilege are fairly well bursting at the seams.
NNadir
(38,049 posts)Like her pal Nader, she's a screwball Repuke.
After Nader's efforts, I note that the big losers were, um, Muslim. I believe several hundred thousand of them died while Nader moved on the important stuff, officiating in the NBA.
Charles Bukowski
(1,132 posts)to overpoll.
Jill will struggle to get 1% of the vote on election day.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)• Donald Trump 38%
✔️ Hillary Clinton 52%
• Gary Johnson 7%
• Jill Stein 2%
PoindexterOglethorpe
(28,493 posts)all that matters is who carries which states, and gets the associated Electoral College votes.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)If you have a presidential winner prevail in the U.S. Popular Vote by, say, 5 percentage points…some states will carry right around that national margin. This is where Virginia, which in 2008 and 2012 came closest to matching the margin of the popular vote, comes in…with fellow bellwether states Colorado, Florida, and Ohio. A 6-point Democratic Party margin brings in North Carolina. The “Blue Firewall” states—plus New Hampshire and Iowa—carry above the national margin. In other words: There is a context to all this; to understanding what a number like “3” or “5” or “6” or “8” or “10” or “12” or “15” means with concern for what the electoral map may look like.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(28,493 posts)gain enough votes to make a difference? It does look as though they pull pretty much equally from the two major candidates.
And I just read in today's paper that Johnson is having trouble getting on the ballot in Ohio. I wouldn't be surprised if neither Stein nor Johnson is on all 50 (or is it 51 with Puerto Rico) ballots, and that would substantially affect their impact on the final outcome.
As it is, a candidate could gain the Presidency by winning only eleven states, and they are as follows, with their EC votes in parentheses.
California (55 votes)
Texas (38 votes)
Florida (29 votes)
New York (29 votes)
Illinois (20 votes)
Pennsylvania (20 votes)
Ohio (18 votes)
Georgia (16 votes)
Michigan (16 votes)
North Carolina (15 votes)
New Jersey (14 votes)
Sometimes I'm surprised that the candidates, after the primary season, even bother to visit most small (by EC vote) states.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)I don’t trust them or Quinnipiac or Rasmussen.
onecaliberal
(36,594 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Many of us here do have an appreciation for the GP so expect a couple of feathers to be ruffled along the way. Still, this site is about supporting Democrats during elections and I wouldn't be here if it weren't.
I believe Stein is much different than Nader. The Democratic Party really did unite after the primary settled. That is a result of Clinton running on an excellent progressive platform. Very few Stein voters would shift to Clinton. They are such a small group and have been marginalized to the point that they are the backwash of American politics. LIV's with limited ideology. From what I'm seeing Clinton is not on their list.
It also seems that she isn't picking up steam. The only people who will buy into her both parties are the same garbage is the youth vote and not in large numbers. Those who he even yet to form an ideology, vote off emotion, and are privileged to the point they feel they are protected from a Trump presidency. Say something mean and they can switch their vote on a dime. That switch will not be to Clinton.
I believe we can lower voter turnout on the republican side at a much higher rate than we can with Stein. I believe just focusing on republican women will be more advantageous to us. That said, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. Fuck Nader/Stein.
DemocratSinceBirth
(101,852 posts)womanofthehills
(10,988 posts)cleveramerican
(2,895 posts)She could definitely affect the outcome.
One more nut out there shouting at traffic
apcalc
(4,528 posts)
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Bush?
The same election where Gore took his home state for granted?
The same election where Gore distantced himself from Bill's economic legacy?
The same election where Gore openly admits he ran a lousy campaign?
Yeah, I remember that election. Hillary is not making those same mistakes.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Anyone can register as anything so the fact that a voter is registered as a Democrat and votes Bush means nothing.
As far as the rest of what you wrote, as I said to another poster above, the condition are what they are in any election. If someone like a Nader or a Stein ends up being the difference under those conditions, then they enabled a reactionary Republican to be elected.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)I know that doesn't fit your narrative, but if you're going to use a standard then you have to apply it across the board.
If the conditions are what they are, then why is it only that Gore was the one to encounter this problem?
As I stated above, even Gore admits he was weak on the stump and made some very poor decisions.
Like David Axelrod says: When a candidate loses, it's on the candidate. They could have the best funding, the best advisors (which Gore did) but at some point they have to close the deal.
As I pointed out to another poster in another thread, Gore is the textbook example of why the "I'm the only viable candidate that isn't as bad as the other guy" narrative continually loses us more elections than we win when we use that tired old narrative.
Third party voters vote for someone, never against someone. That's why Hillary lost in '08. No one voted against her, they voted for Obama, and that's why Obama won the presidency.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)If you are voting Nader instead of voting Gore because you are on the left side of the ideological spectrum, then you enabled Bush.
Similarly, if you are on the left side of the spectrum and vote Stein, you are enabling Trump.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)that they would have not voted at all. As a percentage of each candidates voters, Nader had the most first time voters. Gore fell into the Democratic Party average when compared to other Democratic nominees.
There were several issues that fell into play that cycle, and Nader is at the bottom of that list.
If we really want these voters to vote for us, then we have to give them a reason to vote for us, and it can't be "I'm not as bad as the other guy."
If we don't want their votes, then we have to find another way to make them up in the aggregate.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)If Jill Stein, who by the way is totally unqualified to be President, gets enough votes in a swing state to be the difference why Trump win's the state over Clinton, the Green Party and its voters will be blamed. Your argument will not make a damn in the formation of public opinion because no one is going to be paying attention to you, or anyone making those arguments.
If that swing state is the difference why Trump wins the elections, Jill Stein (who actively campaigned to pull voters away from Clinton), the Green Party and its voters will be blamed, all of your arguments be damned.
If that happens we will be singing the death song of the Green Party. I've have written this several times, but one more time for you - "Third parties are like bees; when they sting, they die."
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Nader was blamed for 2000, and yet the Green Party still exists.
Makes your whole argument irrelevant.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)In 2004 Green Party candidate David Cobb and his running mate Pat LaMarche received just 119,859 or 0.10% of the votes cast for President and Vice President, 1/27 of Nader's total in 2000.
In 2008 Green Party Cynthia McKinney and her running mate Rosa Clemente received just 161,680 or 0.12% of the votes cast for President and Vice President,
In 2012 Green Party Jill Stein and her running mate Cheri Honkala received just 469,627 or 0.36% of the votes cast for President and Vice President,
That's as dead as party can get without disappearing completely. It still existed, but it was a corpse, or more accurately a zombie because it was still moving around. A small percentage of former Sanders supporters are breathing new life into that dead body for 2016, but the worst thing that can happen to a third party is to be successful enough to affect the 2 person race.
If the Greens are that successful, their Party will become a zombie again. Either that it remaining zealots will finally abandoned it and join another far left party and then the Green Party can truly rest in peace.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)They a threat?
If they're dead, then this whole thread is moot point. If they're a threat, then your argument is irrelevant. Bit it can't be both.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I guess not so I will repeat the last two paragraphs here:
A small percentage of former Sanders supporters are breathing new life into that dead body for 2016, but the worst thing that can happen to a third party is to be successful enough to affect the 2 person race.
If the Greens are that successful, their Party will become a zombie again. Either that it remaining zealots will finally abandoned it and join another far left party and then the Green Party can truly rest in peace.
First you argue that the Green Party didn't die, now you argue that it is dead so it doesn't matter. Your total lack of logical arguments remind my of people I know that are voting for Stein and that's probably not a coincidence.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)The Green Party is a bit out there, especially Stein. Her positions deserve the scrutiny they are receiving.
You're the one arguing both sides of the argument. I fully maintain my position that it is candidates themselves that win or lose elections, regardless of who their opponents are. It's just that simple. If a candidate can't convince someone to vote for them, then the candidate didn't earn that vote.
I can't stand when people fear monger in an attempt to win votes. To me it's the same as when Republicans say "vote for me or the terrorists win". It's just noise pollution to distract from a candidate's shortcomings.
You're logic is circular, Either the Greens are relevant, or they're not, but you want it both ways. According to your bee analogy, either the bee is dead after 16 years, or your logic is severely flawed.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)So I will lay them out for you yet again:
After Nader was accused by many people of helping Bush win in 2000, the Green party lost most of their voters - their candidate got only 0.10% of the vote in 2004. That percentage as very slowly climbed to Stein's 0.36% of the vote in 2012.
Now polls the the never Hillary gang has swelled the to 2% to 6% of the voters depending on the state. Now it is questionable whether those numbers will hold as we get closer to November - they may, they may not.
However, of this I am sure because it has been true throughout our history, if Trump wins a pivotal state and the number of Green Party voters exceeds his margin of victory over Clinton, the Green Party will be blamed by a large percentage of Democrats It may not be fair, your arguments may have vitality, but it won't matter; it will be blamed never the less.
If that state tilts the entire election in Trumps favor, the Green party will be held responsible by the voters that matter and you can bet it will suffer the same fate it encountered in 2004 as a result to the 2000 election.
This is why it is impossible for a third party to thrive in our system. Every time a third party gets strong enough to actually effect the outcome of an election, whether it is fair or not, it inevitably gets weaker. This is why the Green Party will never be anything but a fringe or protest party in our system.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)If that's the case, then there is no way of killing them.
They're fringe in terms of American politics, and will probably remain there, but they're not going anywhere. There is always the next generation of disenfranchised voters to fill the void, and that's on both sides of the ideological spectrum.
The mentality of a third party voter is not to vote against someone, but rather to vote for someone. As people age their ideology becomes tempered and more willing to compromise. Gore was stuck with a swell of Gen Xers that felt that neither party was serving them, now for the next two election cycles, possibly longer since millennials are more spread out throughout the years, millennials are the generation to win.
Either way, I don't see things changing.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)A lot more of his voters would have voted Gore than Bush, way more of a difference than would have been needed to swing the vote.
If you need this posted yet again let me know.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)or roughly one out every thirteen voters voted for Bush. Gore only needed about half a percentage of those to switch their vote back to their own party.
Why did he lose 8% of Democrats and why does Nader get blamed for taking a much much smaller fraction?
Please explain your logic, because it's not nearly as transparent as you make it out to be.
You're not fighting this argument on its merits, you're fighting it on a false narrative.
Even Gore says it's not Nader's fault.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Exilednight
(9,359 posts)Voting members of our party, or they're not.
It's odd that you seem to ignore every other fact that actually did cause Gore to lose, yet you accuse me of creating a strawman. You're arguing assumptions that aren't based on fact.
I also know exactly what poll you're referring to, and it's strictly based on would've, could've and should'ves. That's like asking me if I would have chosen apple pie instead of cherry pie after the cherry pie made me sick. Of course I would. What idiot wouldn't?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)It's very straightforward.
Exilednight
(9,359 posts)bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Of getting their message out. No one to blame but themselves.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)A conservative voting Johnson needs to be comfortable in knowing they are electing Hillary. A Liberal voting for Stein has to be comfortable knowing they are enabling the election of Trump.
This is even more clear now after the experience of 2000. Those of us who dont want Trump to be elected have every right to hold everyone who enables that accountable for their decisions.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)One particular Democratic Underground topic thread addresses Debbie Wasserman Schultz vs. Tim Canova for Florida #23’s upcoming Democratic primary. Several of the posters want Schultz re-nominated. They don’t come across sounding the least bit bothered by her corruption as Democratic National Committee chair person. If expectation was a realistic way of looking at this, Schultz would have dropped out and not seeked re-election following these WikiLeaks DNC e-mails which exposed the corruption of the DNC with the party’s presidential primaries—and these forum members would very much want Debbie Wasserman Schultz, who has not been good for the party, gone from Congress. So much for a person’s “expectation!”
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I will not accept any argument here that people didn't know and I will not accept any arguments that there isnt enough difference between Trump and Hillary.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)Maru Kitteh
(31,761 posts)out of spite and ego, knowing that the vulnerable of society will suffer the consequences of one's privilege, pride and conceit.
Don't you agree?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)
marybourg
(13,640 posts)self-centered, twisted and amoral of Al Gore to foist Joe Lieberman on us as VP. And I refused to work or vote for them. As did many of my fellow Arizonians, some of whom went on to run for and win office as Dem's and/or serve in public service fields. Many of us later obtained o rhad pre-existing graduate degrees. Most have been successful in their chosen fields.
I completely reject your thesis, and have no regrets. In fact, I believe that an Obama presidency would have been impossible after a Gore presidency. After a Gore presidency, we would have had a tea-party presidency. Now, the tea-party moment is over and we've dodged a bullet. And I have just as much right to my world-view as you have to yours. And I know I'm not ignorant, twisted and whatever.
BzaDem
(11,142 posts)putting it.
In general, there are plenty of people who prefer complaining about the lack of progressive policies, to actually achieving those policies. Some (believe it or not) have graduate degrees (such as Jill Stein herself). While that certainly shows that graduate degrees are not a great proxy for political knowledge, it does not show it is a reasonable position to vote for a third party (for someone that actually wants progressive policies to be enacted, versus an excuse to complain that they are not enacted).
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)She has no management experience. She has next to no experience in public office. She isn't even qualified to run her small home town of Lexington, Massachusetts - population 34K.
The only reason people feel they can afford to vote her despite her complete lack of qualifications is because they are absolutely sure she won't win.
For the good a vote for Jill Stein vote will do her supporters had just as soon not vote or right in Mickey Mouse.
On the other hand if Stein gets enough votes to affect the election, you can kiss the Green Party goodby. When many believed that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000 ( and it doesn't matter if that is true or not), the Green Party candidate pulled in just 0.1% of the total vote in 2004, proving again the old saying: Third parties are like bees: when they sting they die.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)BzaDem
(11,142 posts)Democracy is a form of government. Believing in democracy is independent of how "ignorant" or "twisted" it is to use one's vote to enable Republican victories, for those that simultaneously claim they don't want such victories to occur.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Not when she is running ads only to pull votes from Hillary. Your defense of the opponent in another party is not appreciated.
LLStarks
(1,746 posts)Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We already know that accusing her of conspiring with Trump can't ever persuade anyone thinking of voting for her to vote for OUR ticket.
Why do what doesn't work?
I don't think Stein should be running...it's just that 2000 proved that attack politics don't work against candidates like that.
We are already winning over potential Stein voters by staying positive and focusing on Trump.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)We can make the case for Hillary and condemn Stein for being a totally unqualified candidate and for running ads against Hillary. I am tired of Democrats trying to deflect well deserved criticism away from Stein.
Ken Burch
(50,254 posts)We already know that targeting Stein for attack can't achieve anything. Why do you have so little confidence in our ability to win progressive votes on the merits?
This isn't 2000, where the party was too far to the right to be able to expect those votes. Virtually any progressive who DID vote for Gore that year did so through gritted teeth...none thought a Gore victory would actually lead to gains. And the party had no reason to be as far to the right as it was at that point. We had lost in the Eighties on essentially conservative platforms-
-Balanced budgets ahead of restoring cuts in social spending or environmental/labor law enforcement (Mondale's tax increase proposals were mainly unpopular because the revenue obtained would have gone solely to deficit reduction and thus been of no benefit to the people whatsoever);
-Low inflation given priority over full employment on economic policy(a priority that served only the rich);
-No significant new programs to address poverty;
-No labor law reform, let alone Taft-Hartley repeal;
-Deference to corporate donors on every significant economic and budgetary policy;
-Continued massive increases in the war budget at a time when the Cold War was clearly ending(including 1988 when were no longer in a hostile situation with the Soviet Union at all and Gorbachev had already done everything the U.S. demanded);
-No significant restrictions on the use of nuclear weapons;
-A position on Central America nearly identical to Reagan's(the only difference being we'd have put a Cuban-style embargo on Nicaragua rather than continuing to arm the Contras);
-A near total-abandonment of the antiracist cause.
After which the left wing of the party was blamed for defeats we had nothing whatsoever to do with. Defeats that could not have been avoided given how the party ran those elections(always treating the GOP candidate with special deference, never fighting back against attack ads, no significant amount of money spent on GOTV, no campaign tactics designed to effectively motivate the base to get out and vote(instead, the base-a group whose ONLY crime was continuing to vote Democratic when other people wouldn't-were demonized and disowned in the Nineties).
Everyone in this party needs to own the fact that the party itself caused 2000...that it created the conditions that made it agonizing for progressives to vote for the Democratic candidate that year, that everyone who had been driven away starting in 1992 should have been welcomed back and appealed to rather than just shouted at to vote a certain way.
I think our ticket this year GETS that. It's time for everyone else in the party to acknowledge it to, to learn from it, and to never, ever take the failed path of Nineties politics again. This is a different era and nothing from that time ever needs to be repeated.
senz
(11,945 posts)I learned from it. Thank you.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)
senz
(11,945 posts)
ismnotwasm
(42,674 posts)An Anti-vaxxer piece of shit.
womanofthehills
(10,988 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)like obnoxious, narcissistic and egotistical? Is that okay.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)
LenaBaby61
(6,991 posts) Uponthegears
(1,499 posts)She's a fraud and always has been. She deserves everything she gets.
On the other hand, this selective recall blaming Florida 2000 on liberals is not just bullshit, it's also a fairly obvious dig at the liberals who are poised to change the face of our party.
There is obviously no doubt that, had just a handful of the liberal Democrats who abandoned Gore for Nader had their head up, Florida would have gone for Gore. (No, I'm not going to put that on Gore for slapping liberals in the face by picking Lieberman).
However, given the miniscule margin of victory in Florida, the loss of Florida can ALSO be put squarely on the shoulders of the DLC moderates. Before there were chads, before there was Bush v. Gore, there were people in Florida fighting in court for thousand of convicted felons who were illegally and unconstitutionally stripped from Florida's voter rolls who begged for support from the party only to have it made perfectly clear that convicted felons were not going to become the face of the Democratic Party as they were with Dukakis.
IF the party had stood for the most oppressed among it constituency instead of the most privileged, all the Naderites wouldn't have mattered one whit.
ucrdem
(15,720 posts)And of course it would be Florida that broke for Trump in a squeaker. Here's the link by the way:
https://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2371
Stein has every right to run but this could be a problem. 
Lord Magus
(1,999 posts)Also, Quinnipiac has been projecting a significantly whiter electorate than most other polls, which is no doubt why their numbers have been more favorable to Trump than most other polls.
