Who's most at fault in this scenario, Sid?

The Republicans, for trying to pull a fast one?

The Democrats who might fall for the ruse?

Or the Green Party for .... what? Existing?

Whichever it may be, I would only suggest that use of the verb "siphon" suggests that elections are a zero-sum game. They are not. Ever.

Election turnout in every single election, everywhere in the United States and perhaps many other nations, is based on a host of variable factors; some within the control of those who conduct the elections (voter disqualification/suppression/disenfranchisement), some within the influence of those who desire a specific outcome (the candidates, their campaigns, the money they raise and spend on advertising and field efforts to GOTV. etc.) and some mostly not within anyone's influence or control (media coverage, the weather on Election Day, unforeseen developments such as the death of one candidate prior to the election, blah blah blah).

Thus the number of people voting is not predictable to any degree of certainty. It is estimable to a degree of reasonableness, but uncertifiable until after the voting is concluded. (Usually several days after.) So "siphoning" of votes from one candidate to another is simply an urban legend. For example, when Democrats vote for Republicans -- or vice versa -- in a two-horse race, we don't call that siphoning. Or even poaching or purloining. We call it "crossover", "split-ticket", "voting for persons not parties", and other terms, some not meant to insult the intelligence of those voters (and some that are).

TLDR: Votes are earned or they are lost. Period.

And I think it insults Democrats who would be civic-minded enough to cast a ballot to assume that they would be so stupid that they would vote for a Green instead of a Democrat if they saw the two running for the same office on their ballot. This presumption of low voter intelligence would be a hallmark of GOP consultant advice.

+1

Really?

"If you are proud of and still agree with everything you posted on social media platforms then you need to STFU and go find your own planet to live on..."

Finally

a thread I can recommend (for the four comments not from those I already have on 'ignore')

Truly

This is where we are now.

At the end of today, she's skipping a public appearance

So Franken didn't admit

to the behavior and didn't apologize?

That's all Spider said; you said that was all "literally untrue".

The NYT (and literally hundreds of other reputable news sources) reported otherwise. Were they "literally untrue" as well?

Perhaps we can agree that Franken got railroaded (including by Kristen Gillibrand and other Democratic senators). Whatever the case may be, the diversion to Franken in the OP is a false equivalency to Joy Reid's dilemma. For one example, I don't recall Al saying initially that those pictures were Photoshopped.

This reads like a personal attack

Not something you are known around here for making, grant.

This would be a false equivalency

Did you also claim someone hacked your blog and wrote those ignorant things when they were recently made public?

+1