General Discussion

stopbush

(24,852 posts)

128. I know too many Ds out here in CA who voted third party

Thu Feb 16, 2017, 06:57 PM

Feb 2017

as a protest vote against Hillary. Their reasoning? "CA will go for Hillary anyway. It's not like I live in a swing state."

Fine. Except that these same voters living in "safe states" spent all summer and all fall on social media trashing Hillary. I guess it never occured to them that maybe they might poison the waters for Hillary with their friends living in swing states, where their third-party votes made a huge difference.

You can't tell me it wouldn't have been a different story if Sanders, Stein and others had thrown their support behind Hillary in March or April, when it was clear their support would have made a difference, and when it was clear the nomination was hers. But, no, they kept up the Hillary bashing well into the season when people start paying attention, and that cost her votes.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

137 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

In defense of Susan Sarandon, and by extension Jill Stein et. al. ? [View all] guillaumeb Feb 2017 OP

OFFS....this election proved we had the numbers without the Farthest Left. We need EC strategy. msanthrope Feb 2017 #1

My point is about complacency. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #5

Tell me the telling signs of complacency you see since Trump's election. nt msanthrope Feb 2017 #26

Fourth paragraph of my post: guillaumeb Feb 2017 #29

That's nonsensical. We lost because of the red counties. Tell me exactly how appeasing the Far msanthrope Feb 2017 #88

after this election no one should ever try to appease them starshine00 Feb 2017 #91

Exactly. nt msanthrope Feb 2017 #95

We lost for a number of reasons. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #97

Thank you proving my point. If the far Left had nothing to do with losing..then why consider them? msanthrope Feb 2017 #101

My point is about complacency. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #103

What you call complacency may also be considered disillusionment Caliman73 Feb 2017 #125

this is a beautiful thing to read, your headline. starshine00 Feb 2017 #86

I'm kinda fucking done with Chamberlain appeasement. nt msanthrope Feb 2017 #98

Tell that to the immigrants being arrested Beaverhausen Feb 2017 #2

Bernie Busters won't listen. They're too busy calling for the world to burn. Charles Bukowski Feb 2017 #4

Dismissive? Prone to generalize? eom guillaumeb Feb 2017 #7

Anecdotal for sure, but I have yet to run into an apologetic Charles Bukowski Feb 2017 #10

As I already mentioned to another responder, guillaumeb Feb 2017 #13

I can't envision a scenario in which Democrats rush to the voting Charles Bukowski Feb 2017 #25

Complacency refers to the non-voting tendency of some Democrats. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #27

I don't see turnout being an issue this time. Charles Bukowski Feb 2017 #30

For the sake of the country, we both hope you are correct. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #32

Unfortunately there's more voter suppression & gerrymandering in place than in 2006 MrPurple Feb 2017 #106

what is a bernie buster? starshine00 Feb 2017 #87

The mythical Bernie voter who will only vote for Bernie. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #100

I met some of them on twitter starshine00 Feb 2017 #107

No doubt. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #109

i don't understand this approach to politics starshine00 Feb 2017 #112

Do you mean the "burn down the house and then rebuild" approach? guillaumeb Feb 2017 #115

in my heart, I do not believe they thought it would go this far. starshine00 Feb 2017 #119

I also felt that Clinton would easily win. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #122

There's nothing mythical about the Bernie Buster. Charles Bukowski Feb 2017 #116

Many things contributed. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #117

I agree. But what of Democratic complacency? eom guillaumeb Feb 2017 #8

Sarandon and Stein are indefensible. Don't want to see any thread defending them on DU ever again. Justice Feb 2017 #3

Did you read ALL of what I wrote? guillaumeb Feb 2017 #6

I just heard Maddow noting that Stein is at the table w/Flynn & Putin in that photo starshine00 Feb 2017 #89

Exactly! Is this Democratic Underground Chevy Feb 2017 #113

"Limo Liberals" as msanthrope pointed out, are not going to do squat in red areas. joshcryer Feb 2017 #9

The title aside, guillaumeb Feb 2017 #11

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc LanternWaste Feb 2017 #44

2010 and 2014 were both low turnout elections. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #102

I don't think economic class is the issue starshine00 Feb 2017 #93

She's just a rich, white, privileged actress. Cattledog Feb 2017 #12

Which does not speak to my points. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #14

yes, why don't you examine why your sympathies seem to lie with these over privileged fools La Lioness Priyanka Feb 2017 #17

I suggest that you read the post, not just the title. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #19

i did. nt La Lioness Priyanka Feb 2017 #20

If you did, I can see no reason for your dismissive responses. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #22

i disagree with your entire narrative that minimizes harms and excuses those who allowed this to La Lioness Priyanka Feb 2017 #31

Please point out where I said or implied that. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #35

By saying they did Democrats a favor you are minimizing all the harm he is doing. JTFrog Feb 2017 #43

I am merely looking for the positive in a negative situation. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #114

I find it bemusing you believe anyone who disagrees with your premise LanternWaste Feb 2017 #46

Based on the numerous responses that accuse me of supporting the idea of 3rd party voting, guillaumeb Feb 2017 #55

Well your subject line specifically says "in defense of". JTFrog Feb 2017 #57

I felt that the post made it clear. I am addressing complacency. And non-voting. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #61

I get enough of this round about bullshit from Trump. JTFrog Feb 2017 #63

multimillionaires and hucksters don't need your support La Lioness Priyanka Feb 2017 #15

Noam Chomsky said it best why the OP's premise is wrong still_one Feb 2017 #16

This. done. TeamPooka Feb 2017 #18

I am not disputing Chomsky's analysis. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #21

I didn't say you agreed with their positions, but I was addressing the point that a trump still_one Feb 2017 #47

The damage was done when Kobach and Putin and Comey weighed in. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #50

It was a terrible argument before the election. StubbornThings Feb 2017 #62

Maybe clarity of writing rather than reading comprehension is at fault. LanternWaste Feb 2017 #49

Other than the title, which makes sense if the post is read in its entirety, guillaumeb Feb 2017 #51

Your OP makes perfect sense. StubbornThings Feb 2017 #66

Here's why you're wrong about Jill Stein, and about people who suppported stopbush Feb 2017 #23

No argument with your points, as my post actually shows. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #24

You keep banging on about your post content Blue Idaho Feb 2017 #36

look who else came to dinner starshine00 Feb 2017 #94

"Took away" zipplewrath Feb 2017 #120

I know too many Ds out here in CA who voted third party stopbush Feb 2017 #128

Well, now you're changing your story zipplewrath Feb 2017 #137

It's an out to dodge responsibility for the damage they did. Not buying it. bettyellen Feb 2017 #28

The BOB idiots are happy that trump was elected Gothmog Feb 2017 #34

Off my topic and off my point. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #39

Not at all- this is just advocating (again) that "burning it down" is a good thing... bettyellen Feb 2017 #54

No it is not advocating the "burn it down" philosophy. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #59

No one doubts there's been too much complacency- but she advocated "the burn" as a solution.... bettyellen Feb 2017 #72

They screamed "burn it down" and are shocked people have a problem with it? bettyellen Feb 2017 #45

my theory based on the kids I argued with on social media starshine00 Feb 2017 #118

My point, in the middle of the post: guillaumeb Feb 2017 #37

yes bettyellen yes starshine00 Feb 2017 #96

Sarandon also supported Nader who gave us Bush Gothmog Feb 2017 #33

Not my point at all, even if the title suggests it: guillaumeb Feb 2017 #40

I disagree with the premise of her opinion LanternWaste Feb 2017 #38

Understood. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #41

You are right, of course. There is a silver lining in all the activism. alarimer Feb 2017 #42

Thank you. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #48

Well said, and my feelings about this, as well. JudyM Feb 2017 #74

Sarandon: I want you to sacrifice yourself and your children for my agenda. Sort of like Trump delisen Feb 2017 #52

"if we look at the position that Trump is somehow, on some level, preferable to Clinton" JTFrog Feb 2017 #53

I was speaking to the Sarandon position, or how I perceive her position to be, guillaumeb Feb 2017 #67

I agree with you on one thing.. JHan Feb 2017 #56

We are in agreement on all points. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #68

Are you serious with this, G? bravenak Feb 2017 #58

++++ I don't get it either... I didn't need any "revolution".. JHan Feb 2017 #69

Yes. Definately a WPP. bravenak Feb 2017 #71

Plus forever ismnotwasm Feb 2017 #75

I think they never will bravenak Feb 2017 #76

And if the people aren't more awake to rise up against him we will lose everything. JudyM Feb 2017 #79

You won't lose anything from this compared to us who have never managed to gain bravenak Feb 2017 #82

Completely agree about the privileges, it's disgusting. I also think whatever wakes people up JudyM Feb 2017 #104

***THIS*** JTFrog Feb 2017 #70

I am serious about my point. That complacency by Democratic voters leads guillaumeb Feb 2017 #77

Did any of your family ever get deported? Mine did. bravenak Feb 2017 #81

This matter does not really relate to my post about voter complacency. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #83

Your post was silly bravenak Feb 2017 #85

All our children mcar Feb 2017 #129

Agreed bravenak Feb 2017 #130

I hate them all mcar Feb 2017 #131

Me too bravenak Feb 2017 #132

It is "et al." - not "et. al." Latin: et alia means "and others" in English. "Et" is not abbreviated anneboleyn Feb 2017 #60

I sit corrected. Literally. I am sitting. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #78

Unrec tenderfoot Feb 2017 #64

I agree that Dems need to be engaged beyond the presidency. DanTex Feb 2017 #65

Not literally a defense, more of a search for the good in a very bad situation. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #80

"The position that Trump is somehow, on some level, preferable to Clinton ismnotwasm Feb 2017 #73

That position was Sarandon's. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #84

sorry, I'm not a big believer in burning down the nation to save it Blue_Tires Feb 2017 #90

No argument. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #99

I prefer the term 'cocktail socialists'. applegrove Feb 2017 #92

Both terms fit. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #105

Yes. They do not lose their Healthcare when they have a preexisting condition applegrove Feb 2017 #108

My defense of them is that they have a right to be as loony left as they want. Warpy Feb 2017 #110

True. I defend their right to have an opinion, guillaumeb Feb 2017 #111

Wishing suffering on the poor and oppressed BainsBane Feb 2017 #121

I do not know if enjoyment is the correct word. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #123

Whatever it is BainsBane Feb 2017 #124

I'm not going to defend them in any way. Not even Bernie Sanders. hunter Feb 2017 #126

I also vote practically. A good way to describe it. guillaumeb Feb 2017 #127

I'm not that generous of heart. hunter Feb 2017 #133

Or they feel that voting in Presidential elections is sufficient? guillaumeb Feb 2017 #134

Sufficient for what? hunter Feb 2017 #135

True. But I was talking about the unfortunate tendency of some guillaumeb Feb 2017 #136