Is Jill Stein Going to "Ruin It?"

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Stein is polling at 3% right now. I imagine in a swing state like Florida on Election Day she may get 1%. With the race this close, is she going to get the blame if Drumpf wins?

I really don't think that would be fair for Stein to take the 100% full heat given huge blunders by Clinton and her campaign. If Clinton were more honest, she'd make up the difference. I know there were other variables, too, like hackers, but still if Clinton and campaign's personal flaws were less so, she'd make up the difference.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I don't think so. Stein won't likely receive many votes that would have gone to Clinton otherwise.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Stein is polling at 3% right now. I imagine in a swing state like Florida on Election Day she may get 1%. With the race this close, is she going to get the blame if Drumpf wins?

I really don't think that would be fair for Stein to take the 100% full heat given huge blunders by Clinton and her campaign. If Clinton were more honest, she'd make up the difference. I know there were other variables, too, like hackers, but still if Clinton and campaign's personal flaws were less so, she'd make up the difference.

For whatever reason, there are always more people on the left who will vote third party than on the right. People on the right tend to be more willing to hold their nose, whereas those on the left tend to be more open to vote third party. It's just frustrating to be on the losing side all the time......

 

[funinspace]

Polling seems to reflect a little bit of wishful thinking as far as 3rd parties go. Jill Stein got 0.36% back in 2012, just as Gary Johnson got 0.99%. Neither of these candidates are going to get substantially more than they got in 2012. I could see Johnson maybe breaking the 1% barrier just due to the fact that there are still a small minority of Repugs that find Trump offensive; but I'd be shocked if he broke 2% nationally.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Polling seems to reflect a little bit of wishful thinking as far as 3rd parties go. Jill Stein got 0.36% back in 2012, just as Gary Johnson got 0.99%. Neither of these candidates are going to get substantially more than they got in 2012. I could see Johnson maybe breaking the 1% barrier just due to the fact that there are still a small minority of Repugs that find Trump offensive; but I'd be shocked if he broke 2% nationally.

Correct. Both are trending to obscurity, at least in battleground states. This won't be a Nader election.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Stein is polling at 3% right now. I imagine in a swing state like Florida on Election Day she may get 1%. With the race this close, is she going to get the blame if Drumpf wins?

I really don't think that would be fair for Stein to take the 100% full heat given huge blunders by Clinton and her campaign. If Clinton were more honest, she'd make up the difference. I know there were other variables, too, like hackers, but still if Clinton and campaign's personal flaws were less so, she'd make up the difference.

For whatever reason, there are always more people on the left who will vote third party than on the right.

Always? Then explain John Anderson, Ross Perot, and in this election, Gary Johnson?

People on the right tend to be more willing to hold their nose, whereas those on the left tend to be more open to vote third party. It's just frustrating to be on the losing side all the time......

 

[funinspace]

For whatever reason, there are always more people on the left who will vote third party than on the right.

Always? Then explain John Anderson, Ross Perot, and in this election, Gary Johnson?

People on the right tend to be more willing to hold their nose, whereas those on the left tend to be more open to vote third party. It's just frustrating to be on the losing side all the time......

It's easy, libertarians aren't on the right

 

[Harry Bosch]

For whatever reason, there are always more people on the left who will vote third party than on the right.

Always? Then explain John Anderson, Ross Perot, and in this election, Gary Johnson?

People on the right tend to be more willing to hold their nose, whereas those on the left tend to be more open to vote third party. It's just frustrating to be on the losing side all the time......

John Anderson was a little before my time! He ran in 1980? I don't know much about him. I know that exit polls have shown that more democrats vote for Perot and Johnson than republicans. I think that the common theme here is social issues. There are many moderates who would vote democratic but vote libertarian or Perot. Social voters on the right will always vote for the most viable republican.

I think that another issue here is the supreme court. People on the right have their eye on the supreme court. People on the left aren't as focused on the supreme court for whatever reason.

 

[Funkytrip]

Stein is polling at 3% right now. I imagine in a swing state like Florida on Election Day she may get 1%. With the race this close, is she going to get the blame if Drumpf wins?

I really don't think that would be fair for Stein to take the 100% full heat given huge blunders by Clinton and her campaign. If Clinton were more honest, she'd make up the difference. I know there were other variables, too, like hackers, but still if Clinton and campaign's personal flaws were less so, she'd make up the difference.

For whatever reason, there are always more people on the left who will vote third party than on the right. People on the right tend to be more willing to hold their nose, whereas those on the left tend to be more open to vote third party. It's just frustrating to be on the losing side all the time......

You only lose because you fuck up everytime by not voting when it matters. For the house, for the senate etc. You have a frickin' absolute majority, but GOPers go out and vote. And you lose. Again.

 

[Deepak]

She is going to get the blame even if Trump loses. The Dems put up a candidate to run against the Republicans and therefore those votes are their goddamn birthright.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

If Stein "Ruins it" for HRC, that would mean the Stein and Trump beat HRC. This woman (HRC) has been running for the presidency since 2001 with the blassings of a major political party and all the money she could ever want and in the end this woman gets beaten by a reality show star and minor party candidate nobody even heard of before last Thursday. That would make HRC the weakest candidate to ever seek office, any office, including dog catcher.

Is that the narrative anyone wants to sell?

 

[Juma]

If Stein "Ruins it" for HRC, that would mean the Stein and Trump beat HRC. This woman (HRC) has been running for the presidency since 2001 with the blassings of a major political party and all the money she could ever want and in the end this woman gets beaten by a reality show star and minor party candidate nobody even heard of before last Thursday. That would make HRC the weakest candidate to ever seek office, any office, including dog catcher.

Is that the narrative anyone wants to sell?

Dont forget the propaganda machine of the republican herd..

 

[blastula]

I don't know about blame, but I think it's self-defeating for any liberal not to vote for Clinton. All the issues they care about will have a better chance of being achieved with Clinton. The vote does not just change who lives in the WH alone, it affects all federal appointments and regulations, including environmental. Do you want Eric Trump to be the head of HUD? Inhofe to head the EPA? Not to mention the Supreme Court. Say goodby to Obergefell and Roe instead of saying hello to overturning Citizens United. The damage that Republicans do with the government have the biggest effect on the most vulnerable in society. If not for your sake, think of the children!

 

[fast]

Always? Then explain John Anderson, Ross Perot, and in this election, Gary Johnson?

People on the right tend to be more willing to hold their nose, whereas those on the left tend to be more open to vote third party. It's just frustrating to be on the losing side all the time......

John Anderson was a little before my time! He ran in 1980? I don't know much about him. I know that exit polls have shown that more democrats vote for Perot and Johnson than republicans. I think that the common theme here is social issues. There are many moderates who would vote democratic but vote libertarian or Perot. Social voters on the right will always vote for the most viable republican.

I think that another issue here is the supreme court. People on the right have their eye on the supreme court. People on the left aren't as focused on the supreme court for whatever reason.

More Democrats than Republicans for Perot? I didn't know that.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Always? Then explain John Anderson, Ross Perot, and in this election, Gary Johnson?

People on the right tend to be more willing to hold their nose, whereas those on the left tend to be more open to vote third party. It's just frustrating to be on the losing side all the time......

John Anderson was a little before my time! He ran in 1980? I don't know much about him. I know that exit polls have shown that more democrats vote for Perot and Johnson than republicans. I think that the common theme here is social issues. There are many moderates who would vote democratic but vote libertarian or Perot. Social voters on the right will always vote for the most viable republican.

I think that another issue here is the supreme court. People on the right have their eye on the supreme court. People on the left aren't as focused on the supreme court for whatever reason.

More Democrats than Republicans for Perot? I didn't know that.

Below link stated that 38% of Perot voters second choice was Clinton, while 38% second choice was Bush. So, the Perot voters seems to be a wash.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ross-perot-myth-reborn-amid-rumors-third-party-trump-candidacy

 

[whichphilosophy]

If Stein "Ruins it" for HRC, that would mean the Stein and Trump beat HRC. This woman (HRC) has been running for the presidency since 2001 with the blassings of a major political party and all the money she could ever want and in the end this woman gets beaten by a reality show star and minor party candidate nobody even heard of before last Thursday. That would make HRC the weakest candidate to ever seek office, any office, including dog catcher.

Is that the narrative anyone wants to sell?

A lot of people have heard of the Green Party and the Libertarians but even if they cover the majority of States they get no coverage which is unlike Europe. Europe and the UK have several parties in their parliaments as those with sufficient support or proportional support can gain seats.

Parties fielding a sufficient number of candidates will be allowed air time.

If a small party gains enough votes cause an imbalance, that is democracy. In Europe where there is proportional representation, this means parties in government with a coalition.

The US is a two party state where there is no clear line between the two and other parties are excluded from debates except by opinion polls rather than the number of seats they are contesting. This effectively means they cannot have a chance to gain support or make a fool of themselves until they already have a large support.

 

[SLD]

Stein is polling at 3% right now. I imagine in a swing state like Florida on Election Day she may get 1%. With the race this close, is she going to get the blame if Drumpf wins?

I really don't think that would be fair for Stein to take the 100% full heat given huge blunders by Clinton and her campaign. If Clinton were more honest, she'd make up the difference. I know there were other variables, too, like hackers, but still if Clinton and campaign's personal flaws were less so, she'd make up the difference.

more honest? Jeez talk about a double standard. She has the highest honesty ratings from Politifact, even higher than Bernie's! Clinton is ten times more honest than Trump. Yet it's never enough. This is such bullshit. She's not only a great candidate, who trounced Trump one on one. She's also going to make a damn fine president, smart, tough and experienced. Her real problem is that she's a woman. And since about 4640 BC, men just haven't trusted them, no matter how honest they appear.

SLD

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

HRC's problem is that she has been a target of a far right hate campaign for decades now. So when she wins, the rightards will writhe and snarl. That makes me happy. Here is hoping that the right is so over the top in their hate and obstructionism that in 2018 it costs them the House and a bigger loss in the Senate as America finally gets tired of them.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

HRC's problem is that she has been a target of a far right hate campaign for decades now. So when she wins, the rightards will writhe and snarl. That makes me happy. Here is hoping that the right is so over the top in their hate and obstructionism that in 2018 it costs them the House and a bigger loss in the Senate as America finally gets tired of them.

Regardless of who wins, we are still left with a large enboldened group of hard right, well armed, angry people who "want their country back." Forgive me if I don't feel happy or hopeful about that.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Stein is polling at 3% right now. I imagine in a swing state like Florida on Election Day she may get 1%. With the race this close, is she going to get the blame if Drumpf wins?

I really don't think that would be fair for Stein to take the 100% full heat given huge blunders by Clinton and her campaign. If Clinton were more honest, she'd make up the difference. I know there were other variables, too, like hackers, but still if Clinton and campaign's personal flaws were less so, she'd make up the difference.

more honest? Jeez talk about a double standard. She has the highest honesty ratings from Politifact, even higher than Bernie's! Clinton is ten times more honest than Trump. Yet it's never enough. This is such bullshit. She's not only a great candidate, who trounced Trump one on one. She's also going to make a damn fine president, smart, tough and experienced. Her real problem is that she's a woman. And since about 4640 BC, men just haven't trusted them, no matter how honest they appear.

SLD

Dude; are you kidding me!??! She's anti science and anti vaccine. As she does well, she aides Trump.