Is Jill Stein Going to "Ruin It?"

[Tom Sawyer]

While mathematically true, it ignores the heart of the issue that the Dems face - they didn't appeal to these voters. They didn't feel that Hillary Clinton would advocate for the positions that they think are important. They may have been right or they may have been wrong, but it's Clinton and the Dems who couldn't close the deal with them.

I don't disagree with that either. Clinton's biggest problem is that of feeling entitled to her party's voter base. But this is a new age with a new generation who wont be extorted into supporting a lackluster candidate out of fear of 'the other guy winning'.

Maybe.

 

[zorq]

So, once again, it's the third party candidates who are the problem and the Democrats don't need to make any changes.

I mean it also relies on a few assumptions:

1. that gary johnson (Who got way more support than stein) didn't pull just as many people away from trump if not more

and 2. that at least 15k of the people who voted for stein would have voted for hillary instead

Not entirely unreasonable assumptions but yeah.

1. The question in this thread was whether STEIN ruined it for Clinton, not 3rd parties.

2. Not unreasonable, like you said. But up it to 25,000 needed to split her way to account for the 10,000 who might have split towards Trump.

But I think it is clear that if anyone ruined it for Clinton, it was Clinton. She has only herself to blame. (Or maybe Comey helped)

 

[Deepak]

Trump wins Michigan by 15,000 votes. Stein got 51,000 votes.

NH, AZ, and MI still haven't declared so they haven't contributed to Trump's EV total.

Bye bye any sense of ownership for this loss

I wonder, will the Ds run the most qualified candidate to run for president again next year? I mean she's due at this point...

 

[Terrell]

Trump wins Michigan by 15,000 votes. Stein got 51,000 votes.

NH, AZ, and MI still haven't declared so they haven't contributed to Trump's EV total.

Bye bye any sense of ownership for this loss

I wonder, will the Ds run the most qualified candidate to run for president again next year? I mean she's due at this point...

I doubt HRC will run again. We'll know who will run for the Democratic nomination for the 2020 election no later than August/September of 2019.

 

[LordKiran]

NH, AZ, and MI still haven't declared so they haven't contributed to Trump's EV total.

Bye bye any sense of ownership for this loss

I wonder, will the Ds run the most qualified candidate to run for president again next year? I mean she's due at this point...

I doubt HRC will run again. We'll know who will run for the Democratic nomination for the 2020 election no later than August/September of 2019.

Sanders would be nice but he'll likely be too old by then.

 

[Terrell]

I doubt HRC will run again. We'll know who will run for the Democratic nomination for the 2020 election no later than August/September of 2019.

Sanders would be nice but he'll likely be too old by then.

Likely Warren will be as well, if she's even interested in running. Hopefully there will be a center-left guy with some charisma. Hopefully RBG and SB won't kick the bucket before the Dems can win another presidential election.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Blaming Jill Stein for Hillary's loss is just hilarious. Not only did Stein not get many votes, but those who did vote for her likely wouldn't have voted for Clinton anyway. Clinton's failure is entirely her own. Nobody ruined it for Clinton. Clinton never had a chance to win. Clinton ruined it for Sanders.

 

[ronburgundy]

Blaming Jill Stein for Hillary's loss is just hilarious. Not only did Stein not get many votes, but those who did vote for her likely wouldn't have voted for Clinton anyway. Clinton's failure is entirely her own. Nobody ruined it for Clinton. Clinton never had a chance to win. Clinton ruined it for Sanders.

Clinton had every chance, and would have won it if not for the strategically timed Comey red-herring, which heavily impacted the early voting prior to Comey's "never mind", which was over 30% of the votes in swing states.


HRC definitely under-estimated how many people would buy Trump's lies that a billionaire GOP candidate who, along with most in his party, have made their money on unregulated trade and ideologically oppose regulations will enact the kind of trade crippling protectionism that Trump promised. But it isn't clear what she or any candidate could have done to counter that.

Even Sanders' rhetoric was less protectionists than Trump's. Sanders was more about wage regulations and wealth re-distribution, which are opposed by many of the white Union workers that voted for Trump.
They want their well paid union jobs, but don't generally support anything else that Sanders was about (most of which involves much higher taxes to pay for things they don't support, like college, and disadvantages minorities).

Sander's could easily have done worse in the rust belt, promising a watered down version of the protectionism the Union workers wanted and many things they (as conservatives in most regards but being pro-union) are strongly opposed to.

 

[Sarpedon]

I agree that blaming the third parties is foolish in this respect. They had only a tiny percentage. In the absence of third parties people could have cast protest votes in other ways. And people who truly believe that stuff are entitled to vote for it. I didn't watch Clinton's concession speech. Did it include apologizing for her failures and urging the old guard to step aside for a new generation of leadership?

 

[blastula]

Like I said before, I don't blame any third party for running, that's just democracy, but I do think it's foolish and naive for Stein voters to not have voted Clinton because all the causes they would care about are all worse off now.

 

[Deepak]

So it wasn't Stein after all... it was Steinberg

 

[Derec]

I agree that blaming the third parties is foolish in this respect. They had only a tiny percentage.

If her vote percentage was more than Trump margin of victory in enough states, it is definitely not foolish to blame the third party.

In the absence of third parties people could have cast protest votes in other ways. And people who truly believe that stuff are entitled to vote for it. I didn't watch Clinton's concession speech.

They are entitled to do it. That does not make it any less foolish. If the result of your vote is to make the election of the candidate you disagree with more more likely, then your action is foolish.

 

[Derec]

While mathematically true, it ignores the heart of the issue that the Dems face - they didn't appeal to these voters. They didn't feel that Hillary Clinton would advocate for the positions that they think are important. They may have been right or they may have been wrong, but it's Clinton and the Dems who couldn't close the deal with them.

But those voters got somebody they disagree with much, much more than with Hillary. It's the proverbial cutting your nose to spite your face. I can see "they are as bad as each other" attitude from Johnson supporters, who agree more with Hillary on some issues and Trump on others. But Stein/Green supporters agree with Hillary much more on almost all issues. So their voting for #JillNotHill was counterproductive to put it mildly. They learned nothing whatsoever from Nader 2000.

Democrats are much more likely to look for voters in the meaty middle than on the fringes. There are much more of the former voters, and they can get scared away if radical left wing positions are embraced. Second, the left wing fringe is not easily appeased. For example, the #JillNotHill crowd is also strongly #nodapl, and that does not mean reroute the pipeline, it means being categorically against this pipeline and all pipelines and against domestic drilling altogether.
Or take Bush v. Gore. In the red corner we had a Texan with an oil man (former CEO of an oil services company) as his running mate. In the blue corner we had Mr. ManBearPig Climate Change. But he wasn't good enough for the Naderites because reasons and thus they effected the election of Bush to two terms.

 

[skepticalbip]

NH, AZ, and MI still haven't declared so they haven't contributed to Trump's EV total.

Bye bye any sense of ownership for this loss

I wonder, will the Ds run the most qualified candidate to run for president again next year? I mean she's due at this point...

I doubt HRC will run again. We'll know who will run for the Democratic nomination for the 2020 election no later than August/September of 2019.

Chelsea will be old enough to qualify. Surely the Democrats will be ready for another Clinton by then.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

If her vote percentage was more than Trump margin of victory in enough states, it is definitely not foolish to blame the third party.

Close, this is necessary but not sufficient. A lot of those people might not have voted for Clinton anyway AND a lot of the dislike of Hillary is on Hillary, Hillary's campaign, and the DNC. But anyway, like I wrote, that is a start.

So, Stein's vote percentage was more than Trump margin of victory in the following states:

• Michigan
• Wisconsin
• New Hampshire

It seems like if you ASSUME (it's a bad assumption) all those Jill Stein voters would vote for Hillary, then she'd take those 3 states. But that alone would not have been enough for her to win. Maybe there is something beyond that like the 1 Trump vote in Maine that I haven't looked at, but even so you'd probably only get it down to a tie which would then get settled by the House.

So it seems one of the basic requirements is not fulfilled for claiming Jill Stein "ruined it."

 

[Terrell]

I doubt HRC will run again. We'll know who will run for the Democratic nomination for the 2020 election no later than August/September of 2019.

Chelsea will be old enough to qualify. Surely the Democrats will be ready for another Clinton by then.

I don't think Chelsea is interested. I also don't see a reason to think she'd have the political skills of her father. I definitely want to see the Democrats field a good candidate. I'd like to see a politician that leans slightly left, has good ideas, and has enough political talent to win.

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh for fuck's sake, can we take this blessing in disguise and be done with political dynasties?

We need someone like Duckworth, not Chelsea.

If the Clintons spend the rest of their lives sitting in the front row of the bleachers, smiling and shaking the hands of each new nominee, that is enough of their involvement in my opinion.

I haven't anything against Chelsea, she seems perfectly fine. But the existence of these family establishments puts candidates in a bubble and keeps them out of touch with the voters. It happened to Romney, and it happened to Hillary.

 

[Derec]

 

[Deepak]

Oh for fuck's sake, can we take this blessing in disguise and be done with political dynasties?

We need someone like Duckworth, not Chelsea.

If the Clintons spend the rest of their lives sitting in the front row of the bleachers, smiling and shaking the hands of each new nominee, that is enough of their involvement in my opinion.

I haven't anything against Chelsea, she seems perfectly fine. But the existence of these family establishments puts candidates in a bubble and keeps them out of touch with the voters. It happened to Romney, and it happened to Hillary.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/repo...aring-to-run-for-new-york-congressional-seat/

 

[skepticalbip]

Oh for fuck's sake, can we take this blessing in disguise and be done with political dynasties?

We need someone like Duckworth, not Chelsea.

If the Clintons spend the rest of their lives sitting in the front row of the bleachers, smiling and shaking the hands of each new nominee, that is enough of their involvement in my opinion.

I haven't anything against Chelsea, she seems perfectly fine. But the existence of these family establishments puts candidates in a bubble and keeps them out of touch with the voters. It happened to Romney, and it happened to Hillary.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/repo...aring-to-run-for-new-york-congressional-seat/

Oh shit. I mentioned Chelsea as a presidential candidate as a joke assuming that the Democrats were as sick of political family dynasties as the Republicans were for this election evidenced by them quickly dumping Jeb Bush and the Bush family.

Please tell me that Chelsea isn't considering building up a political resume so she can run for President.