That lie of progressives electing Trump spread as fake news was thoroughly debunked years ago by good data . Readers, please share the study whenever you see the lie posted.
That lie of progressives electing Trump spread as fake news was thoroughly debunked years ago by good data . Readers, please share the study whenever you see the lie posted.
Had it not been for progressives voting for Clinton in 2016, thanks to the leadership of Bernie Sanders, Hillary would have also lost the popular vote in a landslide as well as the electoral college. If anything kept Democrats from actively voting, it was believing the hubris spread by corporate media like the New York Times telling subscribers that the election of HRC was already in the bag.
Realize that Bernie had about 45% of the delegates at the 2016 Democratic Party convention, which represented a HUGE number of voters. After HRC and Wasserman Schultz violated the Party Bylaws and rigged the election midterm for Hillary, Stein was the only viable progressive candidate option left to rank & file Democrats. Had Democratic progressives staged a protest vote, the Green party would have surged above past votes for Stein. In 2016, the vote count showed the Greens still showed up by themselves for Stein. This happened at the same time that the Libertarians drew several times more votes from D. Trump than J. Stein drew from Clinton. Third parties ultimately in sum only helped HRC.
But Ed, in the few states that counted in the end - Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania - Stein’s votes would have allowed Clinton to win. She had already won more votes nationwide, by a large margin, and I agree that the DNC really hurt us by making Clinton inevitable.
"But Ed, in the few states that counted in the end - Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania - Stein’s votes would have allowed Clinton to win. She had already won more votes nationwide, by a large margin, and I agree that the DNC really hurt us by making Clinton inevitable."
So the urban legend claims. However, I think it is a disingenuous argument and here is why. Stein's voters voted for the progressive agenda championed by Sanders like universal health care, which Democrats' operatives had overtly rejected and even sneered at. There was no reason for Stein's voters to have voted for Clinton. It is more likely that they would not have voted at all or perhaps protest-voted (based on anger, not logic) for the other third party, Libertarians. OK, but just suppose all of Stein's voters, ALL of them, had voted for Clinton. In all three states, Libertarian turnout was 3 to 3.4x that of Stein's Green Party. If you are going to add third party candidates likely voters to the hypothetically popular vote count of the two major cartel parties, putting all of the Stein's votes in Clinton's and all of Johnson's votes into Trump's would mean landslide wins in all three states for Trump. I don't think one can argue that popular support in 2016 really leaned toward favoring the Democratic contenders of any of these three states.
The popular win by Clinton is nothing to brag about. Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes but won California by 4.3 million votes. One could thus argue that she won CA but lost the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes.
My opinion is that the DNC in 2016, as led by Podesta and Wasserman-Schultz, destroyed the credibility of the Democratic Party. After that, even the Democratic Party voting "in solidarity" for Clinton, which we pretty much did do, wasn't enough to prevent Trump. The Independents that we Democrats needed could no longer trust a party exposed as rigging its own primary. Unless our Party regains credibility, we will get killed in the coming elections. Many independents will be just voting against the Party, not just for or against our candidates.
That lie of progressives electing Trump spread as fake news was thoroughly debunked years ago by good data . Readers, please share the study whenever you see the lie posted.
<https://extranewsfeed.com/setting-the-record-straight-on-sanders-voters-elected-trump-1d6876e0ce73>
Had it not been for progressives voting for Clinton in 2016, thanks to the leadership of Bernie Sanders, Hillary would have also lost the popular vote in a landslide as well as the electoral college. If anything kept Democrats from actively voting, it was believing the hubris spread by corporate media like the New York Times telling subscribers that the election of HRC was already in the bag.
I still blame Jill Stein.
Believe the data.
Realize that Bernie had about 45% of the delegates at the 2016 Democratic Party convention, which represented a HUGE number of voters. After HRC and Wasserman Schultz violated the Party Bylaws and rigged the election midterm for Hillary, Stein was the only viable progressive candidate option left to rank & file Democrats. Had Democratic progressives staged a protest vote, the Green party would have surged above past votes for Stein. In 2016, the vote count showed the Greens still showed up by themselves for Stein. This happened at the same time that the Libertarians drew several times more votes from D. Trump than J. Stein drew from Clinton. Third parties ultimately in sum only helped HRC.
But Ed, in the few states that counted in the end - Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania - Stein’s votes would have allowed Clinton to win. She had already won more votes nationwide, by a large margin, and I agree that the DNC really hurt us by making Clinton inevitable.
"But Ed, in the few states that counted in the end - Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania - Stein’s votes would have allowed Clinton to win. She had already won more votes nationwide, by a large margin, and I agree that the DNC really hurt us by making Clinton inevitable."
So the urban legend claims. However, I think it is a disingenuous argument and here is why. Stein's voters voted for the progressive agenda championed by Sanders like universal health care, which Democrats' operatives had overtly rejected and even sneered at. There was no reason for Stein's voters to have voted for Clinton. It is more likely that they would not have voted at all or perhaps protest-voted (based on anger, not logic) for the other third party, Libertarians. OK, but just suppose all of Stein's voters, ALL of them, had voted for Clinton. In all three states, Libertarian turnout was 3 to 3.4x that of Stein's Green Party. If you are going to add third party candidates likely voters to the hypothetically popular vote count of the two major cartel parties, putting all of the Stein's votes in Clinton's and all of Johnson's votes into Trump's would mean landslide wins in all three states for Trump. I don't think one can argue that popular support in 2016 really leaned toward favoring the Democratic contenders of any of these three states.
The popular win by Clinton is nothing to brag about. Clinton won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes but won California by 4.3 million votes. One could thus argue that she won CA but lost the rest of the country by 1.4 million votes.
My opinion is that the DNC in 2016, as led by Podesta and Wasserman-Schultz, destroyed the credibility of the Democratic Party. After that, even the Democratic Party voting "in solidarity" for Clinton, which we pretty much did do, wasn't enough to prevent Trump. The Independents that we Democrats needed could no longer trust a party exposed as rigging its own primary. Unless our Party regains credibility, we will get killed in the coming elections. Many independents will be just voting against the Party, not just for or against our candidates.