-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 10, 2019, 09:19:32 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: peteramescarlin.com
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 73 74 75 76 77 [78] 79 80 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 216843 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
♩♬🐸 Sorry Entertainer ♯♫♩🐇
The Dr. of Wilsonomics
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 10894


🍦🍦 Hi...how are you? ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #1925 on: November 13, 2016, 09:09:54 AM »

But Clinton was neither and anyone who wasted their vote, or didn't vote, didn't really participate!  Illy, sorry but your vote was wasted. Might as well have voted for Mickey Mouse. There were only two electable choices, period!

The problem with this idea is in many states, there's really only one electable candidate.  If you live in a deep red state for example...yeah, it's not turning blue no matter what you do.  The popular vote means nothing and that's the real problem here.

*back to lurking*

Exactly! If I lived in a state where Clinton had a chance, I may have been forced to vote for clinton.  Texas was not going to turn blue, so I could vote Green like I wanted to with no consequences and a free conscience
Logged

RIP Daniel Dale Johnston ( 1961-2019)
_______________________________________________________
Fear 2 Stop: eating all of Elon Musk's nightmares as he sleeps

"I've never heard such ear-pleasing screams before!"
___________________________________________________


"I’d rather die than owe the hospital Till I get old/ I get adrenalin straight to the heart/ like Uma Thurman overdosing kick-start/ Anaphylactic and super hypocondriactic "

^ This fake quote brought to you by "Oyster Pudding™ ....the Pudding with the Pearl inside!"
RJM
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


Woof!!!


View Profile
« Reply #1926 on: November 13, 2016, 09:35:40 AM »

Exactly. She had no chance (or any Democrat) in Missouri either and wound up getting trounced.
Logged

The world could come together as one
If everybody under the sun
Adds some 🎼 to your day
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #1927 on: November 13, 2016, 09:51:13 AM »

This was my logic as well, but as Minnesota was scarily close in the late polls, I did decide on Clinton. And she won Minnesota.

And damnit, I just posted in the campaign thread again! This is why I'd never make a dramatic announcement if I left the board: I cry wolf too damn much.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
RJM
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 679


Woof!!!


View Profile
« Reply #1928 on: November 13, 2016, 10:21:48 AM »

This was not a typical election cycle. In a typical cycle, Hillary probably would have crushed any Republican in her sleep.  But it was the Year of the Outsider and Hillary was always going to have an uphill battle.
Logged

The world could come together as one
If everybody under the sun
Adds some 🎼 to your day
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1929 on: November 13, 2016, 11:30:59 AM »

Unlikely. She's usually popular in office. She was extremely popular as Sec. of State. But she's not popular when her gross, unfeminine ambition shows.
No one is exempt from their culture.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/nov/12/hillary-clinton-we-failed-her-sarah-churchwell
Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #1930 on: November 13, 2016, 11:58:40 AM »

But Clinton was neither and anyone who wasted their vote, or didn't vote, didn't really participate!  Illy, sorry but your vote was wasted. Might as well have voted for Mickey Mouse. There were only two electable choices, period!

The problem with this idea is in many states, there's really only one electable candidate.  If you live in a deep red state for example...yeah, it's not turning blue no matter what you do.  The popular vote means nothing and that's the real problem here.

*back to lurking*

Exactly! If I lived in a state where Clinton had a chance, I may have been forced to vote for clinton.  Texas was not going to turn blue, so I could vote Green like I wanted to with no consequences and a free conscience

It's not just where you live or the actual vote. Your (all 3rd party voters) presence on social media had an influence. Your posts here about how bad Clinton is, on Facebook, Twitter, ...

The 3rd party vote alone didn't defeat Clinton.  Her VP choice was uninspired.  Warren could have fired up the base, Bernie even more. They were over confident and misjudged the electorate.  They wasted resources by campaigning in States that they didn't need (Arizona). Media coverage got fixated on her emails and she dropped the ball by not making Trump's taxes and Trump University issues equal to her emails. Her reluctance to hold press conference s was a big mistake.  And finally, the Comey letters were final nails in her coffin.
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1931 on: November 13, 2016, 12:02:58 PM »

Trump won and Clinton lost. Stein could have bowed out and put the environment ahead of her ego.
Many articles on how 3rd party candidates were a factor in Clinton losing. Probably so. But the people who voted 3rd party did so with their eyes wide open. I don't want to hear their whining when Republicans start dismantling environmental protection and cutting their food stamps. If they are out their protesting Trump now, shame on them!

Sorry, but the evidence shows that Trump would have won with or without Jill Stein in the elections. The Democrats right now are desperate to blame anyone but themselves, hence the many articles that you are referring to.

Evidence shows? Bullcrap! Aside from conspiracy FB pages, where is your evidence?

It really had an effect and contributed to Clinton's loss. Dozens of analysts coming out. Here is one:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/third-party-candidates-having-outsize-impact-election-n680921

The evidence shows conclusively that without Jill Stein, Clinton may have won Michigan and Wisconsin (assuming, as we shouldn't, that all Stein votes go to Clinton). However, Clinton still would have lost Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, even if you give all of Stein's votes to Clinton, giving Trump the presidency. The article you link to doesn't actually examine the numbers in that way, though. Probably because they wouldn't care for the results. Again, it's much easier to point fingers at others.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2016, 12:04:50 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1932 on: November 13, 2016, 12:07:16 PM »

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/11/13576798/jill-stein-third-party-donald-trump-win
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1933 on: November 13, 2016, 12:09:02 PM »

It's not just where you live or the actual vote. Your (all 3rd party voters) presence on social media had an influence. Your posts here about how bad Clinton is, on Facebook, Twitter, ...

Good lord. So now people were not even supposed to *talk* about how bad she was?
Logged
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #1934 on: November 13, 2016, 12:12:42 PM »

   Both parties faced populist insurgencies. In the case of the GOP, the insurgents actually won. Trump literally hijacked the Republican Party. Had the DNC not been in collusion with the Clinton Campaign every step of the way, the Sanders insurgency would have likely prevailed with Bernie winning the nomination. The firewall worked. The establishment candidate got the nomination and lost the election.

 This election was about far more than the elements of misogyny, xenophobia, and racism that undoubtedly do exist. The bigger story is that people voted against the establishment.

 The DNC needs to be scrubbed clean of hacks like Donna Brazile and others who worked at full force to circumvent the will of actual Democratic primary voters.

 Nationwide, Trump won 53% of the vote among white women.

 Hillary was the first Democrat since Mondale in '84 to lose Wisconsin.  

 One can take all the votes won by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in Ohio and give them to Hillary. Guess what? Trump still wins the state.

 What does it all mean? We're not sure yet, but Hillary was the wrong candidate for the Democrats in 2016.
Logged
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #1935 on: November 13, 2016, 12:23:17 PM »

It's not just where you live or the actual vote. Your (all 3rd party voters) presence on social media had an influence. Your posts here about how bad Clinton is, on Facebook, Twitter, ...

Good lord. So now people were not even supposed to *talk* about how bad she was?

  Exactly. The Thought Police must defeated or freedom of speech in the USA is in peril. That is neither liberal nor conservative. It's the first amendment. 

 I voted for Gary Johnson/Bill Weld. I liked both (despite obvious flaws) but it was in essence a protest vote against both parties.

 Memo to the Democratic Party re 2020: If you can nominate someone who isn't a congenital liar (Hillary) or a "Democratic Socialist" (Sanders) odds are good you will get my vote.

« Last Edit: November 13, 2016, 12:29:48 PM by Moon Dawg » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1936 on: November 13, 2016, 12:45:59 PM »

  Both parties faced populist insurgencies. In the case of the GOP, the insurgents actually won. Trump literally hijacked the Republican Party. Had the DNC not been in collusion with the Clinton Campaign every step of the way, the Sanders insurgency would have likely prevailed with Bernie winning the nomination. The firewall worked. The establishment candidate got the nomination and lost the election.

 This election was about far more than the elements of misogyny, xenophobia, and racism that undoubtedly do exist. The bigger story is that people voted against the establishment.

 The DNC needs to be scrubbed clean of hacks like Donna Brazile and others who worked at full force to circumvent the will of actual Democratic primary voters.

 Nationwide, Trump won 53% of the vote among white women.

 Hillary was the first Democrat since Mondale in '84 to lose Wisconsin.  

 One can take all the votes won by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in Ohio and give them to Hillary. Guess what? Trump still wins the state.

 What does it all mean? We're not sure yet, but Hillary was the wrong candidate for the Democrats in 2016.
The real story is:
in exit polls, people who said the economy or foreign policy was their primary concern voted for Clinton, those who said immigration or terrorism were their primary concern voted for Trump.
What evidence have you that the person who got the most votes in the Democratic Party was not the person those voters wanted to nominate?
Don't worry. As you've shown by the "congenital liar" comment, I realize your beliefs are evidence-free, so I don't really expect an answer.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2016, 01:03:55 PM by Emily » Logged
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #1937 on: November 13, 2016, 01:04:11 PM »

 Concerns about foreign policy and terrorism probably intersect at some point.

 Donald Trump will be the 45th President of the United States. I'm still trying to process.  Shocked
Logged
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #1938 on: November 13, 2016, 01:06:26 PM »

  Both parties faced populist insurgencies. In the case of the GOP, the insurgents actually won. Trump literally hijacked the Republican Party. Had the DNC not been in collusion with the Clinton Campaign every step of the way, the Sanders insurgency would have likely prevailed with Bernie winning the nomination. The firewall worked. The establishment candidate got the nomination and lost the election.

 This election was about far more than the elements of misogyny, xenophobia, and racism that undoubtedly do exist. The bigger story is that people voted against the establishment.

 The DNC needs to be scrubbed clean of hacks like Donna Brazile and others who worked at full force to circumvent the will of actual Democratic primary voters.

 Nationwide, Trump won 53% of the vote among white women.

 Hillary was the first Democrat since Mondale in '84 to lose Wisconsin.  

 One can take all the votes won by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in Ohio and give them to Hillary. Guess what? Trump still wins the state.

 What does it all mean? We're not sure yet, but Hillary was the wrong candidate for the Democrats in 2016.
The real story is:
in exit polls, people who said the economy or foreign policy was their primary concern voted for Clinton, those who said immigration or terrorism were their primary concern voted for Trump.
What evidence have you that the person who got the most votes in the Democratic Party was not the person those voters wanted to nominate?
Don't worry. As you've shown by the "congenital liar" comment, I realize your beliefs are evidence-free, so I don't really expect an answer.

  Take away the firewall of the super delegates and we'd likely have seen a contested Democratic convention. Do the math. Minus the super delegates the numbers are close.

  The e-mails of Wasserman-Schulz provide solid evidence the DNC was in collusion with Team Clinton. Likewise Donna Brazile in her capacity as CNN analyst feeding Team Clinton the debate questions. Did Sanders get any favors from these people? Nope.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2016, 01:10:49 PM by Moon Dawg » Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #1939 on: November 13, 2016, 01:12:38 PM »

Trump won and Clinton lost. Stein could have bowed out and put the environment ahead of her ego.
Many articles on how 3rd party candidates were a factor in Clinton losing. Probably so. But the people who voted 3rd party did so with their eyes wide open. I don't want to hear their whining when Republicans start dismantling environmental protection and cutting their food stamps. If they are out their protesting Trump now, shame on them!

Sorry, but the evidence shows that Trump would have won with or without Jill Stein in the elections. The Democrats right now are desperate to blame anyone but themselves, hence the many articles that you are referring to.

Evidence shows? Bullcrap! Aside from conspiracy FB pages, where is your evidence?

It really had an effect and contributed to Clinton's loss. Dozens of analysts coming out. Here is one:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/third-party-candidates-having-outsize-impact-election-n680921

The evidence shows conclusively that without Jill Stein, Clinton may have won Michigan and Wisconsin (assuming, as we shouldn't, that all Stein votes go to Clinton). However, Clinton still would have lost Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, even if you give all of Stein's votes to Clinton, giving Trump the presidency. The article you link to doesn't actually examine the numbers in that way, though. Probably because they wouldn't care for the results. Again, it's much easier to point fingers at others.
MI and WI for Clinton puts Trump almost under 270. So are you now admitting Stein made Clinton lose? FL and PA, Stein and Johnson were a big part. She lost FL by 1%.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/gary-johnson-jill-stein-election-2016
« Last Edit: November 13, 2016, 01:44:19 PM by OregonRiverRider » Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #1940 on: November 13, 2016, 01:17:25 PM »

It's not just where you live or the actual vote. Your (all 3rd party voters) presence on social media had an influence. Your posts here about how bad Clinton is, on Facebook, Twitter, ...

Good lord. So now people were not even supposed to *talk* about how bad she was?

Again, it was Trump or Clinton. No, she isn't that bad. Bad is what you are about to see in the next 24 months.
All the rhetoric like yours added up and damage was done!
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1941 on: November 13, 2016, 01:20:13 PM »

  Both parties faced populist insurgencies. In the case of the GOP, the insurgents actually won. Trump literally hijacked the Republican Party. Had the DNC not been in collusion with the Clinton Campaign every step of the way, the Sanders insurgency would have likely prevailed with Bernie winning the nomination. The firewall worked. The establishment candidate got the nomination and lost the election.

 This election was about far more than the elements of misogyny, xenophobia, and racism that undoubtedly do exist. The bigger story is that people voted against the establishment.

 The DNC needs to be scrubbed clean of hacks like Donna Brazile and others who worked at full force to circumvent the will of actual Democratic primary voters.

 Nationwide, Trump won 53% of the vote among white women.

 Hillary was the first Democrat since Mondale in '84 to lose Wisconsin.  

 One can take all the votes won by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in Ohio and give them to Hillary. Guess what? Trump still wins the state.

 What does it all mean? We're not sure yet, but Hillary was the wrong candidate for the Democrats in 2016.
The real story is:
in exit polls, people who said the economy or foreign policy was their primary concern voted for Clinton, those who said immigration or terrorism were their primary concern voted for Trump.
What evidence have you that the person who got the most votes in the Democratic Party was not the person those voters wanted to nominate?
Don't worry. As you've shown by the "congenital liar" comment, I realize your beliefs are evidence-free, so I don't really expect an answer.

  Take away the firewall of the super delegates and we'd likely have seen a contested Democratic convention. Do the math. Minus the super delegates the numbers are close.

  The e-mails of Wasserman-Schulz provide solid evidence the DNC was in collusion with Team Clinton. Likewise Donna Brazile in her capacity as CNN analyst feeding Team Clinton the debate questions. Did Sanders get any favors from these people? Nope.
Close only matters in horse-shoes (and some other things, of course) but not the election of the Democratic nominee.
Can you prove collusion and can you prove it affected votes?
Sanders chose to work outside of a party structure for most of his career and much of his campaign. That's not the DNC's doing.

Regarding Donna Brazile, do you think that Clinton's answer about the water in Flint had an impact on the election or the nomination. Do you think that her amazing answer based on that super surprising question tilted the nomination in her favor?
Do you also assume that Sanders didn't have media allies? Did you get to read alll of his emails to ensure that?
Logged
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #1942 on: November 13, 2016, 01:21:29 PM »

  Both parties faced populist insurgencies. In the case of the GOP, the insurgents actually won. Trump literally hijacked the Republican Party. Had the DNC not been in collusion with the Clinton Campaign every step of the way, the Sanders insurgency would have likely prevailed with Bernie winning the nomination. The firewall worked. The establishment candidate got the nomination and lost the election.

 This election was about far more than the elements of misogyny, xenophobia, and racism that undoubtedly do exist. The bigger story is that people voted against the establishment.

 The DNC needs to be scrubbed clean of hacks like Donna Brazile and others who worked at full force to circumvent the will of actual Democratic primary voters.

 Nationwide, Trump won 53% of the vote among white women.

 Hillary was the first Democrat since Mondale in '84 to lose Wisconsin.  

 One can take all the votes won by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in Ohio and give them to Hillary. Guess what? Trump still wins the state.

 What does it all mean? We're not sure yet, but Hillary was the wrong candidate for the Democrats in 2016.
The real story is:
in exit polls, people who said the economy or foreign policy was their primary concern voted for Clinton, those who said immigration or terrorism were their primary concern voted for Trump.
What evidence have you that the person who got the most votes in the Democratic Party was not the person those voters wanted to nominate?
Don't worry. As you've shown by the "congenital liar" comment, I realize your beliefs are evidence-free, so I don't really expect an answer.

 In post after post after post, you have yet to acknowledge a single weakness or error by the Clinton Campaign. That's a one sided view IMO.

 Hillary was the first Democrat to lose Wisconsin since Reagan crushed Mondale in 1984. Things like that don't just happen. Before you trot out the usual litany of excuses (misogyny being #1) why not consider some other possibilities.

 Winners win campaigns : Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama. And yes, Donald Trump, God help us. Losers lose campaigns. If there's one legit excuse for Hillary's defeat beyond her own weaknesses as a candidate, it's the Comey FBI announcement 11 days out. And even that was an indirect result of her own error/malfeasance.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2019


View Profile
« Reply #1943 on: November 13, 2016, 01:28:36 PM »

  Both parties faced populist insurgencies. In the case of the GOP, the insurgents actually won. Trump literally hijacked the Republican Party. Had the DNC not been in collusion with the Clinton Campaign every step of the way, the Sanders insurgency would have likely prevailed with Bernie winning the nomination. The firewall worked. The establishment candidate got the nomination and lost the election.

 This election was about far more than the elements of misogyny, xenophobia, and racism that undoubtedly do exist. The bigger story is that people voted against the establishment.

 The DNC needs to be scrubbed clean of hacks like Donna Brazile and others who worked at full force to circumvent the will of actual Democratic primary voters.

 Nationwide, Trump won 53% of the vote among white women.

 Hillary was the first Democrat since Mondale in '84 to lose Wisconsin.  

 One can take all the votes won by Gary Johnson and Jill Stein in Ohio and give them to Hillary. Guess what? Trump still wins the state.

 What does it all mean? We're not sure yet, but Hillary was the wrong candidate for the Democrats in 2016.
The real story is:
in exit polls, people who said the economy or foreign policy was their primary concern voted for Clinton, those who said immigration or terrorism were their primary concern voted for Trump.
What evidence have you that the person who got the most votes in the Democratic Party was not the person those voters wanted to nominate?
Don't worry. As you've shown by the "congenital liar" comment, I realize your beliefs are evidence-free, so I don't really expect an answer.

 In post after post after post, you have yet to acknowledge a single weakness or error by the Clinton Campaign. That's a one sided view IMO.

 Hillary was the first Democrat to lose Wisconsin since Reagan crushed Mondale in 1984. Things like that don't just happen. Before you trot out the usual litany of excuses (misogyny being #1) why not consider some other possibilities.

 Winners win campaigns : Ronald Reagan, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama. And yes, Donald Trump, God help us. Losers lose campaigns. If there's one legit excuse for Hillary's defeat beyond her own weaknesses as a candidate, it's the Comey FBI announcement 11 days out. And even that was an indirect result of her own error/malfeasance.
I have admitted problems with Clinton's policies.
In post after post, no one has provided evidence for these accusations. The repetition of evidence-free accusations doesn't make me wrong. Just because lots of people believe it and repeat it doesn't mean it's true. That a lot of people seem to think that popular belief = evidence indicates a desperately failed educational system. It's not the case that the truth is always somewhere in the middle, either. Sometimes something is just wrong. If there's no evidence, the accusation should be dropped.
Logged
bluesno1fann
Guest
« Reply #1944 on: November 13, 2016, 01:35:15 PM »

Trump won and Clinton lost. Stein could have bowed out and put the environment ahead of her ego.
Many articles on how 3rd party candidates were a factor in Clinton losing. Probably so. But the people who voted 3rd party did so with their eyes wide open. I don't want to hear their whining when Republicans start dismantling environmental protection and cutting their food stamps. If they are out their protesting Trump now, shame on them!

Sorry, but the evidence shows that Trump would have won with or without Jill Stein in the elections. The Democrats right now are desperate to blame anyone but themselves, hence the many articles that you are referring to.

Evidence shows? Bullcrap! Aside from conspiracy FB pages, where is your evidence?

It really had an effect and contributed to Clinton's loss. Dozens of analysts coming out. Here is one:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/third-party-candidates-having-outsize-impact-election-n680921

The evidence shows conclusively that without Jill Stein, Clinton may have won Michigan and Wisconsin (assuming, as we shouldn't, that all Stein votes go to Clinton). However, Clinton still would have lost Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, even if you give all of Stein's votes to Clinton, giving Trump the presidency. The article you link to doesn't actually examine the numbers in that way, though. Probably because they wouldn't care for the results. Again, it's much easier to point fingers at others.
MI and WI for Clinton puts Trump under 270. So are you now admitting Stein made Clinton lose? FL and PA, Stein and Johnson were a big part. She lost FL by 1%.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/gary-johnson-jill-stein-election-2016

How about instead of blaming third party candidates (who had every right to run, and who people had every right to vote for) for Trump's win, think about why people chose to vote for them and were unable to bring themselves to vote for an out of touch, right wing, establishment figure. Blaming Stein & Johnson is highly counterproductive in analysing why Clinton did not win the election; in fact it is insulting and is really an attack on democracy. Jonathan Pie says it best on why Trump won - I believe someone posted a link of his video earlier?
Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #1945 on: November 13, 2016, 01:49:10 PM »

Trump won and Clinton lost. Stein could have bowed out and put the environment ahead of her ego.
Many articles on how 3rd party candidates were a factor in Clinton losing. Probably so. But the people who voted 3rd party did so with their eyes wide open. I don't want to hear their whining when Republicans start dismantling environmental protection and cutting their food stamps. If they are out their protesting Trump now, shame on them!

Sorry, but the evidence shows that Trump would have won with or without Jill Stein in the elections. The Democrats right now are desperate to blame anyone but themselves, hence the many articles that you are referring to.

Evidence shows? Bullcrap! Aside from conspiracy FB pages, where is your evidence?

It really had an effect and contributed to Clinton's loss. Dozens of analysts coming out. Here is one:

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/third-party-candidates-having-outsize-impact-election-n680921

The evidence shows conclusively that without Jill Stein, Clinton may have won Michigan and Wisconsin (assuming, as we shouldn't, that all Stein votes go to Clinton). However, Clinton still would have lost Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio, even if you give all of Stein's votes to Clinton, giving Trump the presidency. The article you link to doesn't actually examine the numbers in that way, though. Probably because they wouldn't care for the results. Again, it's much easier to point fingers at others.
MI and WI for Clinton puts Trump under 270. So are you now admitting Stein made Clinton lose? FL and PA, Stein and Johnson were a big part. She lost FL by 1%.

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/11/gary-johnson-jill-stein-election-2016

How about instead of blaming third party candidates (who had every right to run, and who people had every right to vote for) for Trump's win, think about why people chose to vote for them and were unable to bring themselves to vote for an out of touch, right wing, establishment figure. Blaming Stein & Johnson is highly counterproductive in analysing why Clinton did not win the election; in fact it is insulting and is really an attack on democracy. Jonathan Pie says it best on why Trump won - I believe someone posted a link of his video earlier?

Go back and read my recent post about why Clinton lost. 3rd party candidates were a factor which no informed person would dispute. But IMO your 3rd party vote was a waste and your choice illogical and not thought out!

In the end, the revolution is now underway.  Clinton and her DNC machine lost. They had their turn. Hand the keys to Bernie and Warren, and stand out of the way!
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1946 on: November 13, 2016, 01:51:26 PM »


MI and WI for Clinton puts Trump almost under 270. So are you now admitting Stein made Clinton lose? FL and PA, Stein and Johnson were a big part. She lost FL by 1%.


It puts him at 280 and still as president, exactly as I said. And I don't admit anything since in the post you refer to I said that you can't assume that Stein voters would have voted for Clinton.
Logged
Forrest Gump
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 54


View Profile
« Reply #1947 on: November 13, 2016, 01:59:38 PM »

gosh. how hard id it to figure out. people had enough of obozo's programs the past 8 years. clinton offered no change, she was going to continue obummer's crap. if she offered solutions she easily would have won. fact is, she had no solutions. the silent majority, middle class WORKING people, were/are fed up with oblamer's proghrams and their cost...obamacare, immagration, and the  cost of welfare (and having to support the 47% who are getting a free ride). they are the reason clinton lost. they got trump elected. libturds did not count of them to show up in the numbers they did. they decided the election. clinton didn't want 'em. so she lost. end of story. all who want their freebies here are upset cause they may now lose them. hope so. i have to WORK for what i have.
Logged
SurfRiderHawaii
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2451


Add Some Music to your day!


View Profile
« Reply #1948 on: November 13, 2016, 02:50:21 PM »


MI and WI for Clinton puts Trump almost under 270. So are you now admitting Stein made Clinton lose? FL and PA, Stein and Johnson were a big part. She lost FL by 1%.


It puts him at 280 and still as president, exactly as I said. And I don't admit anything since in the post you refer to I said that you can't assume that Stein voters would have voted for Clinton.

It puts him at 274. MI has 16 E Votes. Stein is a nut! What was she thinking? When Bernie endorsed Hillary Stein should have dropped out!
Logged

"Brian is The Beach Boys. He is the band. We're his f***ing messengers. He is all of it. Period. We're nothing. He's everything" - Dennis Wilson
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2869


View Profile
« Reply #1949 on: November 13, 2016, 03:28:32 PM »


MI and WI for Clinton puts Trump almost under 270. So are you now admitting Stein made Clinton lose? FL and PA, Stein and Johnson were a big part. She lost FL by 1%.


It puts him at 280 and still as president, exactly as I said. And I don't admit anything since in the post you refer to I said that you can't assume that Stein voters would have voted for Clinton.

It puts him at 274. MI has 16 E Votes. Stein is a nut! What was she thinking? When Bernie endorsed Hillary Stein should have dropped out!

You're right. Sorry about that - 274, and still winning as president. I suppose all candidates could have dropped out leaving Clinton entirely unopposed, leading to a surefire victory.
« Last Edit: November 13, 2016, 04:47:58 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Pages: 1 ... 73 74 75 76 77 [78] 79 80 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.529 seconds with 21 queries.