3 ms·

My state was going Clinton regardless of how I voted, so the only meaningful vote I had was for a 3rd party (which can lead to them getting funding).

by larrik 7y ago

bayesian_horse 7y ago
That kind of thinking was what lost Clinton the election, even if maybe in your particular case it didn't matter as much. Overall, the absolute number of voters is a political argument, so even those votes count.
- AnimalMuppet 7y ago
  No, that's not what lost Clinton the election. Calling much of the country "a basket of deplorables". Years of scandals (yes, Trump had them, too, but Clinton's were more public). The definite impression that she thought she was entitled to the presidency. The campaign she ran, where she just assumed that she would win certain states. The way she assumed that she would have the blue-collar vote, and therefore didn't have to do anything to earn it. Those things cost her the election.
  - bayesian_horse 7y ago
    In reality, she had more votes than Trump. In reality, the third-party voters would have been more than enough to give her the victory. In reality, there were no real scandals about Hillary Clinton. Most have been disproven. Unlike multiple incidents of criminal behavior on Trumps' part that were known even before the election. Trump needed a lot of unexpected factors to eek out a very narrow win. He couldn't have won without any of those factors: Cheating about the hush money (committing actual crimes), Comey's breaking of DOJ rules and all of Russia's efforts. None of those factors, except the Russian influence, will repeat this year. The voter turnout - before the pandemic - was on track to be setting records. The enthusiasm on the Democratic side has mopped the floor with GOP seats in most elections since 2016. Trump needs a bigger miracle than last time to get reelected. For example Covid-19, by depressing voter turnout or (god beware) disabling his opponent.
    - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
      > In reality, she had more votes than Trump. In reality, that's completely irrelevant, since that's not how we do presidential elections. It's like saying that one team had more yards than another in a football game, or more hits in a baseball game. It doesn't matter whatsoever. > In reality, the third-party voters would have been more than enough to give her the victory. Sure, if they had all voted for Clinton. They didn't, though. Why not? I can tell you why I voted third-party: Because I couldn't stomach voting for Trump, and I couldn't stomach voting for Clinton. If all those third-party voters had voted for Trump, we might not have had to listen to three years of people whining about the popular vote. But those people didn't vote for Trump, and they didn't vote for Clinton. Counting them all as voting for Clinton if they just hadn't voted third-party seems rather presumptuous, just as counting them all as voting for Trump would be.
      - bayesian_horse 7y ago
        Considering the politics of the third party candidates, you can hardly say they disliked Clinton more than Trump. The popular vote is highly relevant, because it shows Clinton was more popular than Trump, revealing much of the criticism about her as BS. There was no objective basis to think Clinton would have been a remotely as bad president as Trump. At best you can call that wishful thinking. And there have also been polls that Third-Party voters do regret their choice by a significant margin. Coupled with the unilateral voter depression and to a large part even suppression, all of these factors where necessary for Trump to eek out a narrow win. Just a bit more voter participation here or a bit less third-party-voting there, and Trump couldn't have won.

My state was going Clinton regardless of how I voted, so the only meaningful vote I had was for a 3rd party (which can lead to them getting funding).

by larrik 7y ago

My state was going Clinton regardless of how I voted, so the only meaningful vote I had was for a 3rd party (which can lead to them getting funding).

bayesian_horse 7y ago

That kind of thinking was what lost Clinton the election, even if maybe in your particular case it didn't matter as much. Overall, the absolute number of voters is a political argument, so even those votes count.

AnimalMuppet 7y ago
No, that's not what lost Clinton the election. Calling much of the country "a basket of deplorables". Years of scandals (yes, Trump had them, too, but Clinton's were more public). The definite impression that she thought she was entitled to the presidency. The campaign she ran, where she just assumed that she would win certain states. The way she assumed that she would have the blue-collar vote, and therefore didn't have to do anything to earn it. Those things cost her the election.
- bayesian_horse 7y ago
  In reality, she had more votes than Trump. In reality, the third-party voters would have been more than enough to give her the victory. In reality, there were no real scandals about Hillary Clinton. Most have been disproven. Unlike multiple incidents of criminal behavior on Trumps' part that were known even before the election. Trump needed a lot of unexpected factors to eek out a very narrow win. He couldn't have won without any of those factors: Cheating about the hush money (committing actual crimes), Comey's breaking of DOJ rules and all of Russia's efforts. None of those factors, except the Russian influence, will repeat this year. The voter turnout - before the pandemic - was on track to be setting records. The enthusiasm on the Democratic side has mopped the floor with GOP seats in most elections since 2016. Trump needs a bigger miracle than last time to get reelected. For example Covid-19, by depressing voter turnout or (god beware) disabling his opponent.
  - AnimalMuppet 7y ago
    > In reality, she had more votes than Trump. In reality, that's completely irrelevant, since that's not how we do presidential elections. It's like saying that one team had more yards than another in a football game, or more hits in a baseball game. It doesn't matter whatsoever. > In reality, the third-party voters would have been more than enough to give her the victory. Sure, if they had all voted for Clinton. They didn't, though. Why not? I can tell you why I voted third-party: Because I couldn't stomach voting for Trump, and I couldn't stomach voting for Clinton. If all those third-party voters had voted for Trump, we might not have had to listen to three years of people whining about the popular vote. But those people didn't vote for Trump, and they didn't vote for Clinton. Counting them all as voting for Clinton if they just hadn't voted third-party seems rather presumptuous, just as counting them all as voting for Trump would be.
    - bayesian_horse 7y ago
      Considering the politics of the third party candidates, you can hardly say they disliked Clinton more than Trump. The popular vote is highly relevant, because it shows Clinton was more popular than Trump, revealing much of the criticism about her as BS. There was no objective basis to think Clinton would have been a remotely as bad president as Trump. At best you can call that wishful thinking. And there have also been polls that Third-Party voters do regret their choice by a significant margin. Coupled with the unilateral voter depression and to a large part even suppression, all of these factors where necessary for Trump to eek out a narrow win. Just a bit more voter participation here or a bit less third-party-voting there, and Trump couldn't have won.