# It's official: Hillary lost MI, PA, WI by less than the Jill Stein vote in those states **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [December 13, 2016, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628 "2016-12-13T18:26:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/81 "2016-12-14T20:45:33Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > Just curious, how do you define “mild gun controls”? For example, I think that Utah has fairly mild gun controls. Or Arizona, or Montana. I suspect that lots of Democrats think Washington DC had “mild gun controls” before _Heller_. Where along that spectrum are you? I support the 2nd Ad, and only support controls on crew served weapons, such as howitzers, heavy machineguns and the like. Background checks, too. But \*mild gun controls \*include waiting periods, background checks, and limitations on sales of certain guns. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/82 "2016-12-14T20:46:42Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > When did “mild gun control” become a catch phrase? Is that similar to “somewhat pregnant”? Flamethrowers? Heave machine guns? Howitzers? How about background checks? Do you draw the line _anywhere_? ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/83 "2016-12-14T20:58:49Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > And she didnt support that. Maybe that’s true, maybe not. I don’t think there is evidence that would convince you. Perhaps this is a good lesson for future politicians - if they don’t support confiscation, don’t speak favorably about programs that involved confiscation. It tends to give people the impression that they support confiscation. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 9:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/84 "2016-12-14T21:19:35Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > Maybe that’s true, maybe not. I don’t think there is evidence that would convince you. Perhaps this is a good lesson for future politicians - if they don’t support confiscation, don’t speak favorably about programs that involved confiscation. It tends to give people the impression that they support confiscation. She didnt. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/85 "2016-12-14T21:23:51Z")
> [@Bone](#): > > If you could get everything else on the agenda you want, but have to go full NRA and more on guns, is that a worthwhile compromise? Yes. Absolutely. I think gun control is a losing issue for democrats, largely because even if my previous description didn’t describe you personally, I know enough people who will blindly vote for whoever they think is less likely to take their toys away. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/86 "2016-12-14T21:30:44Z")
> [@Pantastic](#): > > It’s pretty amazing that I can produce direct quotes of Hillary Clinton speaking against a supreme court decision that only prohibits a law that included an outright ban on handguns and prohibition on keeping any gun for self- defense, but you’ll try to weasel word it to ‘state-level safety laws’. That’s because that’s what your direct quote SAID. It’s pretty amazing that you’re arguing _against_ the direct quote you produced to support your argument. And taking that quote at face value is ‘weasel wording’ it. Yeah. **Bone** - the extremism we’re talking about would allow people to sue gun manufacturers the way they could up to _2005? That’s_ Hillary’s radical anti-gun stance? Whoa, come see the violence inherent in the system! ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/87 "2016-12-14T21:31:22Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Flamethrowers? Heave machine guns? Howitzers? > > How about background checks? > > Do you draw the line _anywhere_? Did you just make up that “mild gun control” catch-phrase? You did, didn’t you. Clever boy. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 9:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/88 "2016-12-14T21:46:52Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > **Bone** - the extremism we’re talking about would allow people to sue gun manufacturers the way they could up to _2005? That’s_ Hillary’s radical anti-gun stance? Whoa, come see the violence inherent in the system! I don’t see why it’s necessary to mischaracterize this in a hyperbolic way. You asked, “what attack on gun rights?” Then you mention background checks and asked about things that were more radical than that. Repealing the PLCAA is a concrete position that she campaigned on that fits both your criteria. Whether it’s extremism or violence inherent in the system is irrelevant. > [@DrDeth](#): > > She didnt. Are you saying Clinton didn’t speak favorably about programs that involved confiscation? ---
**Author:** ![Pantastic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3bc359/32.png) [@Pantastic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pantastic)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/89 "2016-12-14T21:47:33Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > That’s because that’s what your direct quote SAID. My direct quote was her stating her opposition to the Heller decision, which did not affect anything that is reasonably termed ‘state-level safety laws’, but rather overturned a complete ban on handguns and a complete ban on having guns in condition suitable for self-defense. [quote] It’s pretty amazing that you’re arguing _against_ the direct quote you produced to support your argument. And taking that quote at face value is ‘weasel wording’ it. Yeah. [quote] You guys can deny reality all you want, but it doesn’t change that she explicitly supported a complete ban on handguns and ban on having any gun available for self-defense. Trying to call it ‘mild gun control’ or ‘state level safety laws’ doesn’t change that basic fact. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/90 "2016-12-14T21:57:57Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > This is true. Hillary’s loss was, as they say, overdetermined. For want of a nail, and all that. > > My takeaway from it is that Trump hit a triple bank shot to win this thing, despite having lost the popular vote by (currently) a margin that isn’t even all that close - 2.85 million. He overcame that sizable deficit by winning by comparatively tiny margins of 11,000 in one state, 44,000 in another, and 22,000 in a third. > > No question, he won it, assuming the EC votes the way we expect them to, and they don’t get any crazy ideas about using their dormant election-deciding super-powers. Even if he won it by hitting a crazy triple bank shot, he still won it. > > The question, though, isn’t whether he won, but whether winning by triple bank shot should continue to be possible. Regardless of all the arguments being made for and against the EC in other threads, what it comes down to for me is that this is a very arbitrary and capricious way to choose one’s President. > > I dreamed the other night that Hillary and The Donald and I were about to sit down to a game of poker that would decide the Presidency. (I’d just finished reviewing the ground rules with them when I woke up, dammit.) I’m not sure which would be the more fluky way to decide things. I disagree at least that this should be what Democrats and even anti-Trump conservatives like myself should be thinking about, largely because energy invested in the electoral college debate is 100% wasted, always will be. For the liberals out there, I’d take heart–a candidate a little more likable than Hillary probably would’ve won in a walk with _no change to your messaging or strategy_, and since Hillary was a historically unlikable candidate (only person worse than her was Trump–and unfortunately for Hillary her unlikability was poorly distributed geographically for this match-up), a lot of Obama voters stayed home in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. At least enough to have changed the outcome. Look at the vote totals in places like Detroit and Milwaukee, these aren’t voters who changed from Blue to Red, these are voters that didn’t show up, and they’re voters (blacks/minorities/urban people) who if they do show up, aren’t ever voting for a Republican. But for the broader view, even for conservatives like myself who are tired of seeing “far right lunatics” with so many seats in the House and Senate, I do think a messaging shift is required to get some sane people back into the Congress. As a Republican I’m in no great hurry to see the Republicans lose control of Congress, but putting myself in a Democrat’s shoe, you guys need to figure out how to win outside of urban districts. Our system of Federalism gives every state two seats in the Senate regardless of population–which means there’s a detrimental strategic outcome to just ignore small rural states, and even in the House which is supposed to be population-based, the fact that every state gets a bare minimum of one House member despite its population, and the artificial cap at 435 House seats, means as a share of the total, again, these small rural states are having a disproportionate say. If these states combined with the “rural Rust Belt” trend more and more red it gets harder and harder–regardless of your total national support numbers, to control Congress. Obama’s eight year Presidency being followed up by a Republican in the White House and with GOP control of the House and Senate is very quickly going to teach you guys the impermanence of any presidential policy based on executive actions and not legislation (which requires control of Congress.) You can try to fight a war against the “unfairness” of the Senate and the way we do House districts, a process war you’re likely to never win, or you can start figuring out how to win in these districts again. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/91 "2016-12-14T22:03:22Z")
> [@Jane\_Smythe](#): > > Exactly She told the truth. Trump cannot make good on that promise, not on most, if not all, of his promises. Yeah, literally the only way coal employment even rebounds to 1995 levels (an era at the tail end of decades of job losses to automation), he’d need to implement a program in which the Federal government bought excess coal production at inflated rates and then paid people to bury said coal under the ground in storage caverns (and maybe later they could pay people to dig it back out.) Even if you disband the EPA, the simple fact is plain dollar and cents economics is by a vast margin the reason the mines are closed. ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/92 "2016-12-14T22:04:09Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No, that is incorrect. > [@DrDeth](#): > > And she didnt support that. > [@DrDeth](#): > > She didnt. Hillary Clinton knows very well that the Australian gun buy back program was mandatory, and that it was preceded by a wholesale ban on private gun ownership in Australia. So when she used it (and, as pointed out before in this thread, pre-Heller DC gun bans, as well as the blanket restrictions in Canada and the UK) as an example of “common sense” gun laws that are “[worth looking at](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67)”, what makes you think she didn’t mean it? Did she have her fingers crossed? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/93 "2016-12-14T22:10:59Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > Hillary Clinton knows very well that the Australian gun buy back program was mandatory, and that it was preceded by a wholesale ban on private gun ownership in Australia. So when she used it (and, as pointed out before in this thread, pre-Heller DC gun bans, as well as the blanket restrictions in Canada and the UK) as an example of “common sense” gun laws that are “[worth looking at](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gun-buybacks_us_56216331e4b02f6a900c5d67)”, what makes you think she didn’t mean it? Did she have her fingers crossed? For the nth time, it was clearly just bad wording. As cited before “\*“It was an unforced error that she will never hear the last of. From how Clinton phrased her answer, though, it’s pretty clear that she was thinking of a voluntary buyback. She compared it to Obama’s “Cash for Clunkers” program and cited voluntary programs done in various cities.”” \* ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/94 "2016-12-14T22:14:19Z")
[QUOTE=Bone;19852758 Are you saying Clinton didn’t speak favorably about programs that involved confiscation?[/QUOTE] That’s correct, she did not. She was taken out of context. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/95 "2016-12-14T22:15:45Z")
> [@doorhinge](#): > > Did you just make up that “mild gun control” catch-phrase? Would you care to answer my question? Do you support bans on howitzers? Do you support background checks? ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/96 "2016-12-14T22:26:32Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > That’s correct, she did not. She was taken out of context. I saw the entire debate. She was asked about Australian gun buy backs and responded positively, saying they were worth looking into. That’s not taken out of context. She also repeatedly criticized _Heller_, which was nothing more than the judicial branch reiterating that gun bans are unconstitutional. So she had glowing praise for another country’s gun bans, and nothing but criticism for a ruling that said only that “wholesale bans aren’t constitutional”. Be sad that she lost if you want, support her gun control stance, or say “I’m with her, except for on gun control”, but don’t willfully ignore reality, her 2016 campaign, and 30 years worth of statements she made on the topic. > [@BobLibDem](#): > > I’m just saying that if you’re an NRA life member, you have never voted for a Democrat for president and no matter what he/she said or didn’t say or did or didn’t do, there is no way in hell that you’ve voting for the Democrat. So I say Democrats should not even bother becoming pro-gun as there is nothing to gain, at least at the presidential level. I am not an NRA member, but I am a gun rights supporter and I wouldn’t be opposed to joining. I have never voted for a Republican for any office in my life. But that’s because Democrats (except for you?) over the last thirty years have realized that gun control is a losing issue. Do you want your party to lose? Did you enjoy watching the Pubs sweep the 2016 elections? You want Trump again in 2020, and his son or daughter or pal Bannon in 2024? If not, you might want to reconsider encouraging your party to keep this termite-infested plank in their platform. It wasn’t the only reason her ship sank, but it was one of them. No need to build the next ship out of the same rotten wood. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/97 "2016-12-14T22:50:14Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > For the nth time, it was clearly just bad wording. As cited before “\*“It was an unforced error that she will never hear the last of. From how Clinton phrased her answer, though, it’s pretty clear that she was thinking of a voluntary buyback. She compared it to Obama’s “Cash for Clunkers” program and cited voluntary programs done in various cities.”” > \* Bad wording, or revealing her support for confiscation? Feel free to interpret it however you’d like, seeing as she is not going to be President. Like I said, if she didn’t want to give that impression, she shouldn’t say things that give that impression. People claim that she is a savvy politician but if that was bad wording then it was not an example of being savvy. Even if your interpretation is correct, voluntary buybacks are a pretty abysmal way of reducing gun violence so even offering that as a solution is rather inept. As this thread is about the margin of loss in 3 key states, I think it’s possible Clinton’s position on guns however interpreted were in part responsible. I hope in large part. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [December 14, 2016, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/98 "2016-12-14T23:29:50Z")
> [@DrCube](#): > > I saw the entire debate. She was asked about Australian gun buy backs and responded positively, saying they were worth looking into. That’s not taken out of context. > > But that’s because Democrats (except for you?) over the last thirty years have realized that gun control is a losing issue. Do you want your party to lose? Did you enjoy watching the Pubs sweep the 2016 elections? You want Trump again in 2020, and his son or daughter or pal Bannon in 2024? > > If not, you might want to reconsider encouraging your party to keep this termite-infested plank in their platform. It wasn’t the only reason her ship sank, but it was one of them. No need to build the next ship out of the same rotten wood. It was one quick question, which she apparently didnt fully hear, and the rest of her response makes it super clear she was talking about a voluntary program. ““It was an unforced error that she will never hear the last of. From how Clinton phrased her answer, though, it’s pretty clear that she was thinking of a voluntary buyback. She compared it to Obama’s “Cash for Clunkers” program and cited voluntary programs done in various cities.”” Ok, about half of Americans want some form of Gun control and about half are against it. The Rabid “take my guns from my cold dead hands” will never vote for a Democrat today. So, what you are saying is the the Democrats should ignore the half of the country that wants some form of gun control, in order to chase a few moderates? As can bee seen here, hundreds of thousands abandoned her as she wasnt liberal enuf. ---
**Author:** ![Bone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bone/32/407_2.png) [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/99 "2016-12-15T00:09:41Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > ““It was an unforced error that she will never hear the last of. From how Clinton phrased her answer, though, it’s pretty clear that she was thinking of a voluntary buyback. She compared it to Obama’s “Cash for Clunkers” program and cited voluntary programs done in various cities.”” You say this as if it’s factual. It’s not. Yes it was written as you’ve quoted, in the editorial. Do you think gun motivated Trump voters and gun motivated Clinton folks who chose not to vote or vote for someone else was less than 10K? ---
**Author:** ![Evan\_Drake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b487fb/32.png) [@Evan\_Drake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evan_Drake)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2016, 12:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628/100 "2016-12-15T00:13:42Z")
Off topic: > [@Pantastic](#): > > No, she explicitly a complete ban on ordinary people carrying firearms (politicians and rich people’s bodyguards excluded, of course), including in their homes, and objected to the supreme court finding that such bans are not constitutional. I am **not** attacking the poster, since if a mere mistake I make too many to criticize myself, but is this a new American style ? I’m asking because I’ve seen it elsewhere, leaving out verbs for people, and I am genuinely concerned this is an evolution of language one needs to keep up with. ‘_she explicitly a complete ban_’ is understandable, but disconcerting ( and as said, a construction getting common ). > [@doorhinge](#): > > > [@Chicago Tribune](#): > > > > …Clinton replied, "I do not know enough details to tell you how we would do it, or how it would work, That’s the dear old Hillary we’ve grown to love and expect ! _I don’t know how this ‘ **Aeronautic Wooden Go-Cart** ’ works, but get in, and we can launch it together from this cliff._ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/its-official-hillary-lost-mi-pa-wi-by-less-than-the-jill-stein-vote-in-those-states/774628.md?page=6)