I partly agree. One can’t assume nearly every Stein vote would have gone to Clinton, or moreover would have voted for anybody else at all, as some seem to. However there’s a very simple explanation why most Stein voters would probably not have voted for Trump: Stein is green, small g; Clinton claimed to be green; Trump generally (give or take his self contradictions as on every other issue) said he was against green policies in favor of growth (as he claims it would be).
This I doubt more. I don’t see a comparably simple explanation why Johnson’s voters would mainly have gone for Trump otherwise. One can imagine such voters (libertarian leaning GOP’ers put off by Trump the man as well as his economic populism v Johnson’s laissez faire, but who would never vote Democrat). But you could as easily imagine the converse (Democratic leaning voters who couldn’t accept Trump but did not believe Hillary’s ethics problems were ‘manufactured by the hate machine’ etc.) or just generally libertarian leaning people who differ as to which major party infringes more on freedom (the Republicans socially v the Democrats economically).
Anyway lots of 4 way v 2 way polls before the final stretch run seemed to show Clinton losing something around 1% net in 4 ways. 538 quoted this (maybe 1 or 1.5% against Clinton and you could see it eyeballing the various polls). IOW there was never any poll evidence Johnson was pulling votes mainly from Trump, and no reason to believe it ended up that way IMO.
Probably, Stein hurt Clinton a little and Johnson was a wash, maybe Stein hurt Clinton a bit more than a little and Johnson Trump a little, but not much.
The idea that Hillary Clinton was a progressive was invented by her supporters in February to counter Bernie Sanders. That’s one reason you didn’t see her take a progressive stance on marijuana, because she wasn’t a progressive.
Except that the majority of voters are not making decisions about who to vote for in a rational evaluation of the comprehensive impact of the candidates’ positions. If they were, even irrespective of the possibility of winning, Clinton still comes out as pragmatically the best (or at least least worst) of all of the candidates. Even if you believe that Clinton is “…the second-worst thing that can happen to this country…” she is still the only candidate with sufficient practical experience and a detailed enough set of policy statements to even be able to assess how good of a president she would be. But many voters aren’t voting on policy, past performance, or even on personality; they’ve voting on some kind of nebulous ‘culture war’ bullshit that has been sold to them, and they’re willing to overlook that the candidates they’re embracing have neither the political chops nor any understanding of how the government operates to effect the supposed policies. That is the reality that has to be acknwoledge, and Clinton, by dint of entering a race with net negative public approval and carrying the hooks for accusations of scandal was fighting an uphill battle that should have rationally been a near-certain win for an actually appealing candidate.
This is factually untrue if by ‘gun control’ you mean laws restricting firearm ownership, purchase, or use. They are and have been big supporters of gun control, in the form of background checks, restrictions on felons and severely mentally ill owning or acquiring guns, concealed carry licensing, firearms dealer licensing, and more. As recently as June of this year the NRA backed a major gun control bill, it’s not just something in the distant past.
Do you mean actual ‘mild’ to ‘moderate’ gun control, or do you mean a DC- or UK- style gun ban that you want to call ‘mild’?
Yes obviously in terms of actual policy as distinct from political spinning. The reason various states’ ACA exchanges are entering the adverse selection death spiral is that the mandate isn’t strong enough to prevent the insured population from being significantly sicker than the eligible population. Higher costs drive out the healthy first, raise costs more, and so on. In case anyone thinks it’s a political debate whether that can happen, a number of states had gteed issue pre ACA. Their markets imploded. I live in one. Private insurance rates in NJ were 3-4 times as high as most states where ins co’s could price or decline coverage based on medical history. Now that differential has leveled out considerably. ACA premium subsidies (there were never state level subsidies in NJ to buy gteed issue insurance so that is a difference) might have proven enough to offset an ineffective mandate, but it doesn’t seem to be turning out that way.
So people trying to find something which actually works and is politically feasible will have a heck of a time. Whereas political jib jabbers can still just say the ACA is working just great; or can say it’s terrible then pretend you can repeal just parts of it without the whole thing falling apart; or can just say ‘all we have to do’ is go to single payer, when the votes for that are light years from being there.
Not just Greens but centrist independent voters seemed to have voted with the assumption that if they don’t like the way the country is going in 4 years, they’ll just vote for someone else. Despite all of their professed insecurities about the economy and whatever else, a vote for Trump, underneath it all, reveals a rather strong sense of personal inoculation against the worst of Trump’s impulses and the political dynamics generated by his campaign. People who voted for Trump aren’t worried about racism – they don’t believe it’ll effect them. Despite all the bullshit they post on Facebook, they don’t believe the Obama economy is that bad. They just feel better that the country is being governed by a smarmy white male. They will have a lot of time to consider the costs of their vote.
Question 1: How about a ban on open carry?
Answer: Never. But that’s not gun control, that’s gun carrying control.
Question 2: Ok, then let’s enact a ban on magazine sizes. No one needs more than ten rounds in a magazine.
Answer: Absolutely not. But that’s gun magazine control, not gun control.
Question 3: Well, then a ban on the mentally ill, if they’re a danger to themselves or others, buying guns?
Answer: I think you know the answer to that. “That’s gun buyer control, not gun control.”
Question 4: OK, at least can we ban any people of Scottish ancestry from buying guns?
Answer: Sure. If they’re True Scotsman.
Yeah. A person who spent their whole life working in public service and for all intents and purposes had good, reasonable plans for how to move America forward. SPACE HITLER!
Working in public service generally means meagre monetary rewards for a life time’s selfless toil.
Breaking down the claim, her ‘public service’ was government lawyer, president’s wife, congresswoman, secretary of state and eternal candidate. And an income of $10 million a year.
In none of them was she more distinguished than other government lawyers, president’s wives, congress people, secretary of states, — and sometimes worse — most of whom in Washington are equally intelligent and capable, and far less rewarded, if without the inane self-belief that collapsed her campaign, and monotonous self-satisfaction and monomanical self-praise that drove her on her fatal course.
The fact she lost to a *Trump *is just icing on the cake.
Are you making fun of me, or the NRA? See the NRA feels if you have the right to buy a gun, you can buy any gun any time, and in any amount, and carry them in any jurisdiction, open or concealed. But they dont feel criminals should own guns.
Thus, Gun Control is “bad” to them. Stopping Criminals or crazy people from buying guns is fine.
So according to the NRA:ban on open carry?= No. ban on magazine sizes? =No.
mentally ill? Well, maybe, but it depends. (really crazy people no, but veterans with PTSD? Maybe OK)
So, yes, Virginia, there is a difference between Gun Control and Gun Buyer control. Perhaps not a clear difference, but it’s there.
And by and large, even tho I despise the NRA, I dont have much issue with their gun control viewpoints.
It’s not the only thing people remembered, but somehow many of those small-to-middling conservative states seem to carry more weight in the EC, per popular vote cast. Trump’s insults and gaffes were offensive mainly to Democrats, who are either in solidly Democratic states that would have ended up awarding their votes to Clinton regardless, or else in conservative states that would gone to the Republicans regardless.
I prefer to think that if anyone was so engaged as to consider voting for a third party would, in its absence, have made the rational decision to vote for Hillary, in this case–for all the reasons that have already been stated.
I sometimes wonder if third party voters on the left like to imagine themselves in a European type parliamentary democracy in which splinter parties often get to play a pivotal role in national government, and may even score a ministry or two.