Yes, Give Stein’s votes to Hillary and she wins all three of those states … and the Oval Office.
And Johnson got more than thrice the votes of Stein. Give Hillary those votes as well and she takes Florida, Arizona (and Omaha, Neb.) for a landslide.
Clinton would have won Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Arizona in that case. She would have easily won the electoral college.
It’s only true of Michigan. In PA and WI, the margin of Trump victory was greater than the total number of Green votes. It’s true that the margin from Michigan, if spread over the other two, could have swung all three states.
Pennsylvania:
Trump - 2,912,941
Clinton - 2,844,705
Difference: 68,236
Stein - 48,912
Wisconsin:
Trump - 1,405,284
Clinton - 1,382,536
Difference: 22,748
Stein - 31,072
But yes, as far as Michigan goes:
Michigan:
Trump - 2,279,805
Clinton - 2,268,193
Difference: 11,612
Stein - 50,700
22748 > 31072 ? 
This must be that “New Math” I’ve heard so much about…
I disagree. If you want to change politics, you have to get involved. Third party supporters are voluntarily removing themselves from the political process; if you tell the Democrats and Republicans you’re not going to vote for either of them, both parties know your views can safely be ignored.
I will admit to donating every year to keep my Green Party membership going (hey, I like the idea behind the party even if it never works in practice), but I am going to renounce my membership and go back to generic “no party” again, I don’t want to be associated with Jill Stein.
Don’t worry everyone, I didn’t vote Green this year anyway.
But then, that would prove Trump was right and the election was rigged. Only by winning could he prove it wasn’t, but it still was rigged because even though he won, trillions of illegal Mexicans voted for The Crooked One 
alternative math
The numbers shown at Wikipedia are different from yours, swinging PA. (Wiki for WI was same as yours, with C+S>T.) I’ll add Wiki’s number in red to your charts.
Pennsylvania:
Trump - 2,912,941 **2,970,733**
Clinton - 2,844,705 **2,926,441**
Difference: 68,236 **44,292**
Stein - 48,912 **49,941**
But yes, as far as Michigan goes:
Michigan:
Trump - 2,279,805 **2,279,543**
Clinton - 2,268,193 **2,268,839**
Difference: 11,612 **10,704**
Stein - 50,700 **51,463**
Which numbers are correct? Both sets are! In our Brave New World, everyone is entitled to his or her own facts.
I got twenty tweets into her feed and found three tweets that were just insanely stupid.
The Green Party feed also has a tweet saying “Just enough Democratic Senators are voting for Trump’s appointees to enable their confirmation.” Apparently in the Green Party, they’re using alternative math.
Jill Stein has “corporate” water on the brain.
During the campaign she developed a massive case of butt-hurt because John Oliver made fun of her, leading to her issuing this statement:
-
" …We need to begin having honest conversations about the oppressive tactics corporate comedians continue to do towards already-marginalized groups of people.
This country was built on oppressing The Other (Blacks and indigenous people) and I’m not going to stand for more of this while we deal with major crises in this country that could determine whether we’ll even survive as a species…deceptive comedy continues to silence anyone who speaks out against it…"*
“Corporate comedy” - lotta laugh$ there. :dubious:
I guess you should be arguing the law, counselor, because you certainly don’t have the facts. The PA and WI totals were revised in the days following the election as the recount efforts geared up. Both margins were less than Stein’s total when all was said and done.
Both sourced to the respective relevant official state departments.
Objection overruled!
Edit to Add : Wow, your own cite has the revised, correct totals for Wisconsin, as other people have pointed out. Math much?
As true as that is, taking for example Pennsylvania, the final margin was 44,292. In order to overcome that about 89% of Pennsylvania Stein voters would have had to (1) show up and (2) vote for Clinton. That’s possible? But I’m not sure how particularly likely it is. Some of them would have stayed home, some would have voted for Gary Johnson, and even a few would have voted for Trump.
The entire species is in danger and she’s worried about late night comedians.
I think “Jill Stein is a stupid cretin” nailed it.
The other possibility is that if Jill Stein hadn’t spent nearly all her time talking shit about Clinton, maybe some folks who stayed home in disgust would have come out to vote. Hard to tell.
That’s true, though I’m not sure how much she fomented that dislike of Clinton or only tapped into it. But you’re right; if the hypothetical alternative is something richer than “Stein just happens not to compete in these states”, rather maybe something like “Stein and the green party support Clinton against a clearer danger”, then that could easily have swung things.
Not since Bull Moose Teddy came in second, anyway.
Meh, I’ve been an unapologetic third-party voter for decades. It was BS to blame Perot for Bill Clinton, BS to blame Nader for Bush, and BS to blame Stein for Trump. The problem isn’t Perot, Nader, or Stein, the problem is the major party candidate failing to convince the Perot, Nader, or Stein voters to choose them instead. Alternatively, the problem is the two-party system in the first place, but then you’re in the awkward position of saying third parties are spoilers and thus a bad thing, but that we need third parties because the two party system is broken…
I guess what we really need is election reform that has things like instant run-off voting and then we can have a reasonable choice of candidates instead of just the normal choices between a turd sandwich, giant douche, and a couple crazy assclowns.
Enjoy,
Steven
Pay attention to the conversation before you chime in.
DesertDog said :
"I checked after the election. If every single person who voted for the Green and Libertarian party’s candidate plus that write-in guy from Utah had voted for Clinton (an impossibility) she still would not have won. "
I corrected him. Bricker responded with nonsense, as is his wont. I corrected him as well.
The likelihood of such a scenario is not under discussion. Just the facts.
What … the … fuck … are … you … talking …about?