Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

stevebreeze

(1,882 posts)
Mon Dec 5, 2016, 12:13 AM Dec 2016

So you voted for Stein or Johnson? What did you get for your vote?

It's clear that third party voting did not cause Trump to loose the election. He "won" kinda sorta.

It's far less clear that Hillary Clinton lost due to erosion from third parties. We know that neither Gary Johnson or Jill Stein makes the claim that they are to blame for Clinton's loss. In fact both Jill Stein and Gary Johnson deny they are the cause of Hilary's loss.
Neither third party received the 5% needed for federal funding of their party 4 years from now. Johnson 3.8% Stein less then 1%.
So neither third party is going to have a windfall for party building. Third party's will return to their normal also ran status in four years. Nothing accomplished on this front.

Then you have to ask yourself why aren't Stein and Johnson claiming the messed up the election for Clinton? This is the best outcome either of them could have rationally have hoped for. The BEST! The argument then is one of the large parties should lean toward their stances and so not risk having their election screwed up next time. This isn't happening either.

No third party candidate has ever won in the history of the United States. This leads me to one other factor, the enormous waste of time arguing for third parties on this board and elsewhere. so thanks for that.

If you voted third party you should feel like the right wing played you for a chump, because they did and you were.

Can we at least learn for 2 years from now? I hope so!

15 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

stevebreeze

(1,882 posts)
7. Both Stein and Johnson have said for the record that they didn't change the outcome.
Mon Dec 5, 2016, 12:45 AM
Dec 2016

and I would not deny them their glory, while there were of course other factors they are to blame as well.

 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
8. For president
Mon Dec 5, 2016, 12:45 AM
Dec 2016

No third party candidate has won the presidency. Third party candidates win frequently at the state and local levels.

stevebreeze

(1,882 posts)
14. I would say they occasionally win. The vast majority of state and local election go to Democrats or Rs
Mon Dec 5, 2016, 06:40 PM
Dec 2016

The deck is stacked in many ways in most states. Things like higher number of signatures for ballot access.

Cha

(305,440 posts)
9. They won't be on this board.. this is for DEMs who voted for
Mon Dec 5, 2016, 01:24 AM
Dec 2016

Hillary.

What they got was a climate change denier who hates pot.

 

JCanete

(5,272 posts)
10. that is actually a good question. It is funky terrain. You want to matter, but not to be
Mon Dec 5, 2016, 04:26 AM
Dec 2016

scapegoated and vilified by a media that would love the opportunity, and will probably do their share of it anyway. Making 3rd parties into bitter attention-seeking spoilers is a national past-time.

So they are fighting against that, but arguably whether they admit to an effect or not, its not like the DNC or RNC doesn't have to take notice of what pulled voters away.

Regardless, almost nobody voted for Stein, and I would be very surprised if anybody on these boards voted for Johnson. I don't think anything about his platform aligns with democrats or liberals.

But while we're talking about how worthless 3rd parties are, we should be establishing terms, since there are plenty on this board that would have liked to bar sanders from running within the democratic party. Doing both suggests such a walled garden approach to who gets to run for president, its hardly democratic. Some sort of run-off voting would be the answer I think, where people are allowed to vote for first and second choices. Unfortunately, we have two established parties that will NEVER push for this. It only undermines their choke-hold on the system to do so.

stevebreeze

(1,882 posts)
11. I think run off voting would be great.
Mon Dec 5, 2016, 07:22 AM
Dec 2016

but that is not part of the world that is. I would be surprised if some on this board did not vote for Johnson. More then a few Bernie people in the primary went for Johnson.Exit polling confirms this. Don't ask me why.

LP2K12

(885 posts)
13. First let me say, I voted for Clinton.
Mon Dec 5, 2016, 10:20 AM
Dec 2016

Then let me say, it depends on WHERE they voted for their candidate.

For example, Johnson took enough of the vote in my home state of Michigan that the Libertarian party is now state-funded and recognized for primary voting and debates.

So, yeah they earned him and the party something on the state level, but the federal level was futile.

Either way, it sucks.

JI7

(90,549 posts)
15. most of the Obama votes that didn't go to Hillary went to Johnson
Mon Dec 5, 2016, 07:07 PM
Dec 2016

These were originally ron paul supporters.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»So you voted for Stein or...