Summations Only

"Clinton wasn't good enough" can mean multiple things.I meant it in a general sense to indicate that Clinton didn't win the election.
Something about her wasn't good enough to win the election... because she didn't win.
This is a historical, undeniable fact. I've said this many times.Like when the Falcons lost the Superbowl last year.
The Falcons weren't good enough to win the Superbowl.You can take "the Falcons weren't good enough" to mean something else and start arguing that they are professional NFL players, and a certain amount of luck exists in any sporting event at that level, and they were up by more than 3 TDs at one point... so they certainly are "good enough"... they just didn't win.But that's all avoiding the general point. The general point is that the Falcons didn't win. The Falcons were not good enough to win the Superbowl in that game.That's how I mean "Clinton wasn't good enough." In general, Clinton wasn't good enough to become the President in that election.You seem to have taken "Clinton wasn't good enough" to imply that I meant something specific about Clinton that needs to be specified and detailed, and shown who could have done better, when and why.
You are wrong.Just as the Falcons can be a very good team, they might be able to beat New England 9 times out of 10 (doubt it, but just saying...) they still were not good enough to win the Superbowl in that game. Historical fact.Clinton can be a very good candidate, she could be the best available candidate, she might be able to beat Trump again right now by a landslide... it all doesn't change the historical fact that Clinton wasn't good enough to beat Trump to become President in the last election.You're talking about potential, I'm just talking in general about the historical fact of what happened.In forcing such a specific view onto me, you've created these contradictions you claim I hold.
I agree that IF I meant what you understand "Clinton wasn't good enough" to mean... THEN it creates contradictions in what you think my ideas are.However, since you are wrong about what I mean by "Clinton wasn't good enough," you are also wrong about the contradictions that require your interpretation of that phrase in order to exist.Your idea of what I mean by "Clinton wasn't good enough" and your following ideas about my contradictions that rely on that interpretation only exist in your head.

If I am allowed to further strain your analogy, it would be a bit like saying the Falcons were not good enough to win the Superbowl even though they scored more points than the Patriots.I know that the President is elected by the Electoral College and all that stuff, but it is hard to ignore the feeling that there is something inherently unfair about the process. In the last two decades there have been two cases where Democrats have garnered more votes and still lost. To use your analogy, it's as if the Falcons have to be ahead by two touchdowns in order to be crowned champs while the Patriots simply have to be within 14 points in order to win.But this is really just bitching and moaning about a process that was already in place. However, it has resulted in a situation where the sitting President didn't even get a plurality of votes, much less a majority.

As a member of the Puerto Rican diaspora, Trumps behavior in Puerto Rico shows his utter inability as a President. To belittle and try to humiliate 3.5 million US citizens is beyond the pale.The people of Puerto Rico will get through this and rise up stronger in spite of the behaviors and actions of the president. The attitude and power of the Puerto Rican people after recovery may not be what a lot of people in the US want to see, but when you treat people like this you have to expect the long term repercussions.

Very true. This may be a good analogy to show how it feels.But I think this is straining things to show how things are.Unless you're suggesting that it's impossible for the reverse situation to occur?
Is it impossible for people to vote in such a way that the Republicans get the majority of votes, but they don't win because the Democrats were elected due to the Electoral College? I am assuming that this is possible, and in this sense the election process is still "even." Exactly.
Also, it's completely tangential to the point that it's possible for a 3rd party vote to have valid meaning, even if it helped Trump win.
Someone who wanted Trump to lose may not feel that way.
However, it's certainly possible that the one who made the vote does feel that way.And, the two feelings are of equal weight in the order of the value of personal opinion.One is placing the results of this election as a priority.
The other is placing something else as a priority (perhaps future elections, or the system of the election in general).

Well, now we've back to, "My words mean whatever I want them to mean." Yes, we know, you've said this many times, and the rebuttal remains the same, the exact same, that Clinton won the popular vote by a substantial margin and the loss came down to the vagaries of the electoral college in a small number of districts. Repeating yourself as a response to the rebuttal isn't a real response.I know you feel we're not interpreting you in the manner you intended, but we think we are and that your position is still wrong, and that the rebuttal covers precisely why we feel this way. Merely repeating your position is insufficient, and I think that if you begin trying to address the rebuttal that you might discover the facets of your position that don't hold up to scrutiny. Or maybe you'll carry the day, you'll never know until you try. Except that the Falcons were plenty good enough to win the Superbowl. That they didn't win the Superbowl *is* a historical fact. That they were good enough to win the Superbowl is *not* a historical fact. It went to overtime, for Christ's sakes, and no matter how many times I watch that winning touchdown I'm still not convinced that James White got the ball across the goal line before his knee touched the ground. Without that touchdown the Patriots might have eventually had to settle for a field goal, and then the Falcons would have had the ball, and they could have scored a touchdown. It was a very, very close thing. The Falcons were plenty good enough to win the Superbowl. No, I am right. What you say on a debate board doesn't stand just because you said it. You can't just throw stuff out there and say, (sic) "I don't need to be specific or detailed or give any when, where, what, why or how. It's just true because I say so, and if you disagree then you don't understand what I'm saying, so I'm going to repeat it again word for word over and over again so that you understand it, and this repetition is going to be my sole rebuttal, and if you don't like it then that's your problem." Did I get that about right?Your general position of, "You lost so you're not good enough," makes no sense, whether it's about an election or sports or a job or whatever. Many other factors are involved. Like I'm sure you don't believe that Jared Kushner got his job because he was good enough. He got it because he's Trump's son-in-law. That means that for the guys that didn't get Jared Kushner's job, it wasn't because they weren't good enough. It's because they weren't Trump's son-in-law.And Trump certainly didn't get elected because he's good enough. Well, let me qualify that. He's plenty good enough in front of crowds to get them to vote for him, but he has none of the qualifications of government or statesmanship that would make him anywhere close to good enough to be president. By any measure he is not good enough to be president, and he proves it everyday, nearly every hour.So when you say Clinton wasn't elected because she wasn't good enough, it not only ignores what really happened, it's the wrong message to take when strategizing for the "Dump the Donald" campaign of 2020. I'm not really forcing a view onto you so much as I'm saying you're wrong.And the contradiction has nothing to do with what you said about Clinton. It has to do with your two opposite responses to what I said (you agree) and to what Taq said (you disagree) when we said pretty much the same thing.--Percy

If you're going to insist that my words to not mean what I intend them to mean, then I have no avenue in which to pursue clarification with you.You have created your own prison.Good day.

Does the irony really escape you that you've been pretty much saying what Humpty Dumpty said:

quote:

---

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to meanneither more nor less."

---

Anyway, the rebuttal is out there if you ever want to get around to it. Well, another misuse of language. You're deeming that you're refusal to respond in any meaningful way puts me in a prison? I do admit to regret that apparently there's not going to be an intelligent, informed discussion leading to a resolution, but regret isn't a prison, except perhaps poetically or metaphorically. I hope you have a good day, also. This isn't personal, I'm just calling 'em like I see 'em. If I'm shown wrong then so be it, but that's never going to happen if you're done talking.--Percy

The electoral college nearly guarantees that less populated states (i.e. rural) have more influence in the electoral college than more populated states (i.e. urban). There is an interesting chart in this article if you are interested. Therefore, the party that appeals to rural America will have an inherent edge when it comes to the electoral college.Could party affiliation flip between the Dems and Reps with respect to rural and urban America? I guess it could, but that doesn't change the facts in the reality we find ourselves in now. What we are arguing is:1. Is the cost of making the point worth it.
2. Is it a good point to begin with.As Percy said earlier, it is a bit like cutting off your nose to spite your face.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

How would you know except in hindsight? It is. Because you know what the outcome was. Otherwise, that is a risk, yes.Whether or not the point is worth the risk is up to the individual, and they should decide how they cast their vote - given the information they have at the time.You shouldn't apply your hindsight to it.

There was always a non-zero probability that voting for a 3rd party candidate would get Trump elected. Spending 5 seconds thinking about the situation would tell you that voting for Jill Stein was increasing Trump's chances of winning. It isn't. Boy, that was easy.

Yes, as I said: there's risk. But still, whether or not the point is worth the risk is up to the individual, and they should decide how they cast their vote. Yup, sharing your opinion is easy.

Of course, the individual should decide. The individual can assess the risks too.That does not mean that all decisions are rational or that all risk-taking is beyond critique. Exercise your freedom. Heck, you can march with Nazi's if you want. But not every choice demands respect.

IOW, they knew the risk and they did it anyway. Instead of voting for a flawed Democrat they contributed to electing an incompetent Republican by voting for a candidate they really didn't want anyway. Good job!!Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Sure, but there was no way that Trump could win, so they might as well send a message with their vote. You contribute to an election by voting for a candidate. Voting for Candidate 3 does not contribute to the election of Candidate 1.It can have the effect of Candidate 2 not receiving enough votes to be elected, but I wouldn't call that contributing to Candidate 1 because they didn't vote for them.And you're making assumptions about what they want anyway - so that's beside the point.Saying it's 3rd party voters' fault for Trump being elected just looks like blame-shifting to me.

quote:

---

Donald Trump won the 2016 election with 306 votes to Hillary Clinton’s 232 votes. That is a spread of 74 votes.
Clinton was likely to win in several states in which she lost, including Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, maybe Ohio, etc. In three states that could have gone either way, Jill Stein’s vote count was larger than the difference between Clinton and Trump. In Michigan, Trump won by 10,704 votes, Stein got 51,463 votes. In Pennsylvania, Trump won by 46,765 votes, Stein got 49,678 votes. In Wisconsin, Trump won by 22,177 votes, Stein got 31,006 votes.

​

If every Jill Stein vote would have been a Clinton Vote, it is likely that Clinton would have had 49 electoral votes more than she did have.

---

It was commonly said that Nader cost Gore the New Hampshire Electoral College votes in 2000 because Bush won by 7000 votes while Nader got 22,000.But the best national exit polls showed that 25% of Nader voters would have voted for Bush, and 38% for Gore. (however, there was a good exit poll which showed that 47% of Nader voters would have supported Gore while 24% would have went for Bush)The claim that Nader cost Bush New Hampshire was based on pure ignorance.Then there was Florida.Nader got around 97,000 votes there (something like 1.7%) and Bush only won by 537 votes.It would seem that Gore would have won by 12,00 to 22,000 votes had Nader not been in the race.But the Libertarian candidate (Harry Brown), Constitution Party candidate (Howard Phillips) and Reform candidate (Pat Buchanan) took a much higher percentage of Bush voters than Nader took Gore voters, and they almost got as many votes as Nader when combined.Nader pointed out that political scientists have determined that a straight (year 2000) Bush verse Gore race in Florida would have resulted in Bush winning still. The recount would have been the decisive factor yet again.Stein might have cost Hillary Michigan, but not the national race. And there wouldn't have been a real difference in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and especially Ohio (it always amazed me how people could claim Nader cost Gore Ohio when Bush won 50% to 46% in that state, and Nader only got about 3%, so it will amaze me that Trumps 51% to 42% Ohio 2016 win was "because of that evil Jill Stein").