Summations Only

Such is a fact, yes. Sure.
And if more voted for Trump he would have won by more.And now the Democrats get a message that Hillary (and any other "not good enough" candidate they personally prefer) won't cut it.
The Democrats get a message that they need to listen to their voters.
Isn't that the point of voting? And what if they didn't stick their nose in the air?
What if they simply didn't like Hillary and liked someone else like Jill or Bernie better?Then, if they did vote for Hillary... and Hillary won... wouldn't that be incredibly stupid? Wouldn't they then have helped put someone in office they didn't want there, and (much worse) indicate to the Democrat leaders that they're doing a wonderful job and should keep heading in the same direction when they think the exact opposite? That is a terrible use of a vote.
It's short-sighted and can easily be seen as "a waste" (since your actual views got washed away and presumed to be something they're not).But, voting for someone you want in office out of the available candidates is never a childish vote.
It's exactly the kind of vote it's supposed to be.
Regardless of whether it wins or loses.
Regardless of whether or not someone else wins or loses because of it (if you could ever actually show such a thing).
It sends a message about what you, as a voter, want to see in office.

My only objection is that it uses baseball...

Yeah, from the 1 percent of folks that voted for Jill, that is a heck of a message...Meanwhile, the message seems to be that if you don't like the Hilary, then we might just as well have Trump. So thank you from the rest of us...

I will stress again that Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million. The point of voting is whatever the voter decides it is. If they want to use their vote as punitive punishment for a perceived slight, then that is their right. If they want to use their vote to help get Trump elected, then that is their right.However, they can't come back and act as if they had nothing to do with Trump winning, or that they truly thought Jill Stein or Gary "What's Aleppo?" Johnson were a better option than Clinton. Did they think that Stein or Johnson were a better option than Trump? If so, their vote was worse than a waste. Their vote resulted in someone even worse than Clinton, Stein, or Johnson being elected.

No question, but the real question is why the DNC/Hillary did not attract their votes. If people are going to vote for their best interest then it is incumbent on the candidate to appeal to those voters by having issues they want to see enacted. What interests did they have that Clinton did not fulfill.Until they figure out what they did wrong they will not earn those votes.I have seen a number of cases where Trump voters were sorry they voted for him.I have not heard of any cases of Stein voters that were sorry they voted for her.I also found it curious that Stein was the only candidate to challenge the vote tally in those critical states, and they did uncover some shenanigans ...However, rather than dwell on this the DNC should be actively looking for win issues for 2018. So far all they have is medicare for all ... provided by Bernie.enjoy

Protecting and improving the ACA in the short term is a winner for the DNC. Medicare for all won't get passed until someone else is holding the VETO stamp in the White House, so it makes Medicare For All a possible argument in 2020. Even then, government run healthcare may not do well with moderate Democrats and independents since it is an easy target for Republicans to campaign against (see Tea Party movement and their big wins in 2010).Overall, if Dems want to win they are going to have to move towards the center on social issues, IMHO. Society is moving really, really fast and it makes rural America, and Rust Belt America specifically, nervous about where the country is going. They want to know that they haven't been forgotten as once persecuted groups find themselves on equal footing. If there is one thing Hillary showed us is that you can't win the election by relying on a 3 million vote lead from urban America.

Well, no, not in any way. This isn't true whether you're talking about people votes or electoral college votes. I don't know if you're sidestepping the point on purpose or by accident, but fundamental to what Taq is saying is that the outcome was filtered through the electoral college. Trump won by more electoral college votes, not more people votes. Many more people voted for Clinton than for Trump. If more people had voted for Trump then all that would have happened is that he would have lost the popular vote by less. The additional Trump votes would be very unlikely to have affected the electoral college. The Democrats do have a serious problem, but you're again missing the key point, though a different one this time.
The point to be taken away from our current predicament isn't that Clinton wasn't good enough - she most certainly was, especially given the fiasco we've been witness to over the past seven months. The point is that we have a system that produced the worst president in the history of presidents, and who, not incidentally, is a loathsome human being. This time you're sort of orthogonal to the key point. In this case Taq's point was a "cut off your nose to spite your face" kind of point. If there were people who made a statement by not voting it could only be because they didn't grasp the scale of the catastrophe were Trump elected. To the extent that this happened, how does that make any sense since by not voting for Clinton they made possible the election of Trump? However much anyone might have preferred Stein or Sanders to Clinton, Trump would not have been their second, third or even fourth choice. He would have been more like their googolplex choice. Given that it's a possibility that could have kept Trump out of office, it's a wonderful use of a vote.And coming at your "short-sighted" comment from a different angle, this is far too simplistic a view, ignoring the known drawbacks of popular elections. That's not to say it's a bad system, it's not, but it does have drawbacks. One of the more obvious drawbacks is apropos to your comments, that when there are more than two candidates (or in the main election more than two parties), the additional candidates can act as spoilers that cause outcomes opposed by the majority of the voters.Gee, just like with Trump.--Percy

I voted for Bernie in the Minnesota caucus and Bernie took Minnesota.Then I switched to voting Hillary because she was the best of the possible options. Jill was not a possible option for defeating Donald. And, despite her wonderful "green" positions, I wonder if Jill could be a competent President?What if the election had come down to Bernie vs Donald, with Jill as a third party. And that Jill still managed to tip the results to Donald?The "liberal" side needs to unite to defeat the Republican candidate. Period.MooseAdded by edit:Until we have some sort of runoff vote system, not voting for "the lesser of two evils" may result in getting "the greater of two evils". Voting a third party candidate is functionally not voting at all. You are not voting in support of either of the two viable candidates, nor are you voting against the least desirable candidate.Edited by Minnemooseus, : Added by edit.

Stile writes:

quote:

---

And now the Democrats get a message that Hillary (and any other "not good enough" candidate they personally prefer) won't cut it.

---

Question: What made Clinton "not good enough"?Because if we take RAZD as an example, she was almost spot on the candidate he wanted. She had a plan to do all of the things he said he wanted. So why wasn't she "good enough"?

quote:

---

What if they simply didn't like Hillary and liked someone else like Jill or Bernie better?

---

If their vote is partly responsible for why Trump carried their state, then they are responsible for Trump winning their state.I live in California. We are solidly blue and Trump wasn't going to win the state so we have more leeway when it comes to "sending a message."For people who lived in states like Michigan and Pennsylvania, that ability to "send a message" doesn't exist. You need to pay attention to not merely who you are voting for but also what final effect your vote will have. If your vote results in the person you didn't want winning to win, then you are responsible for that person winning."Because I can't get everything I want, I'll vote such that I get nothing." OK. And who do you think is responsible for you getting nothing of what you want?

quote:

---

Then, if they did vote for Hillary... and Hillary won... wouldn't that be incredibly stupid?

---

Nope. Instead, it would be incredibly smart. Because instead of getting none of what they want, they'd be getting some. Instead of having an administration that will *NEVER* listen to them and will *NEVER* consider their wants and possibly change, they will have an administration that might listen to them and might consider their wants and possibly change.It's why DOMA fell less than 20 years after it was enacted with a majority of Democrats. Should gay people have simply abandoned the field to the Republicans? Note, the fight isn't over. The Justice Department just went before the courts to argue that discrimination against gay people is legal. Yeah, gay people can get "married," but that doesn't mean any state has to provide the benefits of marriage to them. Yeah, gay people can't be stoned in the streets, but that doesn't mean public accommodations have to treat them equally.Do you really think Clinton would have the Justice Department make that argument? Should gay people who voted in such a way that they helped Trump win be happy that they didn't "sell out"?Or, more accurately, should the gay person who is under threat of being evicted from their homes, losing their jobs, being denied services from both the government and the public square, be OK with someone who didn't "sell out" their vote?Should the people dying in Puerto Rico right now be proud to be martyrs for your cause to "send a message" to Democrats?

quote:

---

It's short-sighted and can easily be seen as "a waste" (since your actual views got washed away and presumed to be something they're not).

---

That is completely backwards. To vote such that the person you least wanted winning is the one to win is clearly a waste precisely because your actual views are now washed away and presumed to be something they're not.You think Trump is going to listen to people who didn't vote for him?Do you not understand the point behind a primary? That's where you "send the message." To do it at the general is to shoot yourself.

quote:

---

But, voting for someone you want in office out of the available candidates is never a childish vote.

---

It is when it results in you losing everything you gained. I really want to know: Should the people dying in Puerto Rico be proud to be martyrs to those who were "sending a message"?

quote:

---

It sends a message about what you, as a voter, want to see in office.

---

Yep.It sends a message that you'll shoot yourself and take everybody down with you if you don't get everything you want.It sends a message that you don't care about the consequences of your actions or how many peoples' lives are hurt so long as you get to remain pure.Heaven forbid you should do any of the dirty work of politics. If you don't like the candidates you have now, where were you a dozen years ago when they were starting their political careers? *THAT* is where you send your message. By the time they get to the top of the national ticket, it's too late.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

but the real question is why the DNC/Hillary did not attract their votes.

---

Well, part of it is people like you who have misrepresented her platform.

quote:

---

However, rather than dwell on this the DNC should be actively looking for win issues for 2018. So far all they have is medicare for all ... provided by Bernie.

---

Ahem. Seems you have the same problem with the DNC that you do with Clinton:You don't know what they're doing, so you assume they aren't doing anything. Whose fault is that?Let's see...there's raising the minimum wage, protecting and expanding unions, three months paid family leave, protecting and expanding Social Security, reversing the disastrous pre-funding mandate on the Post Office, infrastructure, climate change, incentives for green energy, protect and expand the CFPB, removing the Confederate Flag from government holdings, ending the private prison system, protecting DREAMers, and on and on and on.Why don't you know about any of this? Indeed, part of the problem is that the DNC isn't messaging it well. But part of it is that nobody wants to hear it. When we have the disaster that is Trump, the focus is on preventing the fire from spreading. And let's not forget the media that doesn't want to hear it. It doesn't play into the narrative that Democrats "don't have any win issues."To take it back to the election: Clinton gave a lot of policy speeches during her campaign. But I bet you never heard about them because the media, rather than cover them, spent their time broadcasting an empty podium with a countdown clock for when Trump was going to speak.There's a reason Clinton won the election with the second largest vote take in history.

Taq writes:

quote:

---

Overall, if Dems want to win they are going to have to move towards the center on social issues, IMHO. Society is moving really, really fast and it makes rural America, and Rust Belt America specifically, nervous about where the country is going. They want to know that they haven't been forgotten as once persecuted groups find themselves on equal footing. If there is one thing Hillary showed us is that you can't win the election by relying on a 3 million vote lead from urban America.

---

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Democrats win when they actually stand up for the principles they claim they stand for. There's a reason that marriage equality is now a majority-held position when just twenty years ago, it was a big loser. It's because gay people fought and forced people to deal with it. They did *NOT* accept "civil unions." They took them where they could because it's better to have something than nothing, but that never stopped the fight for full equality.And note, it isn't over. We are still fighting to have that equality recognized as actual, full-bore equality. The Justice Department just argued in court that it is legal to discriminate against gay people. That the right to get married doesn't actually include any of the rights associated with marriage (among other things).What makes "rural America" nervous about where the country is going is the dog-whistles and fear-mongering put forward by the conservatives. We have seen it for centuries:A plate of a dozen cookies are put on the table. The rich guy snatches 11 of them, turns to the middle-class guy and says, "That poor guy is trying to steal your cookie."*THAT* is the biggest problem. People have this idea that the reason coal jobs are vanishing is because Democrats have some sort of vendetta against coal when the simple fact of the matter is that mining today is not the same as it was before. Rather than blame automation and a shift in energy schemes (natural gas), they blame "liberals" who are "giving away our jobs" to "."The majority of conservatives think that they are going to be affected by the Estate Tax. Why? Because the conservatives told them they were. So when they come along and say that there is a "war on Christmas" and that "Christians are being persecuted," they believe it, too.It isn't true, though.So your advice that Democrats should pay lip-service to Republican lies is precisely the wrong thing to do.It simply ensures that the lie lives on. Immigrants did not take your job. Suppose we were to do what Trump wants and manage to deport them all. When you still don't have a job, who are you going to blame next? You think they're going to finally wise up to the idea that it wasn't "immigrants took my job!" but rather something else? That the problem is something much less emotional and concrete like economic policy and Reaganomics that incentivized profits over people?When you have people who are incapable of conceiving that "liberal" does not mean "communist," catering to that foolishness does you no favors.

Disagree, it is more important than ever to win seats in the senate and the house. The dems need to think beyond the 4 year presidential cycle. Senate seats won in 2018 would last until 2024, house seats would be a continuing battle.Also important is to win state elections so that pressure from the states can be applied. In my opinion that is why Hillary lost -- too close to republicans to make a distinction. I think she lost millennial votes to Stein over climate change issues, so climate change should be a big issue for 2018 and later.I also think she lost voters over minimum wage and Wall Street issues, being too wishy washy on the first and not taking a strong stand on restoring controls on Wall Street. The impression a lot of people got was that those Wall Street speeches were placating the bankers that she would not go after them. Indeed, and that means going after rapacious banks and investors that tanked the system so that people lost homes and retirement funds, it means living security issues like a living minimum wage and paid family leave. It means restoring and extending Glass Steagall (not saying what we have is good enough).It means tax reform that benefits the workers.It means safe affordable housing.It means things important to working people rather than corporations and banks.Enjoy

Seems like a better message than the alternative. If you want to read something into it that doesn't exist... then you're being part of the problem.

What if they want to use their vote to vote for who they think the best candidate is?
Why is that not an option? I agree.
In the sense that this applies equally to everyone who voted and not voted. Nothing more, nothing less. Are you better at reading someone elses mind than they are themselves?I'm not saying Hillary was or was not a better option.
I'm in Canada, I didn't even vote for your election.I'm saying that it's not right to say that those who voted for Jill helped Trump win.
I mean, it's technically correct.
But it's also technically correct that Hillary running helped Trump win (because Hillary didn't get enough votes).
It's meaningless drivel meant to get others to do what you want.If Hillary didn't get enough votes to win, it's because she didn't appeal to enough people.There can be many reasons someone doesn't appeal to enough people.And if your reason is "I don't want a two party system" and/or "I want someone like Jill to be a leader instead of someone like Hillary"...
Then a vote for Jill is exactly what you should do.And no whining about "Votes for Jill mean Hillary didn't win!" mean anything against that.
The vote wasn't about trying to get Hillary, or the Democrats, or "not-Trump" to win.The vote was about saying "I like Jill better than any of the other candidates... choose people more like her rather than Hillary." This is the short-sightedness I'm talking about.
Yes, the vote was a waste for this election (and you only know that after the election).However, the vote was not a waste for saying "I don't like Hillary, give me better options and maybe I'll vote for you next time."
If that's the point, then the vote was not only wasted... it succeeded with a resounding thunder that they have to notice or else the Democrats will lose again.What better voice for a vote could there be?

"Seems like a better message than the alternative."You mean better than the message that Trump is unfit to lead this country? Sure, if you say so."If you want to read something into it that doesn't exist... then you're being part of the problem."I think our reality reflects the results of a people voting against Hilary to send a message. We all got the message loud and clear. "We want Bernie, or screw all y'all." Those folks were certainly part of my problem.