Summations Only

Of course in "a way." Perhaps just not the way you're thinking, though. And if the additional "more" Trump votes did affect the electoral college? Then Trump would have won by more, no? I didn't miss that point.My point is saying something like "If you didn't vote for Hillary, then you helped Trump win!" is childish, immature, and short-sighted.
For one, Trump did win. Everyone (whether they voted or not) "helped Trump win." They either voted with him, or they didn't group together enough to vote against him. The fact that Hillary have the majority of votes against him (but not enough to beat him) is an indication that Hillary was a poor choice to go against him... not that more should have voted for Hillary because that would have beaten Trump. If more voted for Jill or Bernie or your second cousin... they all would have beaten Trump.It's quite possible to not vote Hillary, help Trump win, and do it for a good, valid reason that shouldn't be looked down upon. I understand what Taq's message was. I think it's a childish, shortsighted, limited view of the possible reasons why someone might not have voted for Hillary and voted for someone else who wasn't Trump.
It's lumping all non-Hillary votes into one barrel to make things easy-to-digest... which is just wrong.Blaming the voters for the outcome of the vote is like blaming the waiter for your food not being cooked right.
Sure, the waiter could go and cook the food... but he's not supposed to do that, the cook is responsible for that.If Hillary as an option wasn't able to get enough votes to beat Trump... that's not the voter's fault (although it's possible they could have fixed it). It's the people-who-put-Hillary-up-as-the-competition's fault. They're the one your angst should be let out on.
One way to let angst out on those people is to vote for whoever-you-think-is-best to show them how wrong they were putting Hillary up.All I'm saying is to lay your blame where it deserves to be laid... at the feet of those who put Hillary up as the "other option." Obviously it wasn't good enough.
Don't blame voters, even if they "could" have fixed the real problem... It's not using proper focus, and those votes could very well have been used for a very valid, reasonable, good thing. It doesn't.
What I'm saying is that this can be seen as a secondary priority.Just because "fixing those who choose candidates for the democrats" isn't your highest priority... doesn't mean it's objectively a worse priority.And it doesn't mean it's a bad or wrong priority. Your personal judgment is worth nothing more (or less) than anyone else's. Of course.
Which is exactly why not-voting for Hillary can be so powerful. Which it was. I'm sure the Democrats-who-choose-their-candidates will take this latest result into their thinking when they pick a candidate for next election, no?All you seem to be saying is: "It is my personal, subjective, highest priority that Trump should not be in office! And everyone else should have this as their personal, subjective, highest priority too!!"Well, wah, wah... I don't see why.
I don't see why doing what you can to send a message about fixing deep-rooted issues with the Democratic party and a 2-party system in general is such a terrible alternative.I understand it's not your priority (or Taq's.) But why can't looking to the future for long-term benefits be someone else's priority?

I don't know.
Maybe Bernie would have won.
Maybe Trump would still have won.
Maybe Jill would have won.Giving an objective, conclusive result for a made-up alternative reality is hard. With this, I completely agree.What I don't agree with is that "voting for whoever-the-democrats-put-up" is the best way to go about this.I think it's a very reasonable idea to go about it by indicating to the democrats that the people will unite around them whenever they get around to putting up a good candidate. Why is that such a terrible idea? This only make sense if you take on the short-sighted view that this one election is the only election that will ever happen.Take into account that there will be future elections... and more choosen candidates... and that it's quite possible to be taken advantage of if they know you "will all vote for whoever they put up anyway.." and you wind up with a very reasonable, very valid justification for voting for a third-party candidate in order to make sure that the democrat-candidate is a good one.I agree it is a waste in "voting against Trump."
I do not agree it is a waste in general. Those indicating that it is a waste in general are being short-sighted, and part of the problem.

I don't know the specifics, that's why I put it in quotations.
I just meant "whatever resulted in her not appealing to enough people to get enough votes to beat Trump" in a general way. Of course.
As much as everyone else is.
Everyone who voted for Trump is responsible for Trump winning their state.
Everyone who voted for not-Trump is responsible for not banding together so that Trump won their state.
Everyone who didn't vote is responsible for Trump winning their state. This is false. This isn't something I'm saying.
And it only makes sense if there will never be another election.Is the voting over forever? I don't understand your questions.I'm just saying it's possible to want to think about the next election instead of this one.
It's possible to want to send a message so that the candidates are better for the next election instead of choosing the lesser-of-two-evils this election.Are you trying to say that such a position is impossible and unreasonable for anyone to hold? I agree that your statement accurately describes a wasted vote.
However, your statement does not accurately describe the reason for voting I'm talking about.I'm talking about voting such that you send a message to the democrats that Hillary wasn't a good enough option.
Hillary lost. Trump won.
Now the Democrats are forced to look at why Hillary didn't get enough votes to win... and update their process for choosing a candidate.
If that's what a not-for-Hillary-vote wanted... then it 100% succeeded.That is not a waste. No. But this is irrelevant to my point about future elections. I think it's quite obvious that "a message" can be sent at the primary or the general.I agree that it would be better to send this message at the primary.
But I also must admit that it is louder at the general. This is the message that is sent if you are short-sighted and only thinking of the current election.
If you look to future elections, these messages are not sent. You send a message that "Hillary is not good enough, we want a better candidate."You seem to be saying that no gay person would ever have another issue ever again if Hillary beat Trump.
If that was true, I would agree with you.
However, I think this is rather obviously not true. Therefore, a message to the Democrats to "get better candidates" has reasonable value.You seem to be saying that no hurricane will ever hit Puerto Rico again if Hillary beat Trump.
If that was true, I would agree with you.
However, I think this is rather obviously not true. Therefore, a message to the Democrats to "get better candidates" has reasonable value.Edited by Stile, : Fixing quotes.

Yes.I mean to say that it is not unreasonable or wrong to value "getting the Democrats to put up better candidates" better than having Trump in office for 4 years.Do you (or Percy, or Taq, or Rrhain or anyone else) have anything more than personal opinion to the contrary?
If not, then I don't see why someone else's personal opinion that getting the Democrats to put up better candidates isn't reasonable or valid. I agree that you, personally, hold "not letting Trump win" to be a higher priority than "getting the Democrats to get better candidates" this past election.
I don't think that's ever been in question.What's in question is why someone can't reasonably hold the other priority as higher.You (and everyone else) seem to just keep talking about why you subjectively hold the opinion you hold.
This is easily countered with any subjective reason for anyone to hold the other priority higher.Edited by Stile, : Fixing quotes.

"Why is that such a terrible idea?"This question is disingenuous. While you may well disagree on the weight of the choices, you know very well the downside of your proposed action. It is a terrible idea because the anticipated income is someone we all agree is a worse choice than Hilary.Yes, you are free to vote as you will, but when you ask this question, why should we respect you?

You seem to be weighing "Trump in office" (known) vs. "Hillary in office" (unknown - but likely not as bad as Trump).I agree with your assessment of these choices.What I do not agree with is that this is the proper judgment to be making.I think the proper judgment is this:"Trump in office for a limited time" vs. "Democrats becoming even more corrupt and thinking even less that they have to respect the voter by putting up a good candidate for next election"I don't see how you can say choosing to keep the Democrats in check is a "terrible" option at this point.
There seems to be too much unknown-future-potential-problems to accurately judge.I'm not saying that everyone should vote to keep the Democrats in line.
I think it's fine to vote for Hillary just to keep Trump out of office... if that's what you wanted.I'm just saying that it's equally-fine to vote for a 3rd party to keep the Democrats in check.Those who don't agree seem to list a bunch of terrible things Trump is doing.Well, yeah... Trump is terrible. This was easily foreseeable.
What is not easily foreseeable is how much damage the Democratic party could possibly do if they were continually given the "A-Okay, keep going!" signal.Maybe everything would be better and even future elections would be better - then voting for 3rd party would have been the wrong option.
Maybe everything would be better with Hillary in office, but worse in the future because the Democratic party became "more corrupt" - tough to judge because the possibly issues are so far in the future, but has a decent chance with the issues visible with the pre-Hillary Democratic party - then voting for the 3rd party was better.
Maybe everything would be worse with Hillary in office (just less obviously-so) and worse in the future beyond this election as well - I will concede that this is unlikely, but it is still realistically possible - then voting for the 3rd party was better.I'm saying there's not enough information to say, objectively and in general, that voting for a 3rd party was a bad idea.Edited by Stile, : Correcting confusing mistake

I understand that folks do not want to be judged that way. That does not make such judgments improper. Those folks may well have meant for us to get a different message, but they cannot change reality.That message has already helped guarantee that the Supreme Court likely won't get set to anything remotely balanced in my lifetime in addition to resulting in the election of a narcissistic idiot. Thanks again.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

What I am saying is that it isn't a zero sum game. There are people in the US who think that giving someone else rights takes rights away from them, as if there is a Right's Pie that only has a limited number of slices to dole out. We need to show them that this isn't the case. To use an analogy, it's a bit like an older sibling being jealous of the new baby because of all the attention it is getting. We need to sit them down and explain that there is enough love in the family to go around. On the other side they perceive favoritism for minorities and urban ideas that they don't necessarily agree with. Democrats need to work towards more inclusiveness which doesn't require giving up on ideals of equality and protection of minorities. That isn't my advice. If they are being conned by the Republicans, then Democrats are doing a poor job of getting their message out to those communities. Or point out that most of those jobs are low paying and labor intensive jobs that they don't want anyway. I don't see a great outcry among white Americans about how hard it is to get a job picking avocadoes.

I think in the current climate, such a thing is very difficult. Not everybody believes in inclusiveness. In fact, nationalism is about almost exactly the opposite. I think Democrats are in for a rough time.

I agree, I think (it's unclear specifically what you're referencing).For the record... I don't think it's bad to vote Hillary just because you don't want Trump to win.
I don't even thing it's bad to try to persuade others to do the same.I only think it's wrong to say "it's bad/wrong to vote 3rd party because Trump will win" in some sort of objective/general/overall sense.I think that is a short-sighted, lopsided argument.
It may very well be true... but you cannot assign motivation to other people like that.If someone did not want Trump in office at all, and they voted 3rd party... then I fully agree with the argument. This is wrong/bad and doesn't make sense.However, if someone votes for 3rd party for another reason, another motivation... say they want to send a message to the Democrats about the kind of candidates they're providing... then it's wrong to say "it's bad/wrong to vote 3rd party because Trump will win" to them.It doesn't even make sense to say this to them.They're not voting 3rd party because Trump may or may not win... they don't care.
They care about their own motivation.
And if it's "to send a message to the Democrat party on who they provide as a candidate" then they fully succeeded this past election.

Wow.Not everyone holds your personal priorities as their own high priorities.Big surprise?
Are you serious?

"I only think it's wrong to say "it's bad/wrong to vote 3rd party because Trump will win" in some sort of objective/general/overall sense."Trump winning is bad. Objectively. There may be an issue of whether that is ultimately sufficient judgment, but asking me what the downside of an action is when you know full well what the downside is, does not seem honest.You want to insist that my weighing is subjective. So be it. But whether or not Trump is a bad outcome really is not something I think you and I are debating.

"Not everyone holds your personal priorities as their own high priorities."I see, Mr. Kettle.

True.
I agree Trump as President = poops. That's all I'm saying.
And anyone thinking "a 3rd party vote is wasted because it only helped Trump win" is making this ultimate judgment when it's clearly not possible to do so.1. A 3rd party vote isn't wasted if it was made to indicate to the democrats what sort of candidate you would accept so that you can unite. In such a case, it would have been absolutely, thunderously successful.2. Helping Trump win isn't the only thing a 3rd party vote does. Case in point, #1 above. I'm sure there are others as well. I think you just misunderstood me. At least, you misunderstood who I was asking (it was Minnemooseus). Here's what was said: The "such a terrible idea?" part is in response to the implication that the only motivation for a 3rd party vote is to get that candidate to win.
I didn't mean for it to imply anything about Trump specifically. I'm sorry if you got that impression. Or maybe I'm getting confused on your chain-of-thought?

How so? I'd like to correct any conflict if it actually exists.Here's what I just said to you, though: I see that as me indicating that I accept others to have their own priorities.I just don't see how the mere existence of varying priorities make certain ones objectively higher simply because the individual happens to hold them.Priority A: 3rd party votes are wasted because Trump is a terrible president.
Priority B: 3rd party votes can still be valid because they indicated to the Democrats that they need to select better candidates.I'm not saying B is better then A.
I think A is perfectly valid in it's own right.I'm only arguing against those who think that B is not a valid choice for some people to make, if they feel so inclined.