Why Hillary lost the presidential election
By The Horse
@TheHorse (218385)
Walnut Creek, California
November 10, 2016 11:04am CST
I just read an interesting article on Huffington Post. That in and of itself is a rare thing. But this one was well-written and to the point.
The authors suggest that Hillary may have lost the election because of third party candidates. The numbers do add up.
In elections where both candidates are unpopular, as was the case in 2016, third party candidates receive more votes, taking votes away from the candidates who have a chance to win.
According to the article: "Clinton lost some key battleground states like Florida and Pennsylvania by fewer votes than third-party candidates got. In Florida, the former secretary of state lost by just shy of 120,000 votes, handing Trump 29 electoral votes. Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson alone received about 206,000 votes."
The situation was similar in Michigan. Trump won Michigan by 12,000, according to the article, while the Libertarian and Green Party candidates got 223,000 votes between them.
I'll add that Hillary did too little campaigning in Wisconsin, "assuming" she'd win there.
What do you think? Did the unpopularity of both candidates lead to third party candidates taking votes away from Hillary? I'll have to do more research on how Green Party and Libertarian candidates think.
34 people like this
31 responses
@Morleyhunt (21744)
• Canada
10 Nov 16
I was shocked at how bitterly everyone complained about their "2" choices. Then I learned that they did have other choices. I think your American electoral system is pretty skewed. The fear monger ing about the 'third' party voting drove many to vote for a candidate they didn't really want.
11 people like this
@nanette64 (20364)
• Fairfield, Texas
10 Nov 16
It was more about the media NOT interviewing Johnson & Stein @Morleyhunt . A lot of people didn't know about them because of it. To me that is "media bias".
4 people like this
@Morleyhunt (21744)
• Canada
10 Nov 16
@nanette64 the media has a lot to answer for. The general public believes almost everything the hear and read on the mainstream media. They forget the agenda the media moguls have.
6 people like this
@Jessilaurn (15)
• United States
10 Nov 16
Morley: the United States lacks the parliamentary system you enjoy in Canada... but does have first-past-the-post voting. The combination of factors effectively ensures a two-party system down here. That said, Question 5 in Maine (for tiered voting) did pass, and I hope to see it spread to other states; that's the first genuine step toward effective third parties and eventually formation of coalition governments on the state and federal level.
2 people like this
@Jessicalynnt (50523)
• Centralia, Missouri
10 Nov 16
I think more people should have voted, I also think we need to get away from the electoral college, but I don't think a straight popular vote would work either.
9 people like this
@TheHorse (218385)
• Walnut Creek, California
10 Nov 16
@JamesHxstatic We were discussing that possibility at work.
5 people like this
@JamesHxstatic (29413)
• Eugene, Oregon
10 Nov 16
I signed a petition today to drop the EC.
7 people like this
@celticeagle (166595)
• Boise, Idaho
11 Nov 16
I agree with this article. It is so frustrating to see people voting for someone they know wouldn't win. It's a wasted vote as far as I am concerned. I think that so many people were unhappy with government and the way things have been that they would rather vote for a third party they must have known could never win rather than see Clinton get into to office. THey would rather believe in a man like Trump that in experience and diplomacy.
4 people like this
@celticeagle (166595)
• Boise, Idaho
12 Nov 16
@TheHorse .....Yes, and I am sick of thinking about it Clintons are crooks and Trump is who knows what. I hope he isn't a part of the government conspiracy and we can get through the next four years okay.
@JamesHxstatic (29413)
• Eugene, Oregon
14 Nov 16
He has nothing to offer except lies and a big mouth.
2 people like this
@CaptAlbertWhisker (32684)
• Calgary, Alberta
10 Nov 16
I dont blame the 3rd party at all because the people who voted for them dont like her. 3rd parties wanted to have 5 percent votes because that will help them get funds next election. Most 3rd party supporters are not Afraid of Trump victory because he is easy to impeach.
The real blame is Hillary's campaign manager.
Just look at how Positive and resilient Kellyann Conwell was on defending Trump despite of all the negative facts and rumors thrown at him. Also her campaign favored the Atheist and seculars too much they offended the Christians. They could have tried to find this common ground.
Also she should have offered Bernie to be her Vice President.
3 people like this
@anniepa (27955)
• United States
20 Nov 16
Seriously, you're concerned about Christians being offended when Trump has been offending every group possible for a year and a half? Also, Kellyanne Conway is a total hypocrite, she'll say anything she's asked to say by whomever can offer her the most money. I'd laugh if Donald stiffed her since I'm not sure if she was being paid upfront or not.
1 person likes this
@TheHorse (218385)
• Walnut Creek, California
10 Nov 16
Good points. I'd have to look more closely to see what percentage were Libertarians v. Green Party people. Choosing Bernie for VP would have been a cool move. But mightn't have alienated "the middle," which Bill was able to court?
1 person likes this
@crazyhorseladycx (39509)
• United States
10 Nov 16
i hope there'll come a day when we're americans, not parties. when the media'll be fair'n unbiased 's they claim to be. i did enjoy watchin' 'em 'n their expert guest panelists eat crow. they all ought to be 'shamed 'f 'emselves. we'd actually 5 candidates'n our ballet - one fella i'd ne'er heard 'f from utah.
i also feel that all funds raised by all folks runnin' should be put'n one 'kitty' 'n divided equally. that'd show who knew how to stick with a true budget... our system 'tis hosed, 's been fer years. the moneys squandered could'a done lots to benefit our country, like a hefty payment'n our deficit fer starters.
4 people like this
@crazyhorseladycx (39509)
• United States
11 Nov 16
@nanette64 i agree with ya hon. they should all start with'n e'en 'playin' field' fundin' wise. what?? ya mean actually go'n record 's to their plans? 're ya kiddin'? ;) nothin' like's tellin' our young'uns not to be bullies 'n then've those so called professional paradin' 'round showin' 'em jest how low ya can go...
1 person likes this
@nanette64 (20364)
• Fairfield, Texas
11 Nov 16
I believe in a flat fee @crazyhorseladycx . $1 million PERIOD!! With TV, radio and the internet, candidates don't need to travel across the country 50 times. Maybe if they concentrated on stipulating in their commercials what they plan to do instead of insulting each other, the people would actually know what their candidate stands for.
2 people like this
@JudyEv (339295)
• Rockingham, Australia
11 Nov 16
At our elections, there are second and third 'preferences' which count and can make a huge difference to numbers,much like your Electoral whatever I guess. So in Australia it isn't simply the person with the most votes who gets in. The allocation of preferences makes a big difference.
3 people like this
@Asylum (47893)
• Manchester, England
10 Nov 16
There is absolutely no doubt about that. Many of the people interviewed stated that they could not consider voting for with of the two main candidates, therefore some voted for the smaller parties and others just did not vote.
It is impossible to know whether this caused a swing in the result or whether it would have resulted the same way if those voters had chosen one or the other.
3 people like this
@owlwings (43910)
• Cambridge, England
10 Nov 16
Sadly, we shall never know, but the cruel truth of the matter is that, if heads had been counted instead of being lumped together in a somewhat unrepresentative way by the Electoral College, Hillary would have won.
In most elections of this kind, it is very tempting to say that so-and-so "would have won" if marginal candidates had not been there to vote for but we can never know how many of those voters would have voted for one or the other main candidate - or how many would not have voted at all.
3 people like this
@vandana7 (100193)
• India
11 Nov 16
@TheHorse .. I don't know if you heard the song
Not in fatalistic way ...but every hardship makes us strong I suppose in someway and we learn methods to overcome it, whether we use it at the time or think of it later on, after failing. So we are wiser, and capable of handling more ..in nutshell, moving to other places is not going to solve the problem, running away is not the solution..if I had a kid, I would say face it, there is a possibility of failing yes, but there is more to be gained by being brave. And in any event you are not guaranteed success at the other end, so why not face it.
????????? Presentation by: Ni'amron Torkor 5011502795 When I was just a little girl I asked my mother, what will I be Will I be pretty, will I be rich Here's...
1 person likes this
@TheHorse (218385)
• Walnut Creek, California
11 Nov 16
@vandana7 Oh yes. I've heard this song! Im actually being pretty philosophical about the presidential election. Will trumps character change? Is his public persona different from his true self? If we don't get nuked, this will be an interesting and educational ride.
1 person likes this
@TheHorse (218385)
• Walnut Creek, California
10 Nov 16
It shows the Crazy Mountains of Montana, where Mountain Crow Chief Plenty Coups did his Vision Quests as an adolescent. He saw the white man's "spotted buffalo" (cattle) taking over, and the Indian's brown buffalo being displaced. The elders interpreted his visions as meaning that the Mountain Crow could not defeat the white man, and must befriend him. It is not a coincidence that I chose the "crazy" mountains for this post.
3 people like this
@Namelesss (3365)
• United States
10 Nov 16
I think that is definitely part of the reason she lost. Another part I believe is that some people did not want to vote for her after so many Republicans came out on her side. That gave even more weight to the argument of established politics and that went against the 'change' everyone was seeking.
2 people like this
@JamesHxstatic (29413)
• Eugene, Oregon
10 Nov 16
@TheHorse He was, I believe, though not fpr me.
2 people like this
@Deepizzaguy (102465)
• Lake Charles, Louisiana
11 Nov 16
Third party candidates do take away the chances of some politicians to win key battleground states like what happened to Hillary Clinton. I do remember that Ross Perot took away some potential votes from Republican candidates when Bill Clinton won the 1992 and 1996 elections.
2 people like this
@Mike197602 (15505)
• United Kingdom
11 Nov 16
I think one big reason she lost is because people have had enough of the political ruling elite.
Career politicians who have done little else.
They want a change and trump, no matter his faults, is a big change.
I also think (as tonight was stated by a BBC journalist after speaking to someone in the trump team) what he said in the campaign isn't what you're going to get.
I think he's going to turn out to be a lot more reasonable than many expect.
3 people like this
@Mike197602 (15505)
• United Kingdom
11 Nov 16
@Fleurnight because politicians often have had no career outside politics.
A country is, essentially, a big business.
If someone can get to be a billionaire they have some business skill so that could be translated to government.
Personally, I belive if I want a nice country our elected officials need to be real people not career politicians.
The medical analogy doesn't fly for me...
@egdcltd (12059)
•
10 Nov 16
Three, I think, general elections ago in the UK, the Conservatives lost quite a lot of supporters to, largely, UKIP. Labour got in with a percentage of the vote less than percentages many have lost the general election with.
I have read claims that anyone voting for a third party candidate is basically saying I'm happy with what the rest of the country chooses. Because not enough people vote, or are likely to vote, for third party candidates for them to actually win the election.
1 person likes this
@egdcltd (12059)
•
10 Nov 16
@CaptAlbertWhisker They get paid money for getting a percentage of the vote? That sounds weird, and potentially corrupting.
1 person likes this
@CaptAlbertWhisker (32684)
• Calgary, Alberta
10 Nov 16
@egdcltd That is the system, the point of that means they will become a legit party. That money will be their start up. Also both republicans and democrats also get funds.
3 people like this
@CaptAlbertWhisker (32684)
• Calgary, Alberta
10 Nov 16
They want 3rd parties to get 5 percent votes because if they got 5 percent, they will be given 10 million dollars fund next election.
1 person likes this
@LeaPea2417 (37349)
• Toccoa, Georgia
11 Nov 16
I think she lost because she got cocky and so sure she would win and having the Media & Polls behind her and them being so cocky, they ignored the people who supported Trump and they ignored how hard Trump was campaigning, and they ignored the people who were bringing forth her and Bill's constant scandals ,, and it back fired big time in that she lost. And I personally have been basking in the after glow of Hillary's Political Demise. That is what she gets for being so cocky and all her scandals. As it says in the Bible., "Pride Comes Before A Fall".
2 people like this
@PainsOnSlate (21852)
• Canada
11 Nov 16
I was afraid that was going to happen, knowing so many didn't like either.. several people I know chose to go that way and are really sorry now. My niece was going to go that way but I talked her out of it but she doesn't need to tell anyone including me who she voted for. That article makes me sad....
2 people like this
@nanette64 (20364)
• Fairfield, Texas
10 Nov 16
Exactly why I voted for Jill Stein of the Green Party @TheHorse . I couldn't vote for Johnson simply because he didn't know what or where Aleppo was.
1 person likes this
@nanette64 (20364)
• Fairfield, Texas
21 Nov 16
@TheHorse No and that's only because the MEDIA didn't bother giving her a chance verbally or visually. The media already picked who they wanted.
@Jessilaurn (15)
• United States
22 Nov 16
@nanette64 So... you don't think that Dr. Stein's lack of a chance had anything to do with, say, there being less than a quarter million registered Green voters in the U.S. (248k at last count)? Or the dearth of elected Greens in Congress, in state legislatures, in local government? Or a failure by the various minor parties to pursue via referendum voting methods other than first-past-the-post (with the notable exception of this year in Maine)? Or perhaps the absence of any actual effort at party-building and grassroots growth outside of the quadrennial quixotic White House run? No, instead you think that the only reason Dr. Stein didn't have a real chance at winning the Presidency of the United States is that the media didn't cover her -- a candidate with an exceedingly small electoral base and no downticket elected base -- to a greater extent?
1 person likes this
