Bernie Sanders
Related: About this forumOn the Recount
I have noticed a couple of odd posters in the postmortem that are angry at Jill Stein for raising money to do a recount of those close rust belt states. They seem to be perpetuating odd conspiracy theories about Jill seeking to pocket money or some such nonsense based on a silly op ed by a establishment apologist.
My first impulse is that there is a subset of people that will always happily hippie punch the left.
However, some of the voices against a recount seem to come from the same quarter that argued in such a negative fashion that it actually made it harder for me to vote for Hillary in November. I supported Bernie all the way but in November I sucked it up and voted D all the way down. I still can't help but think that there are some people here that were actually hurting her cause more by the way they argued. Of course that might have just been the way that campaign worked.
I didn't want to put this in the post mortem because frankly I am tired of looking at that thread. Most of us are.
I support a recount. I don't care who wins I just want to make certain that democracy wins out.
jalan48
(13,867 posts)influence in the Democratic Party vanished in thin air. Politics is not always about the good of everyone, individuals have their own agenda.
Arazi
(6,829 posts)They shout the loudest that they're fierce Democrats but sometimes I wonder. They're not helping. Far from it
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)the result her recount request is now trying to achieve.
GreenPartyVoter
(72,377 posts)InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)GreenPartyVoter
(72,377 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)As I have stated elsewhere, this is an absurd argument.
The Green party was going to run a candidate. Period.
To try to account for the possibility of spoilage you actually have to reduce the number of votes for the Greens in 2016 by that number that voted for them in 2012. Those people that voted Green in 2012 probably were not going to vote for a democratic candidate anyhow.
One may as well ask "If only there wasn't a green party." To which I would ask "Why does your winning strategy count on such a miniscule number of voters who normally vote for another party."
Never mind the fact that they already have run the numbers and even in 100% of the Green votes had gone to Hillary she still would have lost. (If, in fact she does lose)
The "Irony" thing is what I expect the next bit of establishment spin to be to undercut the fact that it took the Green Party to challenge the election.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)The numbers of Greens were not huge. It isn't the Green votes that cost Hillary the election. Bernie merely getting those Green voters would not have been enough.
I think the enthusiasm would have carried Bernie and the desire for change.
But that is another discussion entirely.
My point is merely that blaming the Greens is stupid.
Of course over in the angst and ennui thread they are still trying to ratchet up threads that blame Bernie and the left for Hill losing the electoral college vote.
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)Equinox Moon
(6,344 posts)I started a thread about the recount, and there are some positive comments. I was glad to see them.
"Whether you agree with Jill Steins politics or not, her recount action is good"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028306317
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I am done with the Postmortem thread. The toxic abusers that had all returned during the grand Troll-amnesty in May or June caused me to abandon this site are all hanging out there.
JudyM
(29,250 posts)Thankful for that, at least.