Trump won the white working-man vote..

[Mister Agenda]

What did blaming Naderites accomplish? Half the Dems stayed home and 13% voted for Bush...every single 3rd party candidate got more votes than Nader lost by. The man couldn't carry his own home state.

I get that blaming 3rd party candidates is easy...it's also really lazy.

No it isn't. Third party votes are convinced they made a more moral choice than anyone else. It's absurd, but generally, that's the belief. And to argue with them about it is a fucking hassle because of their self-righteousness. 

And I hold the people who stayed home far more responsible than anyone else. Make no mistake about that. 

As for Nader, it should have served as a reminder for decades as to what can happen when a candidate with absolutely no chance of winning siphons votes off from candidates that do stand a chance of winning. 

So now we have two Presidential elections in the last 16 years  where third party voters played a significant role in helping someone get elected (who obviously wasn't the candidate they voted for). 

1. George W. Bush
2. Donald "I'm Not Going to Settle That Lawsuit Okay Here's $25,000,000 To Settle That Lawsuit" Fuckface Trump. 

And I'll say it again: 109,000 votes over 3 states. That was the difference. Check it out:


http://heavy.com/news/2016/11/jill-stein...nal-votes/

Wisconsin
Overall Trump margin of victory: 27,257 votes
Jill Stein vote total: 30,980
Gary Johnson vote total: 106,442

---

Michigan
Overall Trump margin of victory: 13,107 votes
Jill Stein vote total: 51,427
Gary Johnson vote total: 172,726

---

Pennsylvania
Overall Trump margin of victory: 71,794
Jill Stein vote total: 48,657
Gary Johnson vote total: 142,334 (with 99.93% in)

---

Florida
Overall Trump margin of victory: 119,489
Jill Stein vote total: 64,060
Gary Johnson vote total: 206,189

---

Them's the facts. Third party voters played a very real, very significant role in putting Trump in the White House.

Do you know the percentage who would have voted for Clinton if they hadn't voted 3rd Party? If not, how do you conclude that those numbers helped Trump? For all you know, Clinton might have lost by more votes if all those people had restricted themselves to just Clinton or Trump. Which is a major reason why blaming 3rd Parties is a waste of time: not only does blaming them not get them to vote for your candidate (a lot of people did that in advance of this election, still got record numbers of 3rd Party votes); you can't know for sure that they weren't more help than hindrance to your candidate.

The percentages are facts. The way that you're interpreting them is opinion. And in my opinion, the whole tactic of blaming people for election results is counterproductive in that, if anything, it has the effect of making them dig in their heels. 'It's your fault Trump is president' isn't going to bring more people to the polls or get more 3rd Party voters to vote Democrat.

If you want 3rd Party voters to vote for your candidate, run a candidate that they feel they can support without betraying their principles...and you'll have to choose which 3rd Party voters you want the support of. Many Greens will pass up their candidate for a democrat who is strong enough on environmental issues, for instance. People who didn't show up need to be motivated to do so, and 'it'll be your fault if we lose!' isn't exactly an inspiring message.

Even if you're right, it's unhelpful.