this post was submitted on 10 Oct 2024
535 points (85.5% liked)

politics

19144 readers
5922 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 72 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

2016 Michgan election results

Michigan 2016

I can’t post more than one image because Lemmy/Memmy makes the images fall apart into a 2 mile long scroll.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 33 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Can't believe Johnson handed the election to Trump like that.

[–] zephorah@lemm.ee 22 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

Even without him, Stein had it handled by herself. Why do you think she’s back? Jr, who was funded by a Repub PAC, dropped out. Then Stein re-appeared.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 3 weeks ago

How is Stein having 1.1% of votes worse than Johnson having 3.6%? Stein sucks, I'll make it clear. But how is Stein's votes being in last place helping Trump when Johnson won more votes than her?

If every Johnson voter voted Democrat (Libertarians agree with a lot of Democratic opinions, they just don't see it) then Clinton would have won.

[–] Krauerking@lemy.lol 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (2 children)

No.

With what logic are you using that all those votes could just be added to Hillary? It's not how that works. You can just say if it had been completely different it would have been completely different.

It's like reaching into a bag and pulling 5 limes and saying if only they had been oranges you could have made orange juice.

She wants money, sure, and loves to grift off the people that think themselves superior but this is bad math and pure conspiracy at this point.

Edit: No answer just downvotes cause there isn't a logical answer just irrational dogpiling to find a scapegoat to appease some strong anxiety. Take a breath. Regroup. Don't start throwing shit now.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 3 weeks ago

Somehow Johnson winning more voters with more money than the Green is checks notes proof the Greens are unbashedly evil. Libertarians get more money, are on every state's ballot, but somehow are never blamed for when Democrats run bad candidates who prop up fascists and ignore swing states.

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 5 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

No answer just downvotes cause there isn’t a logical answer just irrational dogpiling

It's inconceivable that a voter wouldn't support either major candidate. All green voters become Hilary voters because Democrats and Greens are next to each other on my Ideology For Eighth Graders rubric.

All you have to do is arrest Jill Stein and put her in "friendly with Russia" jail, and Hilary wins in a 0.1% landslide

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 0 points 3 weeks ago

Why do you think she’s back?

Because she's candidate who won the primary for her party. Same reason Trump is back for third time.

[–] Lucidlethargy@sh.itjust.works 6 points 3 weeks ago

I can. The dude is fucking nuts.

[–] rhandyrhoads@lemmy.world 3 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Wouldn't the libertarians take more votes from the Republicans than the Dems?

[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

Oh shit. Maybe. But then this would imply Hillary was working with a sizable advantage.

[–] orcrist@lemm.ee 8 points 3 weeks ago

Hillary was a terrible candidate. She lost because of that.