Reminder: HRC lost the Electoral College by less than 100K votes spread over 3 states.
She won the popular vote by over 2 million.
There were enough 3rd party "progressives" and disenchanted Democrats to flip the election to Trump in all three states.
So many progressive voters decided to let the "perfect be the enemy of the good" that Trump won the Presidency.
I wonder who Hillary would have nominated to the Supreme Court.
= new reply since forum marked as read
But Mitch McConnell is definitely one of them. Trump too. 
Stupid Crap like that got trump and fascism in the WH!
💙💛
No matter how well-deserved we may feel it is, it's against the DU forum rules. 
like tRump's RW authoritarians and to the same dreadful effect.
Studies since 2016 show there is such a thing as LW authoritarians, that the similarities between them and RW authoritarians are stronger than the differences, and that they're numerous enough to combine with the right to destroy the democratic and liberal principles they both trample to win.
"Lock her up!" 
Hillary Clinton is a Hard-Core Liberal
https://www.ontheissues.org/hillary_clinton.htm
https://bit.ly/3P0WlQk
===================================================================
we'd all have a merry christmas".*
No sense wishing for something we don't have. Let's just make damned sure that never happens again.
* - don't ask me where the hell that came from, it just popped into my head. 
It never ends. 
He spent months attacking her. I didn't like him then and I don't like him now.
45,000 in PA and the rest split between MI and WI. As for the people who stayed home or voted third party, may they rot in hell. They helped to elect Trump, a veritable POS without any redeeming qualities, who had the opportunity to appoint three justices to SCOTUS.
Thanks for nothing!!!
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/05/12/black-voter-turnout-fell-in-2016-even-as-a-record-number-of-americans-cast-ballots/
The black voter turnout rate declined for the first time in 20 years in a presidential election, falling to 59.6% in 2016 after reaching a record-high 66.6% in 2012. The 7-percentage-point decline from the previous presidential election is the largest on record for blacks. (It’s also the largest percentage-point decline among any racial or ethnic group since white voter turnout dropped from 70.2% in 1992 to 60.7% in 1996.) The number of black voters also declined, falling by about 765,000 to 16.4 million in 2016, representing a sharp reversal from 2012. With Barack Obama on the ballot that year, the black voter turnout rate surpassed that of whites for the first time. Among whites, the 65.3% turnout rate in 2016 represented a slight increase from 64.1% in 2012.
Why black voter turnout fell in 2016
How voting Democratic has become integral to African Americans’ cultural identity.
https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2018/1/15/16891020/black-voter-turnout
“Black Voters Aren’t Turning Out For The Post-Obama Democratic Party.” It’s a familiar headline in the aftermath of the 2016 presidential election. Indeed, post-election analysis of voter data shows black turnout in presidential elections declined 4.7 percent between 2012 and 2016 (overall turnout showed a small decline from 61.8 percent in 2012 to 61.4 percent in 2016).
How do we explain it — and can it be changed? My ongoing research with Ismail White on political norms among black Americans says we ought to have expected the decline, but that the Democratic Party can do much more to cut it back by recognizing how social dynamics shape African-American politics.
Some have attributed the decline in black turnout to voter suppression tactics made possible by the Shelby v. Holder (2013) decision that rescinded key protections from the Voting Rights Act. But black turnout saw similar declines in states where no new voter laws were implemented after the Shelby decision. Others have simplistically pointed to the absence of the first black president on the ballot — as if that fact offers an explanation. Our work on the social dynamics of politics within the black community provides the missing explanation.
In our recent publication in the American Political Science Review, we argue that the continued social isolation of blacks in American society has created spaces and incentives for the emergence of black political norms. Democratic partisanship has become significantly tied to black identity in the United States. The historical and continued racial segregation of black communities has produced spaces in which in-group members can leverage social sanctions against other group members to ensure compliance with group partisan norms.
snip
Study: Black turnout slumped in 2016
https://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/10/black-election-turnout-down-2016-census-survey-238226
Census shows pervasive decline in 2016 minority voter turnout
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2017/05/18/census-shows-pervasive-decline-in-2016-minority-voter-turnout/
Study: Black voter turnout in Wisconsin declined by nearly one-fifth in 2016
https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/study-black-voter-turnout-in-wisconsin-declined-by-nearly-one/article_d3e72e41-96a0-51fb-83ba-11dfc6693daf.html
Turnout among black voters in Wisconsin dropped about 19 percent in the 2016 election from 2012, more than four times the national decline, according to a new study by a liberal group.
The study, released by the Center for American Progress, made the estimates based on data from the U.S. Census, polls and state voter files.
It provides the strongest evidence yet that Wisconsin’s decline in voter turnout, while seen in other demographic groups, was much more dramatic among African-Americans.
The study also found in Wisconsin, as in other key states, the 2016 electorate was significantly more white and non-college- educated than was reported by exit polls immediately after the election.
snip
Many in Milwaukee Neighborhood Didn’t Vote — and Don’t Regret It
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/21/us/many-in-milwaukee-neighborhood-didnt-vote-and-dont-regret-it.html
MILWAUKEE — Four barbers and a firefighter were pondering their future under a Trump presidency at the Upper Cutz barbershop last week.
“We got to figure this out,” said Cedric Fleming, one of the barbers. “We got a gangster in the chair now,” he said, referring to President-elect Donald J. Trump.They admitted that they could not complain too much: Only two of them had voted. But there were no regrets. “I don’t feel bad,” Mr. Fleming said, trimming a mustache. “Milwaukee is tired. Both of them were terrible. They never do anything for us anyway.”
Wisconsin, a state that Hillary Clinton had assumed she would win, historically boasts one of the nation’s highest rates of voter participation; this year’s 68.3 percent turnout was the fifth best among the 50 states. But by local standards, it was a disappointment, the lowest turnout in 16 years. And those no-shows were important. Mr. Trump won the state by just 27,000 voters.
Milwaukee’s lowest-income neighborhoods offer one explanation for the turnout figures. Of the city’s 15 council districts, the decline in turnout from 2012 to 2016 in the five poorest was consistently much greater than the drop seen in more prosperous areas — accounting for half of the overall decline in turnout citywide.
The biggest drop was here in District 15, a stretch of fading wooden homes, sandwich shops and fast-food restaurants that is 84 percent black. In this district, voter turnout declined by 19.5 percent from 2012 figures, according to Neil Albrecht, executive director of the City of Milwaukee Election Commission. It is home to some of Milwaukee’s poorest residents and, according to a 2016 documentary, “Milwaukee 53206,” has one of the nation’s highest per-capita incarceration rates.
At Upper Cutz, a bustling barbershop in a green-trimmed wooden house, talk of politics inevitably comes back to one man: Barack Obama. Mr. Obama’s elections infused many here with a feeling of connection to national politics they had never before experienced. But their lives have not gotten appreciably better, and sourness has set in.
snip
and when they did vote there was this...
Mostly black neighborhoods voted more Republican in 2016 than in 2012
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/09/25/mostly-black-neighborhoods-voted-more-republican-in-2016-than-in-2012/
snip
A few things jump out. First: The most heavily white neighborhoods voted much more heavily Republican in 2016 than in 2012 (the dark red line shoots up past the light-red one). Second, the most heavily black neighborhoods voted less heavily Democratic last year than four years ago. (We’ll come back to this, obviously.) Third, Hispanic neighborhoods voted for Republicans less than in 2012.
The net effect of those shifts can be measured by comparing the margin between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in 2012 with the Trump-Clinton margin in each neighborhood last year. In heavily white neighborhoods, a big shift to the Republicans. In mostly Hispanic neighborhoods, generally more support for the Democrat, except in the most dense places (although, as the chart on the right makes clear, the sample size for those is very small and therefore more subject to volatility).
snip
This Chart Shows Philadelphia Black Voters Stayed Home, Costing Clinton
A shift in Philadelphia voter turnout, which broke along racial lines, appears to have cost Hillary Clinton almost 35,000 votes.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/johntemplon/this-chart-shows-philadelphia-black-voters-stayed-home-costi
One of the most surprising results of Election Day was Donald Trump winning Pennsylvania — a state that had voted for the Democrat in every election since 1988. As of the Pennsylvania Board of Elections’ latest tally, Trump leads Hillary Clinton by 57,588 votes. More than 60% of that margin comes from a shift in the vote in Philadelphia.
The Philadelphia data offers a particularly clear glimpse at what went wrong for Hillary Clinton: A block of voters who showed up for Barack Obama wasn’t inspired enough by her — or scared enough by Donald Trump — to show up. And as analysts pore over the results of the campaign, the numbers in Philadelphia offer perhaps the most devastating single data point for the Clinton campaign.
snip
massive drop in 85% black Detroit too
Link to tweet
There are a number of reasons she lost, and claiming only one, or only two are legitimate and worthy of discussion is selective cherry picking.
It is like 3 people shooting a person all at once, at the same time, fatal with all 3 combined, but not fatal individually. Then a person comes along and only blames (selectively) one of the 3 shooters.
I never once said that the amount of Stein voters was not enough alone to tip the election in those 3 states, but to pluck them out and ONLY blame them, in a vacuum, is not a valid method of thorough examination when there were other forces that were of sufficient size to tip it as well.
There also is a counterpoint to this discussion of 3rd parties, another one that few ever talk about, one that works the OPPOSITE direction of Stein voters.
Gary Johnson, the RW Libertarian (who grabbed a staggering almost 4.5 million votes, and other RW 3rd party and RW Indy candidates (like Evan McMullin) who vastly outperformed Stein, and who drew heavily from the Trump vote.
As stated, Johnson alone got almost 4.5 million votes (millions more than any Libertarian candidate in US presidential election history. Johnson in 2012 only got 1.275 million votes, so it is likely that 3.2 million or so of those Johnson votes came right from Trump) , to Stein's 1.46 million. The RWer indy McMullin, who only ran in 11 states, got more than half of Stein's totals at 732,000 (and unlike Stein, almost ALL of those votes came directly from Trump). Another RWer, Darrell Castle got 203K votes. Rocky De La Fuente, another RWer got 33K.
Add up those RW 3rd party/indy totals and you have around 5.5 million RW votes, with around 4.1 million or so likely drawn straight from Trump.
Stein probably drew 500,000 to 550,000 votes straight from from Clinton (and 150,000 or so from Trump, so to be completely fair, that actually lowers the Stein impact even more at the end of the day), based off pre election, and post election exit polls.
Take the higher number (550K) and add another 50,000 from very small minor other LWer 3 parties like the Socialist Gloria La Riva, and you have 600,000 lost Clinton votes.
The RW 3rd parties took at around 3.5 million MORE from Trump than LW 3rd parties took from Clinton based off who would have actually voted for either Trump or Clinton in reality), and if you go just off the pure vote totals, the RW minor candidates got almost 4 million more (around 5.5 million versus 1.53 million) votes than the LW minor candidates.
This pattern holds true for all 3 states (MI, WI, PA) in discussion
In Michigan, 198,667 RW listed 3rd party/indy voters, versus 51,436 LW 3rd party listed (all Stein) voters (almost 4 times more RW minor part voters than than Stein LW voters)
In Wisconsin, 132,193 RW listed 3rd party/indy voters, versus 32,842 LW 3rd party listed (mostly all Stein) voters (more than 4 times more RW minor party voters than than Stein, etc LW voters)
In Pennsylvania, 175,061 RW listed 3rd party/indy voters, versus 56,004 LW 3rd party listed (mostly all Stein) voters (more than 3 times more RW minor party voters than than Stein, etc LW voters)
So, to sum it up, if you are going to look at 3rd party draw-offs, you cannot just take ONE candidate and ignore all the rest. If you removed ALL third party candidates in 2016, and then held the election only between Trump and Hillary, given how those 3rd party/indy voters would have voted between only Trump and Clinton, and how many would not have voted at all, Trump not only would have still won the EC, he would have won the popular vote as well. He lost a shedload more votes (around 3.65 million more, when you add in those 150K Stein voters who would have voted Trump) to the 3rd party/indies than Clinton did.
also:
LOL, almost all that reply was my original typing just now, the only text that wasn't the Nate silver snapshot.
The charts are basic expandatory/evidentiary aids to show my maths and facts are validly sourced and not made up.
I can make it simple.
If 85% (yes eight five per cent) of ALL Stein voters had voted for Clinton and not Stein (which is a crazy overestimate but I am using it to prove a point) and ZERO stayed home/did not vote for POTUS, and ZERO voted for Trump (again 2 more false premises, as 10% or so would have voted Trump if no Stein, and likely half or so would have stayed home or not voted for POTUS, but again I am making a point) and you keep ALL else, everything else, the same, including the 175,061 PA RW 3rd party voters, who drew at least 110,000 to 115,000 thousand votes from Trump in PA alone.
guess what?
Trump still wins the election:
Stein votes/Trump margin:
https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/federalelections2016.pdf#page=44
MI: 51,463/10,704 (this is the one (and only) state where you can definitely say that Stein DID cost Hilary the state win (albeit not the only factor, but deffo, if isolated, an actual villain), even at only 35% of her voters going to Hillary and 10% going to Trump, so BOO Stein in terms of MI)
WI: 31,072/22,748 (at 85% of Stein vote to Clinton, with zero to Trump, zero stay homes, and zero no votes, Hillary wins, but with a realistic mathematically sound distribution if no Stein, she still loses. BUT I give it to her as I said 85% etc etc for my example)
so far so good, BUT then we hit PA
PA: 49,941/44,292 (that lead cannot be overcome, even at 85% of those Stein votes straight straight to Clinton, zero to Trump, and zero stay homes/no votes, and all draw-offs from Trump from the RW (again that was at least a net 110K vote loss for him from those other RWers) allowed to stand)
The map:, after we flip WI and MI
Many people here appreciate your well thought-out posts and level headedness. From what I've seen that user and others like them have always been unnecessary hostile to people with opposing viewpoints because of childish reasons. I hope that they stop taking lessons from trailer park Jane
and act more reasonable in the future.
But, honestly, it’s not confined to me and seems to be your technique.
I certainly don’t have to apologize for what you, yourself, wrote and what you continue to misrepresent or back out of. It’s obvious you understand the points looking at your analogy. Your links are about headcounts, but you continue to ignore the reasons voters were turned off to Hillary.
You are up to 5 paragraphs about me, wow.
The only way it works is if you ignore all other factors, allow for a massive 3.65 million 3rd party/indy RW vote draw off from Trump to stand (in the 3 states in discussion, MI, WI, and PA, if that draw off had not occurred, Trump would have won by far larger margins), and then assign an utterly unrealistic level of vote flips from Stein to Clinton (over 85%), with no Stein flips to Trump (10% likely would have flipped), no stay homers, and no non votes for POTUS (in reality that would have been massive amounts for those 2 categories).
It is all extreme revisionism. The only single State it holds up to a remotely realistic revision (a revision that flips a State from Trump to Clinton) is MI, but MI alone was not enough to flip the election.
on the ballot. That is why I advocated for Hillary to choose an African-American running mate, to try to hold onto some of interest and excitement that President Obama had generated in the AA community... but no one seemed very interested in that idea...
Instead, her VP choice was "safe", boring, and white.
To my recollection, no African-Americans were even known to have been considered for the VP-slot. To me, that seemed rather unthinking on her part, to completely ignore the community which did so much to get her the nomination, when it came to consideration of potential running mates....
I thought it was a huge mistake at the time, to present these voters with an all-white ticket. The fall-off in African-American voter turnout seemed quite predictable, since Hillary Clinton was not Barack Obama. The only question was, how much there would be. I think to have had an African-American on the ticket would have helped... Actually, I think it would have gotten her elected-- the margin of loss in the 3 crucial states was tiny, after all. (Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan).
This is why I was very happy to see Joe Biden make a different kind of choice in 2020. His selection of Kamala Harris showed his gratitude to the constituency most responsible for winning him the nomination; they were not forgotten, this time.
None of this is to cast "blame" on African-Americans who failed to turn out in 2016. NO white candidate was ever going to generate the enthusiastic turnout which they made to elect and re-elect the first black president in American history (and maybe no future black nominee will, either-- not being the "first".) I remember the crowd at the polls that day in 2008, I must have been in line for an hour and a half before casting my ballot, when it usually never took more than 20 or 30 minutes in any previous presidential election...
Anyway, the documented fall-off in African-American voter turnout in 2016, was only one factor on a long list of factors, any one of which might have made the difference in the election. Personally, I think we had it won going into the final days, until Comey came out with his ridiculous non-announcement announcement about the damned emails...
though in PA and MI there were no new restrictive laws passed between 2012 and 2016. I think there were attempts via the internet at suppression as well, but have seen no definitive studies on the effects of that, and I would love to see some studies on it.
I also absolutely DO think there was other shitbaggery (non official in terms of actual laws) going on in the physical world.
a 2017 map
But, you see, even discussing all that above is likely to be attacked, as it takes away from 'only a certain group of voters will be discussed in terms of 2016 election loss' attempted framing.
I cannot stress enough that I am NOT blaming my fellow black voters. A previous poster outrageously accused me of bigotry (wtf) simply for broaching the subject of the black vote in the 3 states we all were discussing, Personal attacks like that are beyond the pale and stifle any sort of holistic discussion.
I was mainly discussing the statistical realities to show that there were multiple reasons why Clinton lost in 2016. I also tried to provide some sociological backgrounding as well. Other reasons were racist voters, disinformation, misogyny, some voters moving further to the RW extremist edge, etc etc. It was a collective shitstorm.
I refuse to go on a crusade that only focuses in on one group, ignores a tonne of other factors, then uses ridiculous, non statistically valid numbers and reasonings to try to hammer out a singular group to scapegoat and reduce it (again falsely, when the actual numbers are crunched) to the only 'acceptable' reason for the loss that is allowed in terms of the thread. But it doesn't just end there, as soon attacks start if other points are brought to the table, points that are then deemed not only unworthy of discussion in the thread, but then are said, outrageously, to show some sort of bigotry and/or malice simply for bringing them up.
2020 and before turnout rates
There was a "Voter ID" law STILL in place in PA until 2014 when it was finally struck down and not appealed.
The "problem" here has and continues to be the confusion about requiring an ID to vote - and the current law requires one for the first time voting or first time voting in a new polling location. But the fiasco of the 2012 "Voter ID" law (where some people probably still had their state card from that law) spilled over into 2016.
My current (main) Journal entry has the charts from the state with the turnouts for 2008/2012/2016/2020 from an OP here about 2020 - https://www.democraticunderground.com/107413658
And from that you have -
2016
(from the state site - https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/General/CountyResults?countyName=Philadelphia&ElectionID=54&ElectionType=G&IsActive=0)
2012
(from the state site - https://www.electionreturns.pa.gov/General/CountyResults?countyName=Philadelphia&ElectionID=27&ElectionType=G&IsActive=0)
Most of the black people in the state of PA live here in Philly - some 656,000 (as of the 2020 census being 41% of the population of 1.6 million).
What does the above show? It ONLY shows a 4000 vote difference between Obama's 2012 turnout and Clinton's 2016 turnout here in Philly. The typical "Division" (precinct) is about that size and we have ~1700 Divisions here.
The GOP here is trying their hardest to do another "Voter ID" piece of shit legislation but thankfully we have a (D) Governor here who will keep vetoing their nonsense while he is still in office.
(ETA - note how the Stein vote literally tripled here in Philly between 2012 and 2016)
What happened here in PA during the period you are talking about, was that for the first time in modern PA history (based on the changes in terms for governors), a sitting governor was not re-elected to a 2nd term - the GOP governor Tom Corbett - who lost to Democrat Tom Wolf - and that was in 2014 (where he took office in 2015).
So you are correct that since then, no "new" restrictive laws were enacted here in PA under Wolf's watch and would have to be over "his dead body".
In fact, one of the things that the GOP DID do as a "compromise" for them getting rid of the "straight party ticket" option (the bane of the GOP but benefit used mostly by Democrats) was to do that in exchange for allowing for "no excuse absentee ballots" (the mail ballots). This was the famous "Act-77" that you might have heard mentioned in the news that was signed into law by Wolf in late 2019 and went into effect for the primary in 2020.
Now the GOP want to repeal "Act-77" Because. Too many Democratic votes.
for the impaired.
Plus, there are a myriad of reasons why that election was lost. Can we stop the circular firing squad and focus our energy on the actual, real enemy on the right?
