79,829–Number That Prevented Hillary Clinton From Winning Presidency!

New vote counts indicate that Hillary Clinton gained about 30,000 votes in Philadelphia that had not yet been counted before today, bringing Donald Trump’s margin in Pennsylvania down from about 77,000 to 47,000 votes!

Add the approximate 10,000 vote margin of Trump in Michigan,and the 22,000 vote margin of Trump in Wisconsin, and that explains Trump’s win over Clinton, despite a 2.5 million popular vote lead for Clinton over Trump.

So anyone who still says voting does not matter now knows it makes ALL the difference in the world, and transforms American history.

And now we know that IF Jill Stein had not been on the ballot in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, assuming all of the Green Party votes would have gone to Clinton, she would have won, again showing how the Green Party made the difference, as it did in New Hampshire and Florida in 2000 with Ralph Nader, and denied Al Gore the Presidency, and gave it to George W. Bush.

This demonstrates that the Green Party has managed to harm the environmental cause twice, and one has to be furious, that the environment was harmed under George W. Bush, and is likely to be harmed greater now under Donald Trump.

So the Green Party did in its own purpose of being, showing the destructive nature of a third party that denied us two outstanding people who should have been President!

21 comments on “79,829–Number That Prevented Hillary Clinton From Winning Presidency!

  1. Paul Doyle December 1, 2016 7:11 pm

    “It’s not easy being Green.”

  2. Rational Lefty December 1, 2016 7:38 pm

    Johnson was on the ballot as well. Some liberals may have voted for him because of his stance on marijuana.

  3. Ronald December 1, 2016 8:04 pm

    That is true, Rational Lefty, but it was Stein voters, who had they voted otherwise, would most likely have voted for Hillary.

    So the Green Party purpose was harmed in 2000 and 2016!

    This is what happens when anyone expects perfection in a candidate!

  4. D December 2, 2016 7:16 am

    Ronald writes,

    “And now we know that IF Jill Stein had not been on the ballot in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, assuming all of the Green Party votes would have gone to Clinton, she would have won, again showing how the Green Party made the difference, as it did in New Hampshire and Florida in 2000 with Ralph Nader, and denied Al Gore the Presidency, and gave it to George W. Bush.”

    You can’t assume this.

    It is noted that Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump by +2.5 million raw votes nationwide.

    In 2012, Barack Obama won the popular vote over Mitt Romney by about +5 million. So, that means a national 2012-to-2016 Republican shift of about +2.5 million votes.

    According to http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/ , the U.S. Popular Vote (as of 12.02.2016 @ 06:45 a.m. ET) is:

    Donald Trump 46.16%
    Hillary Clinton 48.02% (+1.86)
    Gary Johnson 3.28%
    Jill Stein 1.05%

    Johnson was +2.23 points nationally above Stein.

    If all 100 percent of the votes Johnson received would have gone to Donald Trump (assuming Libertarians are Alternative Republicans and Greens are Alternative Democrats), Donald Trump would have won a Republican pickup of the popular vote by +0.37.

    The only state, assuming uniformity with all states, that would have changed was New Hampshire. According to that linked site, the state carried for Hillary Clinton by +0.36. So, Trump would have flipped New Hampshire to carry by +0.01 and receive not 30 but 31 states, plus Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, and not 306 but 310 electoral votes.

    Speaking to the three references states:

    • Wisconsin: Gary Johnson outpaced Jill Stein by +2.54 percentage points. (Trump’s margin: +0.81. That would have made Trump win it by +3.35.)

    • Pennsylvania: Gary Johnson received +1.57 above Jill Stein. (Trump’s margin: +0.76. That would have made Trump win it by +2.33.)

    • Michigan: Gary Johnson outperformed Jill Stein by +2.52. (Trump won it by +0.23. That would have given Trump a margin of +2.75.)

    As for some other states which flipped and carried for Trump:

    • Florida: Gary Johnson outpaced Jill Stein by +1.50. (Trump won it by +1.19. This adjustment would be Trump by +2.69.)

    • Ohio: Gary Johnson outpaced Jill Stein by +2.31. (Trump won it by an alarmingly high +8.07. This adjustment means Trump +10.38.)

    • Iowa: Gary Johnson outpaced Jill Stein by +3.05. (Trump won it even better than Ohio at +9.41. This adjustment means Trump +12.46.)

    In states which carried for a 2012 Obama/2016 Hillary:

    • New Hampshire: Gary Johnson received +3.25 above Jill Stein. (Hillary won it by +0.36. So, Trump would have flipped it to carry by +2.91.)

    • Minnesota: Gary Johnson outpaced Jill Stein by +2.58. (Hillary won it only by +1.52. Evan McMullin received 1.80 percent of the statewide vote. Not counting McMullin, and just focusing on so-called Johnson/Stein impacts, in theory, Trump would have flipped Minnesota by +1.06.)

    • Colorado: Gary Johnson was +3.80 above Jill Stein. (Hillary Clinton won it by +4.91. But, Evan McMullin received it +1.04. Pure tossup. Maybe Hillary holds it narrowly. Maybe Trump flips it narrowly.)

    With these examples: Donald Trump would have finished with not just 30 but possibly 31 or 32 states, plus Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, and not 306 but either 310 or 320 electoral votes.

  5. D December 2, 2016 7:24 am

    I also had more to say on this here:

    https://www.theprogressiveprofessor.com/?p=29133

    ________________________________________________

    “Reason for why Donald Trump did not win over the popular vote was because he did not take Mitt Romney’s 2012 national loss off -3.86 and shift +3.87 to win by at least +0.01.

    “States in which Donald Trump shifted the minimum +3.87 numbered just 25. By comparison, 2008 Democratic pickup winner Barack Obama hit his needed +7.27 in 43 states. 1992 Democratic pickup winner Bill Clinton, in need of +7.73, reached in 41 states. 1980 Republican pickup winner Ronald Reagan met his necessary +2.07 in 46 states.

    “I have a map. I don’t know if its image will appear below until I hit ‘Post It.’

    “The states in red are ones in which Donald Trump reached a +3.87 shift. Those states in blue are ones in which Trump failed to shift sufficiently in his direction. (And there were states Hillary Clinton shifted in her direction. In fact, there were ten: Arizona, California, Georgia, Kansas, Illinois, Massachusetts, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.) The ones in red are worth 210 electoral votes. That is 39.03 percent of the 538 electoral votes. Trump had a sufficient margin shift in just 8 of the Top 20 states: New York, Pennsylvania (pickup), Ohio (pickup), Michigan (pickup), Indiana, Tennessee, Missouri, and Wisconsin (pickup). From those Top 20 pickup states, 64 electoral votes flipped from 2012 Democratic to 2016 Republican column. With Trump having carried all 24 states, and 206 electoral votes, won in 2012 by Romney … this is where you have the split outcome. Without having to win over the popular vote, Trump was able to reach the 270.”

    [Provided links]…

    http://www.270towin.com/maps/nBxYv

    http://www.270towin.com/presidential_map_new/maps/nBxYv.png

  6. Ronald December 2, 2016 7:39 am

    Thanks, D. I knew I could count on you to destroy my argument with great detail and analysis! LOL

    But it is clear that if more people had voted who were Democratic focus groups, including African Americans and Latinos, the result might have been different, although voter apathy due to Hillary not being exciting, and voter suppression, were also issues

  7. Princess Leia December 4, 2016 9:42 pm

    Some good news. Anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim right wingers got defeated in the Austrian presidential election.

  8. Southern Liberal December 6, 2016 12:14 pm

    Roy Cooper’s victory in North Carolina shows that persistent and concerted opposition to right-wing rule is the path to victory for our side.

  9. D December 7, 2016 9:34 am

    Southern Liberal writes,

    “Roy Cooper’s [gubernatorial] victory [with unseating Pat McCrory] in North Carolina shows that persistent and concerted opposition to right-wing rule is the path to victory for our side.”

    More to the point…the path to victory for Democrats is a rigid, organized, ideologically left-wing political party not just on social but also on other important issues like economics, national security, and military. There has to be CONTRAST. (No—contrast only on social policies are not enough.) And Democrats, when holding office, have to lead like genuine left-wingers (I mean truly progressive ones).

  10. Princess Leia December 8, 2016 8:57 am

    Absolutely right, Southern Liberal.

    Ignore the nonsense that D is spouting about them being the same. Part one of the series of how they differ. This part covers the issues of health care, economics, and climate change.

    http://pleasecutthecrap.com/republicans-and-democrats-have- nothing-in-common-part-one

  11. D December 10, 2016 4:18 am

    Princess Leia,

    Thank you for alerting me to Milt Shook.

    I did some research on him.

    Tell me…has Milt Shook ever written an honest assessment of, let’s say, flaws of the Democratic Party?

    Here are some of his materials:

    “The One Thing That Will Stop Bernie Sanders… His Supporters.” (07.23.2015)
    http://pleasecutthecrap.com/the-one-thing-that-will-stop-bernie-sanders-his-supporters/

    “Truth Matters: Pre-DNC Crap Cuts” (07.29.2016)
    http://pleasecutthecrap.com/truth-matters-pre-dnc-crap-cuts/

    “There is Nothing Dishonest About Hillary” (09.07.2016)
    http://pleasecutthecrap.com/there-is-nothing-dishonest-about-hillary/

    “Unicorn Progressives and “Principle.” (09.25.2016)
    http://pleasecutthecrap.com/unicorn-progressives-and-principle/

    “Another Case Study in Lefty Stupid” (11.09.2016)
    http://pleasecutthecrap.com/another-case-study-in-lefty-stupid/

    Milt Shook shills for the Democratic Party.

    He is not one for thinking…or for thinkers.

    I don’t respect that.

    But, thank you for what it is likely, from you, a good intention. (But, I do know better. Thank you, anyway.)

  12. Southern Liberal December 10, 2016 8:52 am

    What he’s doing is honestly writing that some progressives are the Left’s version of the Tea Party, wanting purity all the time.

  13. Princess Leia December 10, 2016 8:54 am

    Precisely right, Southern Liberal!

  14. Pragmatic Progressive December 10, 2016 9:21 am

    Milt Shook is telling the truth about the two parties.

  15. Rational Lefty December 10, 2016 10:07 am

    Milt Shook is a voice of reason for those of use progressives who are not Far Left FireDogLake progressives.

  16. Rustbelt Democrat December 10, 2016 8:33 pm

    Many of the blogs we read often highlight the successes of President Obama and the Democratic Party. When an issue comes up that they need to critique Obama and/or the Democrats on, they use constructive criticism rather than the flat out bashing that has become fashionable amongst a small but vocal subset of progressives on well-known progressive blogs.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.