During the Republican primary season, and again after the conventions, Chris Matthews often baited #NeverTrump advocates with the usual "binary choice" logic: if you're conservative and #NeverTrump, aren't you effectively voting for Hillary.  No, #NeverTrump can be #NeverHillary.

Tingles, you're a slow learner.

Here's his signoff, which now flies under the "Trump Watch" banner, from Thursday, 17 November.
I`ve been thinking back on how we got here – to this extraordinary upset in the Electoral College.

Let me start with what happened 16 years ago at the millennium, then it was things would have been simpler if Ralph Nader wouldn`t have campaigned and won 92,000 down there in the Sunshine State. Then, Al Gore would have won Florida, won in the Electoral College, won the ball game.
Or if Mr Gore had carried Tennessee. Or New Hampshire. But I digress.

Let's watch Tingles discover what #NeverTrump #NeverHillary means.
So, let`s look at the impact of the third-party candidate this time around.

Look at the states that made the difference this time. Florida with its 29 electoral votes, Pennsylvania with its 20, Michigan with 16, Wisconsin with 10. That`s 75 electoral votes in all.

In every one of these states, the number of people who voted for third-party candidate Gary Johnson well exceeded the difference between Trump and Hillary. Every one of these states saw Clinton losing to Trump by far less than the vote that went to Johnson, a candidate who had no real chance of winning.
We could also look at Colorado and New Hampshire, where a few Libertarian voters choosing Trump   might add to Mr Trump's electoral vote margin.  But Tingles, seriously, Libertarian voters going to Hillary?  Libertarians are people who will argue with Republicans, then vote for them when it gets close.  Or run as Republicans, as is the case with Kentucky's Pauls, father and son, and Texas's Senator Cruz, except when Jesus tells him otherwise.  It might well be the case, Tingles, that Mr Trump carried Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin with wavering Libertarians, and more wavering Libertarians would mean larger margins of victory for Mr Trump, perhaps enough that Michigan can finally stop counting.
I do not know why people vote this way. This clearly is their right, clearly their right. But why is it their choice? Do they care out their vote, their choice of whom to vote for affects the outcome? If not, then the vote for a third-party candidate makes perfect sense.
#Never Trump #NeverHillary is a choice,  Tingles.  It's good manners for a #NeverTrump #NeverHillary voter to accept the choice less discerning voters make.  It's a vote that the major party analysts have to consider, and it's a vote to which the major party analysts can affix a meaning, something harder to do with abstentions.  Chris, why not complain about how there are more than enough people not voting to turn the actual votes cast into an imperfect proxy for the mood of the nation?
But if they do care how their choice of whom to vote for affects the final outcome, why don`t they get serious and simply and courageously vote for the person they intend to be president? It would spare the country from picking a president in some part through unintended consequences, which is not the best way to do it.
That's incoherent, Tingles. (Perhaps that's why the video clip isn't in the archives.)  People who voted Libertarian  (or Green, or Free Soil, or Communist) did so because that was their preferred choice, and if the choice is somebody else, well, we have separation of powers for a reason.

The real winner, Carl Beijer argues, was apathy.
Ultimately, Trump managed to stem his losses among men, the poor, and millennials - and among boomers and voters of color he actually improved the GOP's numbers. Clinton, meanwhile, lost voters in every demographic across the board; she took major hits among voters of color and the poor, and only managed to minimize her losses among wealthier voters. Trump took his largest hit among those same wealthiest voters, but it turns out that pandering to the rich while abandoning the poor just isn't a winning strategy.
That link courtesy Mahablog, which has been detailing the weaknesses of Team Clinton's message all along.
[I]f we were to claim that racism cost Clinton the election, we’d have to conclude that people who were not racist in 2008 and 2012 had become so in 2016. Or, maybe, Clinton lost because not enough voters were enthusiastic enough about her to go to the polls and vote for her. Take your pick.

It’s true that a lot of outspoken white supremacists supported Trump. But I’m writing this because I’m seeing way too many people say that we can’t win over those racist voters who elected Trump, so we’re doomed. It isn’t that simple.
I've stressed previously, using identity politics to provoke what is still a majority of the population (should that majority think in identity terms) is stupid.  But it might be simpler, Permanent Bicoastal Establishment, to offer better candidates, or perhaps to offer to devolve some of your powers back to the states.

No comments: