Libertarian ticket cost Trump the popular vote

[ABX]

This article makes the major mistake most claims like this do- assuming that those should have been Trump votes by default and they were somehow 'taken'.  It is actually an elementary logic error.  I can confirm that most Libertarians I know, Republicans that turned Libertarian, or Republicans that voted Libertarian this past election, were equally disgusted with both Hillary and Trump and their votes would not have gone to either even if there wasn't a Libertarian option.

....In short, if the Johnson-Weld ticket had not run, Donald Trump would have won the popular vote. Given the Green Party's anemic showing and its great reluctance to support Hillary Clinton under any circumstance, it is very likely Donald Trump would have still won the popular vote even if the Green Party failed to field a candidate. In addition, Mr. Trump would have rolled up an even larger Electoral College margin, as the additional votes would have likely flipped New Hampshire, Maine, and Minnesota to his column......

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/libertarian-ticket-cost-trump-the-popular-vote/article/2614458?custom_click=rss

[Suppressed]

This article makes the major mistake most claims like this do- assuming that those should have been Trump votes by default and they were somehow 'taken'.  It is actually an elementary logic error.  I can confirm that most Libertarians I know, Republicans that turned Libertarian, or Republicans that voted Libertarian this past election, were equally disgusted with both Hillary and Trump and their votes would not have gone to either even if there wasn't a Libertarian option.

Exactly right.

[bigheadfred]

When that guy in Utah came out saying he was trying to blow the election for trump it really soured me on that kind of thinking. Imo, he wasn't trying to help do something FOR fixing this country. He was being a turd in the punchbowl. We have plenty of those already.

[NavyCanDo]

A good chunk of those Libertarians would vote Libertarian regardless of what Republican was running, but you can't say the same about US Evan McMullin voters, 700,000 of us.

First time in my 40 years of voting I wrote a name in, and I bet most of that 700,000 have the same story.

[bigheadfred]

A good chunk of those Libertarians would vote Libertarian regardless of what Republican was running, but you can't say the same about US Evan McMullin voters, 700,000 of us.

First time in my 40 years of voting I wrote a name in, and I bet most of that 700,000 have the same story.

What did McMullin bring to the table you found worth casting a vote for him?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

No, Trump did not need a popular vote to win the Presidency.

What idiot began thinking this was important to elect a President anyway?

[jmyrlefuller]

I would venture to guess that, based on previous elections, even if the big-L's hadn't been a factor, about a quarter of them would have voted for the ticket anyway, and the other 3/4 would have left the ballot blank, found another protest vote or stayed home. The big-L's typically get 1% of the vote or so regardless from their true believers.

Note that Johnson/Weld had their best performances in states that were not considered competitive. The ticket got most of their votes from people whose votes weren't really going to make a difference anyway.

[jmyrlefuller]

When that guy in Utah came out saying he was trying to blow the election for trump it really soured me on that kind of thinking. Imo, he wasn't trying to help do something FOR fixing this country. He was being a turd in the punchbowl. We have plenty of those already.

At least McMullin went about it in a way that wasn't going to increase Hillary's chances of winning. For that I give him credit.

[Suppressed]

A good chunk of those Libertarians would vote Libertarian regardless of what Republican was running, but you can't say the same about US Evan McMullin voters, 700,000 of us.

First time in my 40 years of voting I wrote a name in, and I bet most of that 700,000 have the same story.

 

[bigheadfred]

At least McMullin went about it in a way that wasn't going to increase Hillary's chances of winning. For that I give him credit.

You mean by trying to win states that didn't have enough electoral votes to put her over the top?

[geronl]

How dare people have choices!

[musiclady]

A good chunk of those Libertarians would vote Libertarian regardless of what Republican was running, but you can't say the same about US Evan McMullin voters, 700,000 of us.

First time in my 40 years of voting I wrote a name in, and I bet most of that 700,000 have the same story.

Yup.

Most of that vote was more anti-Trump/Hillary than pro-Libertarian.

Conservatives had no real choice in this election.

[Wingnut]

How dare people have choices!

This election.  There was no choice.

[Frank Cannon]

This article continues the misconception that the popular vote matters. It don't.

[EasyAce]

Yup.

Most of that vote was more anti-Trump/Hillary than pro-Libertarian.

Conservatives had no real choice in this election.

Neither did libertarians, if you think closer---Gary Johnson and Bill Weld, if anything, were way closer to being Rockefeller Republican
types than they were straight-through libertarian.

[EasyAce]

This election.  There was no choice.

Sure there was, when all was said and done---it was between Robespierre and Queen Athaliah, God help us. 

[jmyrlefuller]

You mean by trying to win states that didn't have enough electoral votes to put her over the top?

By choosing as his state, one that votes Republican by at least 2-to-1 so that even if he and Trump split the Republican/conservative vote 50-50, one of the two was still going to win the state.

The great thing about the Electoral College is that a majority of electoral votes are required. If a third-party guy like McMullin siphons off electoral votes, it doesn't get Hillary any closer to that majority of all electoral votes. 270 is 270.

So I had no problem with McMullin. Hillary was never winning Utah.

[bigheadfred]

By choosing as his state, one that votes Republican by at least 2-to-1 so that even if he and Trump split the Republican/conservative vote 50-50, one of the two was still going to win the state.

The great thing about the Electoral College is that a majority of electoral votes are required. If a third-party guy like McMullin siphons off electoral votes, it doesn't get Hillary any closer to that majority of all electoral votes. 270 is 270.

So I had no problem with McMullin. Hillary was never winning Utah.

It was McMullin's attitude about it I didn't like. Not trying to fix this country threw me off.