re: #106 teleskiguy

We got Nader’d (2000) in an ugly way.

I’d have to look at the totals for PA, WI and MI before I can declare Stein was a spoiler. I’m not all that convinced a Stein voter would have chosen Clinton, for the usual liberal reasons of Clinton being too Establishment. If Stein hadn’t been a choice, those people might have must left the presidential ballot blank.

The biggest problem was the Dems did not do an especially good job in wooing voters away from Trump in those states, either because they were too confident she’d win the coastal states easily or because they misread the situation in those states.

As much as it hurts to say it, the Democrats have to understand that most voters are not intellectuals. They don’t respond to measured, fair-minded policy statements and promises that everyone will benefit under Candidate X’s platform. As Trump has deftly demonstrated, candidates will also need to appeal to voters’ emotions, perhaps to the detriment of the intellectual aspects. Clinton tried, with the “deplorables” remark, but I wonder if that tactic backfired on her, as the deplorables took as it a sobriquet for their movement. She needed to remind voters of the long history of America welcoming people from different countries and backgrounds, and how Trump was abandoning those traditions with the help of his white supremacist minions.

IOW, the next presidential election will feature more mud-slinging and propaganda than ever before. Don’t count on the media to help voters sort out the mess.