[monocasa]

> By definition they helped Trump more in WI, MI and PA.

No, not by definition. There's all sorts of other reasons why Clinton could get fewer votes. Clinton has just been trying to blame every reason except those that blame her campaign.

The real question isn't "what could have cost her a fraction of a percentage point here and there?", but instead "why was such a razor edge to begin with?"

[ece]

Yes by definition, and I did define it as a presidential election flipping because of 3rd party voters in a handful of swing states.

You're ignoring that Trump on the ballot meant any Libertarian was going to get a bump. Any other republican, and their winning margin would've been bigger, or Hillary would've won and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

It shouldn't have been close, but the last few elections have been, with the popular vote winner losing the electoral college twice and Kerry coming within ~30 EVs. Do you have a solution for divided media, inequality, climate change, and citizens united, that is simpler than vote trading or making people realize voting for their 2nd preference might just be worth it to hack the electoral college? I'd love to hear it.

[monocasa]

> Yes by definition, and I did define it as a presidential election flipping because of 3rd party voters in a handful of swing states.

There's no data that this that case. You just keep stating it like it's a fact.

[ece]

Here are the results for MI, PA, and WI: https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/wisconsin https://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/pennsylvania

In all three cases, the difference between Hillary and Trump was less than what the 3rd party candidates got and what Jill Stein alone got. Given what I've said before, and what happened in 2000 in FL, trying to convince people of actually voting for their 2nd preference (Hillary) or vote trading in such states makes almost as much sense as blaming the Clinton campaign itself (definitely deserves the most blame), Russia, and any number of other reasons why Hillary lost.

It's a part of the puzzle, again, given that this is the 2nd time this happened.

[ece]

I also want to mention there were probably specific reasons why the vote was so close in these states. Namely lead in the water in Flint MI, and Scott Walker ending collective bargaining in WI. PA vote is probably most reflective of the decline of unionization. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/opinion/campaign-stops/th...

These issues probably affected presidential democratic turnout in these states as much as any other issue affecting the statewide or national campaigns. Also, millennial turnout was down from 2012 according to exit polls. Not sure how much to believe exit polls. Total turnout was up by little in MI and PA in 2016 compared to 2012, and it was down in WI.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/politics/e...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_ele...