Discussion»Questions»Politics» Why whine about the millions of Americans who didn’t vote in the 2016 presidential election? What if their votes had gone to the
You can run a Google search on this, but countless sources (Forbes, Washington Post, etc.) say there's enough data to conclude that lack of voter turnout within the democratic party was enough to cost Clinton the election. Ultimately, dems simply weren't enthused by Clinton, and so many just didn't vote. And, from what I've seen, those who did vote primarily voted for Clinton to keep Trump from getting elected. Nobody really liked her as a candidate.
I realize that there are exceptions to this. Some people really did and do like Clinton. However, the majority, even within the dem party, did not.
That's the important distinction. Most people vote within their parties, either because they're diehards or because their own party represents their ideals and values better. So, if those democrats who didn't vote did come out and vote, chances are they would have voted for Clinton for the most part.
If the dems would have had a strong candidate like Obama that people genuinely liked and admired, Trump would have been slaughtered in the election. It didn't work that way.
I don't whine about those who didn't vote, but it frustrates me. I get frustrated when I hear people who hate Trump voted for someone who didn't stand a chance, too. I have friends who voted libertarian or green. Wasted votes.
Thank you for this perspective. I thought that Hillary Clinton was the beloved darling of the liberal left and the Democratic Party. On election night in November of 2016, I thought that she was going to prevail, so much so that I turned off the television early in the evening and went to bed. The next morning, three of the most surprised people in the world were Randy D, Hill Clinton, and Donald Trump. If registered voters choose not to exercise their rights, I wish it wouldn’t happen, but it’s a reality of life. I think that every single election in the US has had extremely low turnout. As for the Liberal Party, Green Party, Independent Party, etc., there are people who passionately believe in their platforms, and I personally do not disparage anyone for voting the way he or she desires to, meaning that I do not consider those votes wasted. ~
Also, I'm a bit skeptical about the accuracy of Google. Just because zillions of people worldwide use it and/or trust it does not mean it can't be manipulated to suit certain agendas over others. I'm not saying that zillions are wrong for relying on what they read online, I do know that there are other options for study, research, edification, etc. ~
I believe every election is decided by the party that is able to bring out its base. Not by independents as many in the media like to claim. If you look at the 3rd party votes these are normally protest votes. If the Green party vote is unusually high then you know the Dem was unpopular with their base. And the same with the Libertarian party total and the Rep base. Of course there are exceptions to this.
Also, I do not believe most people will admit that they did not vote in a Pres election even if they did not.
If xxxx would have xxxx is wrong. What if their votes had gone to the opposition? The language authorities don't know why people have started using "would have" when they should have used "had" but it is seen a lot. I cannot not blame public education. Also you hear it in movies and other media. It sounds wrong and it is wrong. One key is when you use if first you need to use had (like in y our question). An example showing both usages: She would have diedIF the doctor had (not would have) done the surgery. The reference explains how 'would have' is also often incorrectly used with the word wish, as in I wish I would have passed the class. That is like nails on a chalkboard to me. I have tried to explain this many times. I figure you will get it. The explanation at the link is very good and definitely better than mine.
People who don't care enough to vote are probably not well-informed about the issues and the candidates. If they were to vote, their votes would most likely go to the name they recognize.
Those are good points, thank you. That reinforces why politicians, just like the advertising community, rely so heavily on name-recognition as a primary factor in gauging success. ~
I had heard a number of people here in Texas expressing their intent to vote for one of the presidential candidates who were seeking to qualify for campaign funding by getting a certain percentage of the popular vote.
The consensus by those voters seemed to be that since Trump had no chance to be elected, they would somehow be doing something good by voting that way for that reason.
After the election, I did some simple math and found that if all of the votes cast in Texas by those people had been instead cast for Clinton, Trump would still have won all the electoral votes of the state.
I only did that for Texas.
Still, the best thing to do is vote for the person you want to win---which is the straightforward purpose for an election.
This post was edited by tom jackson at September 30, 2019 10:07 AM MDT
Just Asking 