People who vote for Jo could just as easily have slept in on election day. Or they could have divvied up their votes evenly between D and R, resulting in a push.
The notion that 100% of any third party block is 2nd-choice-my-team is delusional. We played this game with Ralph Nader in 2000 (who pulled roughly evenly from D and R voters even within Florida) and with Jill Stein in 2016 (nevermind the Michigan/Pennsylvania top-line undercount, let's just blame the fucking Greens). And in Maine, to the point that they just implemented RCV to shut everyone the fuck up about spoilers.
The party loyalists just have to believe it is everyone's fault but their own when they're losing.
56k votes for Jo, 15k difference between D and R, means that a 63% 37% voting pattern would've made the difference in assumption of total transference. More likely is that a few people would've been non voters. If we add that to consideration the voting pattern would've to be something even more skewed, like 70% to 30%.
That is not to be expected with the makeup of the voting population for the actual voting block (e.g. not the non-voting block).
More easily to win Michigan would've been driving out the vote in general and targeting non-voters. This wasn't done for reasons this board talked more often about.
Though this election the voting participation was comparably high.
People who vote for Jo could just as easily have slept in on election day. Or they could have divvied up their votes evenly between D and R, resulting in a push.
The notion that 100% of any third party block is 2nd-choice-my-team is delusional. We played this game with Ralph Nader in 2000 (who pulled roughly evenly from D and R voters even within Florida) and with Jill Stein in 2016 (nevermind the Michigan/Pennsylvania top-line undercount, let's just blame the fucking Greens). And in Maine, to the point that they just implemented RCV to shut everyone the fuck up about spoilers.
The party loyalists just have to believe it is everyone's fault but their own when they're losing.
Yeah it's mostly just a joke
56k votes for Jo, 15k difference between D and R, means that a 63% 37% voting pattern would've made the difference in assumption of total transference. More likely is that a few people would've been non voters. If we add that to consideration the voting pattern would've to be something even more skewed, like 70% to 30%. That is not to be expected with the makeup of the voting population for the actual voting block (e.g. not the non-voting block).
More easily to win Michigan would've been driving out the vote in general and targeting non-voters. This wasn't done for reasons this board talked more often about. Though this election the voting participation was comparably high.