Even if the argument about getting X% of votes was true, the states to campaign heavy in would be the deep blue/red states. Especially since they tend to get ignored by candidates.
Instead she sticks to the states where <30k votes could decide the election and the market is saturated with the most expensive ad costs
It's blantantly obvious what's she's doing.
the states to campaign heavy in would be the deep blue/red states.
Agreed. If a third party pulls off a major change in one of these states, it's still likely to go for it's color regardless so the presidential outcome is not affected, but it'd force the relevant parties to examine why the third party was able to make such huge inroads and what of their own policies that they should change.
It’s blantantly obvious what’s she’s doing.
But for posterity I'll state it; she's spoiling for a GOP win.
Yeah, that's the nature of the Electoral College. It sucks. Do you think the Electoral College is something Kamala Harris invented or even wants?
Hate the game, not the playa.
I think you may have replied to the wrong person?
No I think the point is that of course she campaigns in swing states cause she wants to get to 5% of the vote so she can get access to more money. But it's the same stayes everyone is paying attention too.
Its false logic to say she's only dangerous in those states cause they are already close and we just have to pay extra attention to them because they are the swing states.
Is coincidental pattern seeking.
Its false logic to say she’s only dangerous in those states cause they are already close and we just have to pay extra attention to them because they are the swing states.
The 5% can come from Cali alone and not effect the race tho.
And it would be cheaper because of less competition for ads, the voters there are often ignored and would more receptive, and there are way more voters who are left of the Dem.party there
If she is honestly trying to do what she says, then she is doing it in the least efficient way possible and has been for a very long time.
If what she's really doing is trying to hand Republicans the election, then she seems to have put a lot of thought into the best possible way to do it and is focusing on that.
So take your pick:
She's honest but a terrible leader and absolutely dog shit at planning.
She's a liar but either her or her handlers have put a lot of thought into how to get trump elected.
She would have to get over 5% in California for it to count at a federal level and there is of course the fact that it's a wealthy Democratic party stronghold so they actually might spend hard to punish her for trying to take votes. I mean look at all the lawsuits filed to keep Green Party off ballot elsewhere.
I don't see a situation where she is let to just campaign cause we can already see the response when she just gets her normal voters.
I don't think she's smart. She's been searching for something that makes her feel important ever since she realized she hated working and saying out loud the obvious broken stuff even though she doesn't have plans to fix it gets her attention and more money.
She got giddy that she was talked about in Russia because she thinks it's awesome people know her...
Don't assume malice where stupidity is an option first.
Yeah she's a sucky leader that stole the green party for herself and uses it as a piggy bank and self morality boost but she gets the people by being not the Democrats or Republicans. Do other people try to take advantage of that? Hell yeah. I bet one of her advisors probably embezzles funds to pay themselves more. Lots of people are shitty in different ways. This is hoping for an easy answer to the world being a mess. Same way people hope their is aliens secretly running things.
What?
When they talk about the 5% line, it's the national vote, not in each state...
Just 5 percent of the national vote for the Green Party Stein/Baraka ticket can be a true game-changer for American politics. It will qualify the Green Party for recognition as an official national party, and for federal funding in the 2020 presidential race proportional to the amount of votes received — at least $8 million to $10 million
Which is why it makes no sense to focus on battleground states.
I didn't read anything last your first sentence tho since it was built off a misunderstanding.
Do you still have other questions?
Yes you have to get 5% national so 5% of california is not 5% of the total populace and campaigning in places with low population is pointless since that would give a fraction of a percent for national level.
You pointed out your own flaw with her focusing on just California. Asking her to get 20 million votes in one state would absolutely make the DNC do everything to stop her.
And then you ignored conversation. So why even comment here at all? You don't want a conversation you just want to already be right. It's insanity.
Battleground states are that because it's where the big cities are, thus, you know the people she needs to vote for her. You have like non-concept of cause and effect and are operating entirely on random bad logic.
You pointed out your own flaw with her focusing on just California. Asking her to get 20 million votes in one state
Wow, yes. California has just under 40 million, so that would turn California Green!
would absolutely make the DNC do everything to stop her.
Which would include understanding her policies and why they were so effective in pulling voters away, and if any policies should be considered for DNC adoption.
So, a good thing.
Battleground states are that because it’s where the big cities are, thus, you know the people she needs to vote for her. You have like non-concept of cause and effect and are operating entirely on random bad logic.
To me this was sound logic. Getting all votes from California to hit the nationwide 5% doesn't make sense and would be very tough to achieve and could throw the race (in a new way - by denying the electoral votes of California to Harris).
However, it'd still be cheaper to campaign in such solid states like California, Texas, and New York. Assume Stein wins 5 million in NY and TX and 10 million in CA for a total of 20. It's a tough feat, but doesn't affect the election, but it's big enough that the two big parties have to pay attention and adopt her policies. Also, since these are not battleground states, it's cheaper to win over.
If anything, because battleground states tend to be smaller, it's even harder to make up the raw numbers by winning them over.
Just an aside, this person thinks that the green party should just get 5% of the national population to vote for them from a single state and that it wouldn't change anything or cause any ripples.
5% of the US population is about 18 million people.
17 million voted in the state of California in total in 2020.
Remember everyone. Basic math isn't just a thing your teacher thought would be important for no reason. It does have use in the real world.
Even if the argument about getting X% of votes was true, the states to campaign heavy in would be the deep blue/red states. Especially since they tend to get ignored by candidates.
Instead she sticks to the states where <30k votes could decide the election and the market is saturated with the most expensive ad costs
It's blantantly obvious what's she's doing.
Agreed. If a third party pulls off a major change in one of these states, it's still likely to go for it's color regardless so the presidential outcome is not affected, but it'd force the relevant parties to examine why the third party was able to make such huge inroads and what of their own policies that they should change.
But for posterity I'll state it; she's spoiling for a GOP win.
Yeah, that's the nature of the Electoral College. It sucks. Do you think the Electoral College is something Kamala Harris invented or even wants?
Hate the game, not the playa.
I think you may have replied to the wrong person?
No I think the point is that of course she campaigns in swing states cause she wants to get to 5% of the vote so she can get access to more money. But it's the same stayes everyone is paying attention too.
Its false logic to say she's only dangerous in those states cause they are already close and we just have to pay extra attention to them because they are the swing states.
Is coincidental pattern seeking.
The 5% can come from Cali alone and not effect the race tho.
And it would be cheaper because of less competition for ads, the voters there are often ignored and would more receptive, and there are way more voters who are left of the Dem.party there
If she is honestly trying to do what she says, then she is doing it in the least efficient way possible and has been for a very long time.
If what she's really doing is trying to hand Republicans the election, then she seems to have put a lot of thought into the best possible way to do it and is focusing on that.
So take your pick:
She's honest but a terrible leader and absolutely dog shit at planning.
She's a liar but either her or her handlers have put a lot of thought into how to get trump elected.
She would have to get over 5% in California for it to count at a federal level and there is of course the fact that it's a wealthy Democratic party stronghold so they actually might spend hard to punish her for trying to take votes. I mean look at all the lawsuits filed to keep Green Party off ballot elsewhere.
I don't see a situation where she is let to just campaign cause we can already see the response when she just gets her normal voters.
I don't think she's smart. She's been searching for something that makes her feel important ever since she realized she hated working and saying out loud the obvious broken stuff even though she doesn't have plans to fix it gets her attention and more money.
She got giddy that she was talked about in Russia because she thinks it's awesome people know her...
Don't assume malice where stupidity is an option first.
Yeah she's a sucky leader that stole the green party for herself and uses it as a piggy bank and self morality boost but she gets the people by being not the Democrats or Republicans. Do other people try to take advantage of that? Hell yeah. I bet one of her advisors probably embezzles funds to pay themselves more. Lots of people are shitty in different ways. This is hoping for an easy answer to the world being a mess. Same way people hope their is aliens secretly running things.
What?
When they talk about the 5% line, it's the national vote, not in each state...
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/27/why-5-for-the-green-party-is-a-win-for-america-jill-stein-commentary.html
Which is why it makes no sense to focus on battleground states.
I didn't read anything last your first sentence tho since it was built off a misunderstanding.
Do you still have other questions?
Yes you have to get 5% national so 5% of california is not 5% of the total populace and campaigning in places with low population is pointless since that would give a fraction of a percent for national level.
You pointed out your own flaw with her focusing on just California. Asking her to get 20 million votes in one state would absolutely make the DNC do everything to stop her.
And then you ignored conversation. So why even comment here at all? You don't want a conversation you just want to already be right. It's insanity.
Battleground states are that because it's where the big cities are, thus, you know the people she needs to vote for her. You have like non-concept of cause and effect and are operating entirely on random bad logic.
Wow, yes. California has just under 40 million, so that would turn California Green!
Which would include understanding her policies and why they were so effective in pulling voters away, and if any policies should be considered for DNC adoption.
So, a good thing.
To me this was sound logic. Getting all votes from California to hit the nationwide 5% doesn't make sense and would be very tough to achieve and could throw the race (in a new way - by denying the electoral votes of California to Harris).
However, it'd still be cheaper to campaign in such solid states like California, Texas, and New York. Assume Stein wins 5 million in NY and TX and 10 million in CA for a total of 20. It's a tough feat, but doesn't affect the election, but it's big enough that the two big parties have to pay attention and adopt her policies. Also, since these are not battleground states, it's cheaper to win over.
If anything, because battleground states tend to be smaller, it's even harder to make up the raw numbers by winning them over.
Just an aside, this person thinks that the green party should just get 5% of the national population to vote for them from a single state and that it wouldn't change anything or cause any ripples.
5% of the US population is about 18 million people.
17 million voted in the state of California in total in 2020.
Remember everyone. Basic math isn't just a thing your teacher thought would be important for no reason. It does have use in the real world.