From a political tactical point of view that is a terrible idea.
We're talking about two different things. I'm addressing what an individual voter might consider knowing that his vote won't count because he lives in a state that will surely go the other way. The voter doing what feels best to him given that his vote doesn't count can hardly be a terrible idea. It provides info to the party about what liberals are thinking that they can use next time.
You're talking about liberal candidate solidarity. Whole 'nother matter.
Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren hate everything about Hillary and her wing of the party, but they fought like hell to get her elected because they live in the world of reality and knew the threat Trump posed.
You think that Jill cost Hillary the election, that she got enough votes in purple states to have made the difference?
The Republican nominee received 2,771,984 votes, compared to Clinton's 2,317,001, or a difference of 454,983 votes. Johnson took home 168,599 votes in the state and Stein received 44,310. It's important to note that Stein alone did not cost Clinton enough electoral votes to overtake Trump. Bernie may have, though. He pulled her too far to the left. And then he didn't swing his support to her early enough. He dithered and dithered before he got on board still pulling her down until very near the end.
It's not enough to stick together. The liberals need to have a position that maximizes votes. Unity for a losing platform is a feel good exercise but not a winning one. |
