Did Gary Johnson make a difference in the swing states?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think most of Gary Johnson voters align more with Trump than Clinton. They were mostly republicans who can't stand Trump.

+1

Hillary never had a chance with all the Johnson voters I know; They just didn't want to vote Trump.

But they effectively did anyway. If they didn't want to vote Trump, then they should have voted Clinton. As much as people may dislike it, we still have a 2-party system in this country.

No, you misunderstand. They REALLY didn't want to vote Hillary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think most Johnson voters were Never Trump Republicans and hardcore Libertarians who had no love for either candidate. I doubt Clinton was their second choice.

ITA. Gary Johnson voters were never going to vote for Hillary. So disingenuous to say they he cost her the election.

[Anonymous]

Perhaps a small bit, but not to the extent people are claiming. Most GJ voters I know did so because they absolutely refuse to ever vote for a Dem and also refused to vote for Trump.

That's all I'm seeing on FB today is, "if you idiots hadn't given GJ 130k here and 100k there, she would have beat Trump in x, y, z states!!"

I voted for Clinton and was confident until FL. I had hope until OH. After that I knew he'd won and her team had seriously underestimated the mid-America vote.

I spent this past weekend with my extended family from traditionally red states. The older relatives were all voting Trump. The younger were all voting Clinton. The older relatives bought right into his "bring the jobs back to America!" talk. Like he's really going to fire up those car manufacturers in MI and the coal mins in WV (both of which are where my relatives are from and most had jobs in those industries).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
It's not Gary Johnson, whose voters are as likely to be Trump as not.

It was Jill Stein.

The vote that went to her in Pa, Michigan and Wisconsin, dropped Hillary below Trump. If those votes went to Hillary, she would be President Elect Clinton

+1, but disagree that GJ voters wouldn't have gone for Clinton. Still, you are right that in PA, Michigan and Wisconsin, had there been no third party vote, Clinton would be president.

I am furious at people like Susan Sarandon who selfishly put their own self-righteousness over the real choice facing them. They believed it was better to be right in a Trump presidency than feel less than happy with Clinton. Many also believed that it is better to allow Trump to win and blow up the country and the economy so that a strong progressive, democratic force can emerge in reaction to his failure. Madness.

I also blame Republican primary candidates whose egos were so huge that they couldn't step aside and agree to support a common nominee early in the process. Each believed that he would win. As a result, the field was fractured for far too long. There are many moderate Republicans who are not happy with Trump. And, I also blame spineless people like Paul Ryan, who are willing to tolerate any kind of language in order to be Leader or Speaker and have all the power.

Trump has become a president that more people have voted against both in the primary process and int he national election. (He is losing the popular vote and his republican primary opponents together earned 2 million more votes than he did even though he likes to brag that he won more votes than anyone in history.)

[Anonymous]

"Did Gary Johnson make a difference in the swing states?"

No. Obviously not. Trump managed to do something for Republicans that hasn't been done since Reagan: he swept the Great Lakes region. He took Pennsylvania, (Ohio of course), Michigan, and Wisconsin! Who knew those were even in play?!

The arrogance of the Dem machine just ate its own *ss.

Nominating Hillary was a terrible idea. I have to laugh at all the foreign money that was spent on her, expecting access. I hope they feel raped today. There is still an America, and get your filthy faces and money out of here.

[Anonymous]

I don't blame Trump at all.

I blame the Democrats for not nominating a candidate who could easily beat Trump. They cleared the field for Hillary, they went out of their way to destroy Bernie Saunders.

Frankly, both party ended up nominating the worst candidate they could and both candidates were lucky to be running against the other and as it turned out Trump just barely sqeaked by. His electoral college victory is impressive but look at many of those swing states, they were very slender margins.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
It's not Gary Johnson, whose voters are as likely to be Trump as not.

It was Jill Stein.

The vote that went to her in Pa, Michigan and Wisconsin, dropped Hillary below Trump. If those votes went to Hillary, she would be President Elect Clinton

+1, but disagree that GJ voters wouldn't have gone for Clinton. Still, you are right that in PA, Michigan and Wisconsin, had there been no third party vote, Clinton would be president.

I am furious at people like Susan Sarandon who selfishly put their own self-righteousness over the real choice facing them. They believed it was better to be right in a Trump presidency than feel less than happy with Clinton. Many also believed that it is better to allow Trump to win and blow up the country and the economy so that a strong progressive, democratic force can emerge in reaction to his failure. Madness.

I also blame Republican primary candidates whose egos were so huge that they couldn't step aside and agree to support a common nominee early in the process. Each believed that he would win. As a result, the field was fractured for far too long. There are many moderate Republicans who are not happy with Trump. And, I also blame spineless people like Paul Ryan, who are willing to tolerate any kind of language in order to be Leader or Speaker and have all the power.

Trump has become a president that more people have voted against both in the primary process and int he national election. (He is losing the popular vote and his republican primary opponents together earned 2 million more votes than he did even though he likes to brag that he won more votes than anyone in history.)

[Anonymous]

Why couldn't the Republicans have nominated someone competent? They had lots of options. Ugh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps a small bit, but not to the extent people are claiming. Most GJ voters I know did so because they absolutely refuse to ever vote for a Dem and also refused to vote for Trump.

That's all I'm seeing on FB today is, "if you idiots hadn't given GJ 130k here and 100k there, she would have beat Trump in x, y, z states!!"

I voted for Clinton and was confident until FL. I had hope until OH. After that I knew he'd won and her team had seriously underestimated the mid-America vote.

I spent this past weekend with my extended family from traditionally red states. The older relatives were all voting Trump. The younger were all voting Clinton. The older relatives bought right into his "bring the jobs back to America!" talk. Like he's really going to fire up those car manufacturers in MI and the coal mins in WV (both of which are where my relatives are from and most had jobs in those industries).

I'm this PP and I wanted to add, I work for a company who numerous products manufactured in China and assembled in the US. We have one product manufactured and assembled in the US. We have about 85% of our other products fully manufactured and assembled in China. Why? Because it's just not cost-effective to manufacture in the US.

The last product we switched to full manufacture and assembly in China had this cost/process in the US:
Week 1 - place order for 1,000 units
Week 2 - get proof, make payment, and get ETD of at least 8 weeks
Week 10 - receive product, QA, inventory, assemble, package product (and I'm being generous as often the manufacturer would really take 11 or 12 weeks for production)

Now, with going directly through China:
Day 1 - order 1,000 units & send 50% payment
Day 2 - proof sample unit
Day 30 - get shipment notification
Day 33-35 - receive goods, QA, inventory (China assembles and packages for free) & send remaining 50% balance

Taking on average 4 months to get something in-hand that was made in the US is just crazy! It ties up cash flow and causes inventory nightmares. Get an unexpected large order that wipes your stock? You're looking at at least 3.5 months of not being able to ship that product while it's made in the US. You can usually make nice with customers for a 1 month back order on a product. Some grumble, but most are fine. But 2 months? 10 weeks? 12 weeks? Orders start getting canceled.

And that's without even factoring in the low cost of China manufacturing. My example was strictly time related.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Perhaps a small bit, but not to the extent people are claiming. Most GJ voters I know did so because they absolutely refuse to ever vote for a Dem and also refused to vote for Trump.

That's all I'm seeing on FB today is, "if you idiots hadn't given GJ 130k here and 100k there, she would have beat Trump in x, y, z states!!"

I voted for Clinton and was confident until FL. I had hope until OH. After that I knew he'd won and her team had seriously underestimated the mid-America vote.

I spent this past weekend with my extended family from traditionally red states. The older relatives were all voting Trump. The younger were all voting Clinton. The older relatives bought right into his "bring the jobs back to America!" talk. Like he's really going to fire up those car manufacturers in MI and the coal mins in WV (both of which are where my relatives are from and most had jobs in those industries).

I'm this PP and I wanted to add, I work for a company who numerous products manufactured in China and assembled in the US. We have one product manufactured and assembled in the US. We have about 85% of our other products fully manufactured and assembled in China. Why? Because it's just not cost-effective to manufacture in the US.

The last product we switched to full manufacture and assembly in China had this cost/process in the US:
Week 1 - place order for 1,000 units
Week 2 - get proof, make payment, and get ETD of at least 8 weeks
Week 10 - receive product, QA, inventory, assemble, package product (and I'm being generous as often the manufacturer would really take 11 or 12 weeks for production)

Now, with going directly through China:
Day 1 - order 1,000 units & send 50% payment
Day 2 - proof sample unit
Day 30 - get shipment notification
Day 33-35 - receive goods, QA, inventory (China assembles and packages for free) & send remaining 50% balance

Taking on average 4 months to get something in-hand that was made in the US is just crazy! It ties up cash flow and causes inventory nightmares. Get an unexpected large order that wipes your stock? You're looking at at least 3.5 months of not being able to ship that product while it's made in the US. You can usually make nice with customers for a 1 month back order on a product. Some grumble, but most are fine. But 2 months? 10 weeks? 12 weeks? Orders start getting canceled.

And that's without even factoring in the low cost of China manufacturing. My example was strictly time related.

PP--very interesting comment. Can you give us more information on why timeliness using a Chinese manufacturer is som much better than using a US one?

[Anonymous]

IME both Democrats and Republicans voted for Johnson. Could it have made a difference? Absolutely, a lot of the swing states were incredibly close, but it could've just as easily got him the popular vote as well.