Is Jill Stein the Ralph Nader of 2016?

If by “The Ralph Nader of 2016” you mean a progressive candidate that is being blamed by butthurt Democrats for their loss despite the fact the Democratic Candidate was a bad candidate anyway, then yes. This makes the assumption that the Democratic Party is entitled to these votes. For whatever reason, those who voted for Stein did so because they chose her over the other choices on the ballot.

The Context and Misconception

There is an argument to be made against a winner-takes-all system, but the argument that these people ruined the election for Hillary Clinton could just as easily be made about the large number of minority voters who stayed home in 2008 and 2012, Democrats living in swing states who thought the election was already in the bag, and Bernie or Bust supporters. If Jill Stein had won, Republicans could have easily blamed those who voted for Gary Johnson or Evan McMullin, potentially allowing Trump to win states like Colorado or New Hampshire.

---

Evaluation of Third Party Votes

In the end, Hillary Clinton lost the election because she failed to generate enough enthusiasm in her campaign. Trump's strategy was more successful in the Rust Belt states that had been leaning Democrat. Blaming Jill Stein for these statistics will not help the Democrats in any way. Directing anger towards third party voters is not a good strategy to win votes in general.

Third Party Vote Distribution: Due to the low vote percentages, third-party candidates like Gary Johnson and Jill Stein did not significantly impact the overall electoral results but still garnered enough support to make their presence felt.

Libertarian Vote Analysis

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson earned 172,136 votes in Michigan and 106,442 votes in Wisconsin, equating to 3.6 percent of the states' vote. While Libertarians were more likely to vote for Trump, it's important to note that Libertarians do not typically vote Democratic, as Trump is often seen as the lesser of two evils for them.

Conclusion

The discourse around Jill Stein and third-party candidates in 2016 is a broader discussion about electoral strategy and the impact of vote distribution. It highlights the challenges and intricacies of the electoral process, particularly in a winner-takes-all system. While it's easy to blame third-party candidates, understanding the broader voter behavior and strategic choices of both parties is crucial.

---

Understanding these factors can provide valuable insights for future elections and the role of various political stakeholders. Whether it's strategizing for better campaign engagement, addressing voter concerns, or navigating the complex landscape of political alliances, these lessons are invaluable.

---

Keywords: Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, 2016 Election, Third Party Candidates, Democratic Party