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
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.
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.