It's almost as if the thought process had been fed to you intentionally.

>hit their 5% of the popular vote to receive national funds.
>That was the only chance of getting anything substantial out
>of 2016.

Something substantial, meaning: splitting the progressive vote in general elections for the next fifty years, instead of just the next 5 years. Some substantial change is substantial for the worse.

In a majority-rule, first-past-the-post system (as laid out in the constitution), third parties can ONLY split their votes in a self-defeating way.

I told myself that line about national funding when I voted for Nader in 2000. It was nonsense then and it's nonsense now.


>Secondly, I did it from New York state, so it was little risk
>that Clinton was going to lose based on that voting base.

Perhaps I was confusing you with that other dude who voted Stein in Michigan. If you were in NY, then it's true that your vote itself was irrelevant. However the opinions you spread, undermining the only electable progressive party, do nothing but harm to your claimed progressive interests.

>If
>Clinton lost NY of all states there would be a MUCH bigger
>issue with her as an overall candidate. I even asked for
>Hillary supporters to still vote for her but on the Working
>Families Party line to show that they wanted to hold her
>accountable to actual policy implementation. I was not a
>Hillary hater.

LOL, this is funny. I know you.

>Thirdly, many people who voted (or didn't vote) PLEADED with
>the DNC to make real changes to their platform even in
>Sanders' loss.

THEY DID. I don't know where you got this impression that they didn't change the platform, but all the mainstream reporting at the time held that they were making huge concessions to Sanders's positions, and even Sanders himself said it was the most progressive platform in Democratic party history.

It's all kind of irrelevant anyway. The party platform is not a legally binding document. It really doesn't mean anything after the convention is over. I don't know why those Sanders supporters were pleading in the first place.


>They instead stood firm that Hillary "got more
>votes", and therefore didn't need to bend to the side of the
>party that was behind Sanders. They also basically said they
>would make up for my vote by picking up moderates,
>Republicans, and independents who wouldn't dare vote for
>Trump. To quote MY Senator Chuck Schumer, "for every blue vote
>we lose we'll pick up another 2 or 3".

Still very true.

>All that to say that THEY DID NOT WANT MY VOTE NOR WISH TO DO
>ANYTHING TO OBTAIN IT. And 2016's results have shown that to
>be a horrid strategy on their part.

That's a specious argument. Just because we lost a close race after some of the self-described "progressives" got mad doesn't mean we wouldn't have lost by more if we'd given up on the centrists and the independents.

>Honestly they would have
>rather lose to Trump than lose to Progressivism. Trump was
>never the enemy, which is why they nominated the person that
>he could beat.

LOL, you still think Bernie Sanders could have won a general election.

>They cared more about protecting the 1% and
>status quo, and 3 years later their mea culpa has been "Russia
>did it".

That's a strawman argument. Just because we state, with plenty of evidence, that Russia ran a propaganda campaign that influenced public opinion, does not mean that that was the only reason we lost the race.

Another reason was that some people who call themselves progressives have no discipline and no sense of what their actual goals are and how to obtain them.

And then there's just the fact that the party in power has a natural disadvantage after an eight-year term. And then there was the mountains of free media for Trump. And then there was the willingness of the press to trumpet unimportant stories (emails, etc) to claim that they're putting a check on the candidate that they were convinced would win.

There were a lot of reasons we lost in 2016. Your personal decisions are very low on that list, but that doesn't make them any less irrational.

>I'm ready to not vote for bs in 2020 as well. Perhaps if they
>want votes they should EARN them. That's what a Democracy is
>supposed to be. They could even implement rank choice voting

I hope you know that they can't do that (for general elections) without a constitutional amendment. And I hope you know that a constitutional amendment is laughable for the foreseeable future.

>if they were afraid of spoilers but they thrive off of the
>false choice of the 2 party system. Not going to fall it.

The parties did not form the 2-party system. The constitution formed it through the stipulation that a winning candidate needs a majority of electors. The parties were formed as an imperfect but optimal response to that system.

I know it's unsatisfying to be mad at math, especially math that we're powerless to change. But it's reality.