"I have a people-powered campaign"
June 23, 2015 9:10 AM Subscribe
The Green Party's Jill Stein announces her presidential candidacy. She is running as a third-party candidate.
Jill Stein is a decent human being, and I voted for her the last time around - I'm starting to wonder, though, if dead-on-arrival candidacies like hers and Bernie Sanders' don't simply lend a small bit of legitimacy to a process that is entirely, irredeemably rigged and corrupt.
I guess she'd know better than most, but I increasingly fail to see how it's worth the effort.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:21 AM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
I guess she'd know better than most, but I increasingly fail to see how it's worth the effort.
posted by ryanshepard at 9:21 AM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
Having Bernie Sanders in the race is going to take a lot of wind out of the sails for a Green Party candidate. Many liberals get excited about the Green Party because they're an alternative to the center-left (arguably center-right) Democratic Party. Bernie is already taking up that space with a higher profile and the legitimacy and media recognition afforded by being a long-serving senator.
posted by nathan_teske at 9:24 AM on June 23, 2015 [53 favorites]
posted by nathan_teske at 9:24 AM on June 23, 2015 [53 favorites]
I'm curious if Stein's candidacy will peel a significant number of potential Bernie Sanders supporters away from his campaign? Or vice versa?
posted by Xavier Xavier at 9:24 AM on June 23, 2015
posted by Xavier Xavier at 9:24 AM on June 23, 2015
Jill Stein's rightful position in politics is as Al Franken's running mate.
Franken/Stein '16: Bringing America to Life!
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:27 AM on June 23, 2015 [259 favorites]
Franken/Stein '16: Bringing America to Life!
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:27 AM on June 23, 2015 [259 favorites]
Faint of Butt, you are a horrible person and should feel bad.
posted by Etrigan at 9:28 AM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by Etrigan at 9:28 AM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
Yeah, definitely voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary but I will have a tough decision to make if Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders are both options in the general (I live in DC which is profoundly NOT a swing state as it fulfills neither of the criteria).
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 9:28 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 9:28 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
There's a big difference between running in a primary (Sanders) and running as a 3rd party (Stein).
I would have loved to see Stein run for the Democratic nomination. She could promote her agenda without poisoning the well in the general election.
Or, heck. Run for Senate. We need more people like Stein in Congress.
posted by schmod at 9:30 AM on June 23, 2015 [18 favorites]
I would have loved to see Stein run for the Democratic nomination. She could promote her agenda without poisoning the well in the general election.
Or, heck. Run for Senate. We need more people like Stein in Congress.
posted by schmod at 9:30 AM on June 23, 2015 [18 favorites]
Many liberals get excited about the Green Party because they're an alternative to the center-left (arguably center-right) Democratic Party.
Progressives and even some of those in our modern arguably center-right Democratic Party are backing Sanders with the belief that he is far from Hillary's politics, but he will endorse her if he loses in the primary, not Jill Stein, whom you would think is more reflective of what Sanders is promising to achieve as a president.
posted by swoopstake at 9:31 AM on June 23, 2015
Progressives and even some of those in our modern arguably center-right Democratic Party are backing Sanders with the belief that he is far from Hillary's politics, but he will endorse her if he loses in the primary, not Jill Stein, whom you would think is more reflective of what Sanders is promising to achieve as a president.
posted by swoopstake at 9:31 AM on June 23, 2015
To clarify -- the greens have zero chance of winning the presidency. They're in it to pull political values back to the left and provide a viable third part candidacy so people can vote their conscience and send a message. Bernie Sanders is doing the exact same thing in the Democratic primaries and could potentially win the nomination.
posted by nathan_teske at 9:33 AM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by nathan_teske at 9:33 AM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
"I have a people-powered campaign"
More like the soylent green party.
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:33 AM on June 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
More like the soylent green party.
posted by DynamiteToast at 9:33 AM on June 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
Thank god somebody carefully explained that a fringe party not backed by big money won't win the presidency.
posted by boo_radley at 9:36 AM on June 23, 2015 [26 favorites]
posted by boo_radley at 9:36 AM on June 23, 2015 [26 favorites]
Yeah, definitely voting for Bernie Sanders in the primary but I will have a tough decision to make if Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders are both options in the general (I live in DC which is profoundly NOT a swing state as it fulfills neither of the criteria).
Actually I had a similar dilemma (Stein vs. Obama) during the last presidential election where I'd told all my sixth grade Social Studies students that I was voting for Obama (they assumed I was voting for Romney because I'm white. I -- was not. I was definitely not voting for Romney.) and without thinking I told one of my favorite bartenders that I was an undecided voter and she gave me a look like I had sprouted horns and a tail and I was like "Oh, no, sorry! Undecided between Obama and Jill Stein the Green Party candidate" and then it was okay again and we have a papier-mache bat that was part of the bar's Halloween decorations that we named after her so everything is fine now.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 9:38 AM on June 23, 2015 [14 favorites]
Actually I had a similar dilemma (Stein vs. Obama) during the last presidential election where I'd told all my sixth grade Social Studies students that I was voting for Obama (they assumed I was voting for Romney because I'm white. I -- was not. I was definitely not voting for Romney.) and without thinking I told one of my favorite bartenders that I was an undecided voter and she gave me a look like I had sprouted horns and a tail and I was like "Oh, no, sorry! Undecided between Obama and Jill Stein the Green Party candidate" and then it was okay again and we have a papier-mache bat that was part of the bar's Halloween decorations that we named after her so everything is fine now.
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 9:38 AM on June 23, 2015 [14 favorites]
A major third-party push on the left would be great. Look at the effect Ross Perot had: He woke both parties up to the fact that there were a lot of hard-right votes to be had, and both parties veered hard right for a generation. It would be nice to have some veering back toward the center.
posted by clawsoon at 9:40 AM on June 23, 2015
posted by clawsoon at 9:40 AM on June 23, 2015
"I'm starting to wonder, though, if dead-on-arrival candidacies like hers and Bernie Sanders' don't simply lend a small bit of legitimacy to a process that is entirely, irredeemably rigged and corrupt."
Just because a process is somewhat rigged and corrupt, that doesn't necessarily make it illegitimate. Frankly, I would like to know what elections for major countries aren't somewhat rigged and corrupt. Certainly not Britain, Israel, Australia, Germany, France, Italy... and absolutely not the media organizations of those countries.
The point of fact is, far more people want Hillary Clinton to win than want Stein or Sanders. in part because they believe she is electable nationwide, and will be tough, down, and dirty enough to deal with the bigger evil of today's Republican Party.
posted by markkraft at 9:40 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Just because a process is somewhat rigged and corrupt, that doesn't necessarily make it illegitimate. Frankly, I would like to know what elections for major countries aren't somewhat rigged and corrupt. Certainly not Britain, Israel, Australia, Germany, France, Italy... and absolutely not the media organizations of those countries.
The point of fact is, far more people want Hillary Clinton to win than want Stein or Sanders. in part because they believe she is electable nationwide, and will be tough, down, and dirty enough to deal with the bigger evil of today's Republican Party.
posted by markkraft at 9:40 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
There's a big difference between running in a primary (Sanders) and running as a 3rd party (Stein).
I have a friend who is a very vocal (sometimes to the point of tedium) Green Party supporter. And if you talked to him, he'd say that the reason for that big difference is because there is an equally big difference between the Green Party and the Democratic Party, and no difference at all between the Democrats and the Republicans. He sees Bernie as somewhat better than Hillary, but still wishes he'd run on the Green ticket or something.
He's already started talking about how he's voting for Jill Stein.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:41 AM on June 23, 2015
I have a friend who is a very vocal (sometimes to the point of tedium) Green Party supporter. And if you talked to him, he'd say that the reason for that big difference is because there is an equally big difference between the Green Party and the Democratic Party, and no difference at all between the Democrats and the Republicans. He sees Bernie as somewhat better than Hillary, but still wishes he'd run on the Green ticket or something.
He's already started talking about how he's voting for Jill Stein.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:41 AM on June 23, 2015
Bringing America back to life...
posted by Rat Spatula at 9:41 AM on June 23, 2015 [13 favorites]
posted by Rat Spatula at 9:41 AM on June 23, 2015 [13 favorites]
I'm curious if Stein's candidacy will peel a significant number of potential Bernie Sanders supporters away from his campaign?
Bernie Sanders is virtually guaranteed to not get the nomination in the general election. When he loses (and while recent successes have made them optimistic most supporters I know are pretty sanguine about this), a significant chunk of Sanders supporters, though probably a minority, are inclined to go to Jill Stein.
Running as an independent for President in the general is not a great way to build a party. The so-called "spoiler" effect taken out of the equation – there really are voters like me who wouldn't vote for a Democrat or Republican at all – the reality is that a third party needs to be built from the ground up by winning municipal/city, county and state offices.
I'm not a fan of the Green Party. Their vision is a mishmash of middle class liberal idealism, and the party's been open to cranks of various sorts over the years. I see more of a labor-type party as being a better long term solution, but then I'm a Marxist.
posted by graymouser at 9:47 AM on June 23, 2015 [22 favorites]
Bernie Sanders is virtually guaranteed to not get the nomination in the general election. When he loses (and while recent successes have made them optimistic most supporters I know are pretty sanguine about this), a significant chunk of Sanders supporters, though probably a minority, are inclined to go to Jill Stein.
Running as an independent for President in the general is not a great way to build a party. The so-called "spoiler" effect taken out of the equation – there really are voters like me who wouldn't vote for a Democrat or Republican at all – the reality is that a third party needs to be built from the ground up by winning municipal/city, county and state offices.
I'm not a fan of the Green Party. Their vision is a mishmash of middle class liberal idealism, and the party's been open to cranks of various sorts over the years. I see more of a labor-type party as being a better long term solution, but then I'm a Marxist.
posted by graymouser at 9:47 AM on June 23, 2015 [22 favorites]
Franken/Stein '16: Bringing America to Life!
No no. Franken/Stein '16: Fire Bad!
posted by Naberius at 9:49 AM on June 23, 2015 [20 favorites]
No no. Franken/Stein '16: Fire Bad!
posted by Naberius at 9:49 AM on June 23, 2015 [20 favorites]
far more people want Hillary Clinton to win than want Stein or Sanders. in part because they believe she is electable nationwide
Do far more people really want Clinton to win, or do they just think she's more likely to pull it off? I have yet to hear someone give a reason to vote for Clinton that wasn't "she's more electable." I'm sure there are people who are genuinely excited for her, but at least in conversations I've had (on this site and elsewhere), it always boils down to "Bernie wouldn't ever win," as opposed to "I'd rather vote for her because I like what she has to say."
posted by teponaztli at 9:51 AM on June 23, 2015 [15 favorites]
Do far more people really want Clinton to win, or do they just think she's more likely to pull it off? I have yet to hear someone give a reason to vote for Clinton that wasn't "she's more electable." I'm sure there are people who are genuinely excited for her, but at least in conversations I've had (on this site and elsewhere), it always boils down to "Bernie wouldn't ever win," as opposed to "I'd rather vote for her because I like what she has to say."
posted by teponaztli at 9:51 AM on June 23, 2015 [15 favorites]
He might as well vote Republican, for all the good it will do.
Being cynical about the process only helps the Republicans and their corporate paymasters, because it suppresses turnout and increases the left-wing protest vote. And yet, nobody in the "progressive" left really holds GOP obstructionism as primarily responsible for the policies they don't like, because that would undercut their argument that the two major parties are the same.
I think it's amazing that we have two Democratic candidates who are talking about taxing the rich, greatly increasing the minimum wage, making Medicare available to everyone instead of Obamacare, and making wage disparity a big, huge issue in this election... and yet, many people can't wait to have an alternative to these "sell-outs".
posted by markkraft at 9:51 AM on June 23, 2015 [20 favorites]
Being cynical about the process only helps the Republicans and their corporate paymasters, because it suppresses turnout and increases the left-wing protest vote. And yet, nobody in the "progressive" left really holds GOP obstructionism as primarily responsible for the policies they don't like, because that would undercut their argument that the two major parties are the same.
I think it's amazing that we have two Democratic candidates who are talking about taxing the rich, greatly increasing the minimum wage, making Medicare available to everyone instead of Obamacare, and making wage disparity a big, huge issue in this election... and yet, many people can't wait to have an alternative to these "sell-outs".
posted by markkraft at 9:51 AM on June 23, 2015 [20 favorites]
Faint of Butt: Franken/Stein '16
It's pronounced Frank Einstein, and you'd be a madman to not support such a ticket with such swing and brains!
posted by filthy light thief at 10:00 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
It's pronounced Frank Einstein, and you'd be a madman to not support such a ticket with such swing and brains!
posted by filthy light thief at 10:00 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
I bet if they made an outreach effort to teen and 20something voters, the Young Franken/Stein demo would be PUTTIN' ONNA RIIIIITZ.
posted by Strange Interlude at 10:02 AM on June 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by Strange Interlude at 10:02 AM on June 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
Actually Franken/Stein was the name of the campaign manager
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:02 AM on June 23, 2015 [42 favorites]
posted by prize bull octorok at 10:02 AM on June 23, 2015 [42 favorites]
Jill Stein's rightful position in politics is as Al Franken's running mate.
Franken/Stein '16: Bringing America to Life!
Then we just need Governor Greg Abbott of Texas to run for the GOP and pick US Congressman Ryan Costello of Pennsylvania as his running mate.
Come on folks, let's make Abbott & Costello vs. Franken/Stein happen!
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:05 AM on June 23, 2015 [40 favorites]
Franken/Stein '16: Bringing America to Life!
Then we just need Governor Greg Abbott of Texas to run for the GOP and pick US Congressman Ryan Costello of Pennsylvania as his running mate.
Come on folks, let's make Abbott & Costello vs. Franken/Stein happen!
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:05 AM on June 23, 2015 [40 favorites]
I guess the big question is, in 2016, will the party obtain the ~2% of the popular vote reached when Nader ran in 2000, or the much smaller numbers of other years? If the former, Republicans rejoice.
Bush won by 543 votes.
97,000 Florida voters (from all parties) voted for Nader.
17,000 for the Reform Party.
16,000 for the Libertarian Party.
2,000 for the Natural Law Party.
1,800 for the Workers World Party.
1,400 for the Constitution Party.
620 for the Socialist Party.
200,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush.
WaPo found that Gore would have gained 662 votes in a hand recount.
But feel free to keep placing 100% of the blame on Ralph Nader.
posted by Foosnark at 10:11 AM on June 23, 2015 [28 favorites]
Bush won by 543 votes.
97,000 Florida voters (from all parties) voted for Nader.
17,000 for the Reform Party.
16,000 for the Libertarian Party.
2,000 for the Natural Law Party.
1,800 for the Workers World Party.
1,400 for the Constitution Party.
620 for the Socialist Party.
200,000 Florida Democrats voted for Bush.
WaPo found that Gore would have gained 662 votes in a hand recount.
But feel free to keep placing 100% of the blame on Ralph Nader.
posted by Foosnark at 10:11 AM on June 23, 2015 [28 favorites]
Among other things, a good president must be a great organizer. He or she oversees over 2 million civilian and military employees. He or she must work with Congress to try to advance his or her agenda as best he or she can. This is very difficult even when your own party has control over both houses - the machinations and compromises necessary to pass the ACA are a prime example of this.
People are going to be voting for Hillary because they think she can do these things. I think I will probably vote for Bernie if the election is still ongoing when my state's primary is held, but I think his organizational skills are far more unknown than Hillary's are at this point.
I probably agree with Jill Stein on a ton of things, but as far as I can tell, she is not a good organizer. I mean, the two times she ran for Governor of Massachusetts, she got between 1.5% and 3.5% of the vote, and the Massachusetts electorate is a lot more aligned with her than the national electorate. She got 0.36% in the last presidential election. By contrast, Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the national popular vote.
posted by burden at 10:13 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
People are going to be voting for Hillary because they think she can do these things. I think I will probably vote for Bernie if the election is still ongoing when my state's primary is held, but I think his organizational skills are far more unknown than Hillary's are at this point.
I probably agree with Jill Stein on a ton of things, but as far as I can tell, she is not a good organizer. I mean, the two times she ran for Governor of Massachusetts, she got between 1.5% and 3.5% of the vote, and the Massachusetts electorate is a lot more aligned with her than the national electorate. She got 0.36% in the last presidential election. By contrast, Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the national popular vote.
posted by burden at 10:13 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'm still stunned how I never seem to see any third party candidates making a big issue out of fixing the voting system by replacing it with something that won't help support a defacto two party system.
The biggest reason we have a two party system is because we use a voting system that pushes people toward strategically voting against a candidate more than voting for one they want. And that there's a straightforward alternative that's as easy to use and understand that doesn't have this problem - Approval Voting. Making that change would likely be the biggest and best improvement that could possibly be made to voting to give the people more of a voice and allow third parties the chance to see how much support they really get.
Yet there's so little momentum to get such a positive change made. It's disappointing.
posted by evilangela at 10:14 AM on June 23, 2015 [12 favorites]
The biggest reason we have a two party system is because we use a voting system that pushes people toward strategically voting against a candidate more than voting for one they want. And that there's a straightforward alternative that's as easy to use and understand that doesn't have this problem - Approval Voting. Making that change would likely be the biggest and best improvement that could possibly be made to voting to give the people more of a voice and allow third parties the chance to see how much support they really get.
Yet there's so little momentum to get such a positive change made. It's disappointing.
posted by evilangela at 10:14 AM on June 23, 2015 [12 favorites]
Abbott & Costello vs. Franken/Stein
I'd be delighted if they even met Franken/Stein.
No no. Franken/Stein '16: Fire Bad!
No, no, no. It's Franken/Stein '16: DESTINY! DESTINY! DESTINY!
posted by octobersurprise at 10:15 AM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
I'd be delighted if they even met Franken/Stein.
No no. Franken/Stein '16: Fire Bad!
No, no, no. It's Franken/Stein '16: DESTINY! DESTINY! DESTINY!
posted by octobersurprise at 10:15 AM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
I get that there is a strong temptation but could we maybe please not use this thread to rehash the "it was/n't Ralph Nader's fault" fight we've had so many times ? Thank you!
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 10:16 AM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by Mrs. Pterodactyl at 10:16 AM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
Actually, I think that Al Franken would make a great President.
posted by schmod at 10:17 AM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by schmod at 10:17 AM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
Margaret Thatcher had a clear-eyed view of her greatest accomplishment, which was New Labour. The goal of a really ambitious progressive should be to create a Progressive Republican wing as a side-effect of their years in power.
posted by clawsoon at 10:17 AM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by clawsoon at 10:17 AM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
History will recognize Margaret Thatcher as the greatest American president of all time.
posted by dr_dank at 10:20 AM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by dr_dank at 10:20 AM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
I voted for Stein in 2012 and figured I would be doing so again in 2016 as the supposedly unstoppable Hilary train rolled over everything.
Bernie's campaign changes that, and I'm excited about it. He has a shot at winning the primary, and HIlary is going to have to do much better than "not a Republican" to beat him.
This makes me much less excited about Stein this time around -- but I'll still vote for her if Bernie loses the primary. Conscience is still important.
posted by Foosnark at 10:24 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Bernie's campaign changes that, and I'm excited about it. He has a shot at winning the primary, and HIlary is going to have to do much better than "not a Republican" to beat him.
This makes me much less excited about Stein this time around -- but I'll still vote for her if Bernie loses the primary. Conscience is still important.
posted by Foosnark at 10:24 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
>Just because a process is somewhat rigged and corrupt, that doesn't necessarily make it illegitimate.
I'm doing that thing where your shoulders shake and you exhale convulsively while making an involuntary noise. Is there some external way to tell whether that's laughing or crying if you're not internally sure?
posted by Sing Or Swim at 10:25 AM on June 23, 2015 [7 favorites]
I'm doing that thing where your shoulders shake and you exhale convulsively while making an involuntary noise. Is there some external way to tell whether that's laughing or crying if you're not internally sure?
posted by Sing Or Swim at 10:25 AM on June 23, 2015 [7 favorites]
What's not to like about having both Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders out there making sense and engaging in the debate on the campaign trail? It's not an 'either/or' as much as it is about 'more'.
posted by grounded at 10:27 AM on June 23, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by grounded at 10:27 AM on June 23, 2015 [7 favorites]
After 2000, I would cut off my right arm before I would vote for a Green candidate. I don't care if they put Jesus Christ on the ticket.
posted by holborne at 10:31 AM on June 23, 2015 [11 favorites]
posted by holborne at 10:31 AM on June 23, 2015 [11 favorites]
History will recognize Bill Clinton as the greatest republican president since Lincoln.
posted by el io at 10:32 AM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by el io at 10:32 AM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Actually, I think that Al Franken would make a great President.
Oh yeah, I would totally vote for a Franken/Stein ticket and the name would be probably the tenth-or-so highest reason, which is saying something.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:32 AM on June 23, 2015 [10 favorites]
Oh yeah, I would totally vote for a Franken/Stein ticket and the name would be probably the tenth-or-so highest reason, which is saying something.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:32 AM on June 23, 2015 [10 favorites]
Actually, I think that Al Franken would make a great President.
If only Tom Davis were still alive...
posted by holborne at 10:33 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
If only Tom Davis were still alive...
posted by holborne at 10:33 AM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
I think it's amazing that we have two Democratic candidates who are talking about taxing the rich, greatly increasing the minimum wage, making Medicare available to everyone instead of Obamacare, and making wage disparity a big, huge issue in this election... and yet, many people can't wait to have an alternative to these "sell-outs".
Talk is nice. Populist talk is nice. The current President talked about a lot of these issues, too. Then he handed over a lot of financial policy decisions to Wall Street, had health insurance company executives write parts of the ACA, etc. So there's something to be said for having a few alternative options to pick from, even if the game is mostly rigged in favor of the current center-right options the DNC is putting forwards.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:34 AM on June 23, 2015 [13 favorites]
Talk is nice. Populist talk is nice. The current President talked about a lot of these issues, too. Then he handed over a lot of financial policy decisions to Wall Street, had health insurance company executives write parts of the ACA, etc. So there's something to be said for having a few alternative options to pick from, even if the game is mostly rigged in favor of the current center-right options the DNC is putting forwards.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:34 AM on June 23, 2015 [13 favorites]
What's not to like about having both Jill Stein and Bernie Sanders out there making sense and engaging in the debate on the campaign trail? It's not an 'either/or' as much as it is about 'more'.
Seriously. The Right can have lots of different kinds of idiots and still manage to control at least half the national dialogue at all times. Almost every other way of moving the mainstream debate over to the Left has failed during the majority of my life time. Having different voices saying similar things may not help, but it certainly won't hurt anymore than the approach we've been taking lately.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:39 AM on June 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
Seriously. The Right can have lots of different kinds of idiots and still manage to control at least half the national dialogue at all times. Almost every other way of moving the mainstream debate over to the Left has failed during the majority of my life time. Having different voices saying similar things may not help, but it certainly won't hurt anymore than the approach we've been taking lately.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:39 AM on June 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
Jill Stein's rightful position in politics is as Al Franken's running mate.
Franken/Stein '16: Bringing America to Life!
The amazing thing is, I would probably be excited to vote for that ticket.
posted by the_blizz at 10:41 AM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
Franken/Stein '16: Bringing America to Life!
The amazing thing is, I would probably be excited to vote for that ticket.
posted by the_blizz at 10:41 AM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
the campaign buttons alone would be worth it.
posted by poffin boffin at 10:42 AM on June 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
posted by poffin boffin at 10:42 AM on June 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
The First Lady's controversial hairstyle would definitely make the front cover of The New Yorker, again.
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:45 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by a lungful of dragon at 10:45 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
But feel free to keep placing 100% of the blame on Ralph Nader.
I hope everyone can smell the straw burning here, but if not, I think we can agree that one does not need to believe that Nader was 100% responsible for throwing the election to Bush to believe that a prospective Stein run peeling some left-liberals away from the Democratic coalition would make Republicans happy, which was exogenous' original argument.
Once this straw man is set aside, your numbers don't exculpate Nader in any significant way. He was, even according to his own polling data, partly responsible for swinging the results in Florida:
The actual margin in 2000 was 5-4, and occurred in the District of Columbia rather than Florida, but Nader was without question a principal reason things got to that point.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:52 AM on June 23, 2015 [11 favorites]
I hope everyone can smell the straw burning here, but if not, I think we can agree that one does not need to believe that Nader was 100% responsible for throwing the election to Bush to believe that a prospective Stein run peeling some left-liberals away from the Democratic coalition would make Republicans happy, which was exogenous' original argument.
Once this straw man is set aside, your numbers don't exculpate Nader in any significant way. He was, even according to his own polling data, partly responsible for swinging the results in Florida:
Nader is at his slipperiest on the issue of whether his campaign tipped the election to George W. Bush. The evidence that he did so is unambiguous. First, by repeating his charge that there was no significant ideological distance between the two major-party candidates, Nader helped bolster the message of Bush, who sought to blur unpopular Republican positions on key issues. Second, by peeling off substantial blocks of liberals in states such as Oregon, Minnesota and Wisconsin, he forced Al Gore to devote precious time and money to shoring up states that would (if not for Nader) have been safely Democratic, leaving him fewer resources for swing states such as Ohio, Tennessee and Florida. Third, and most directly, Nader won 97,488 votes in Florida. Appearing on a talk show after the election, Nader cited polls that showed that, had he not run, only 38 percent of his voters would have backed Gore versus 25 percent for Bush. Strangely, Nader held up these numbers as a defense against the spoiler charge. Yet the very data cited by Nader, if applied to Florida, shows that he took a net 12,000 votes from Gore -- more than enough to hand the state, and the electoral college, to Bush.I can understand why people would bristle at the spoiler suggestion, but the evidence is there, and while even incontrovertible evidence wouldn't make it "100%" Nader's fault (as nobody is arguing), I don't see how one can argue that he wasn't a significant factor not only in Florida, but in the overall race.
The actual margin in 2000 was 5-4, and occurred in the District of Columbia rather than Florida, but Nader was without question a principal reason things got to that point.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:52 AM on June 23, 2015 [11 favorites]
Mod note: Folks, I know it's tempting to revisit this every time the Green Party runs a presidential candidate, but at this point let's bracket the detailed "what happened in 2000?" discussion. Totally fine to talk about what could happen in this election, but let's not derail onto minutiae of that one.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:01 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 11:01 AM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't care if they put Jesus Christ on the ticket.
You mean middle-eastern religious extremist Isa bin Yusuf?
posted by griphus at 11:01 AM on June 23, 2015 [26 favorites]
You mean middle-eastern religious extremist Isa bin Yusuf?
posted by griphus at 11:01 AM on June 23, 2015 [26 favorites]
schmod -- you want your Al Franken presidency? I'll give you your Al Franken presidency.Why Not Me?
(I love both of our Senators. Who knew that Sen Amy Klobuchar was going to be the funny one?)
posted by nathan_teske at 11:03 AM on June 23, 2015
(I love both of our Senators. Who knew that Sen Amy Klobuchar was going to be the funny one?)
posted by nathan_teske at 11:03 AM on June 23, 2015
Franken needs to put his Why Not Me? strategy into place and run with Lieberman on the strict "No ATM fees" platform contained therein.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 11:04 AM on June 23, 2015
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 11:04 AM on June 23, 2015
The Al and Jill Franken/Stein would be the scientist. This Franken/Stein would have been the monster.
posted by The Bellman at 11:08 AM on June 23, 2015
posted by The Bellman at 11:08 AM on June 23, 2015
After 2000, I would cut off my right arm before I would vote for a Green candidate. I don't care if they put Jesus Christ on the ticket.
That's fine - soon, thanks in large part to our Democratic president, American democracy will finally have been rendered utterly moot, in any case.
I look forward to mainstream Democrats singing the praises of secret, unaccountable extranational courts over environmental regulations, food safety, copyright, worker protections, etc.
posted by ryanshepard at 11:08 AM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
That's fine - soon, thanks in large part to our Democratic president, American democracy will finally have been rendered utterly moot, in any case.
I look forward to mainstream Democrats singing the praises of secret, unaccountable extranational courts over environmental regulations, food safety, copyright, worker protections, etc.
posted by ryanshepard at 11:08 AM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
Actually, I think that Al Franken would make a great President.
He's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, people like him.
posted by Strange Interlude at 11:10 AM on June 23, 2015 [15 favorites]
He's good enough, he's smart enough, and doggone it, people like him.
posted by Strange Interlude at 11:10 AM on June 23, 2015 [15 favorites]
I look forward to mainstream Democrats singing the praises of secret, unaccountable extranational courts over environmental regulations, food safety, copyright, worker protections, etc.
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:14 AM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:14 AM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Franken made a serious decision to not be funny. He was already fighting against the image folks had of him as a comedian, and wanted to be taken seriously. I'm certain that he has bitten his tongue many a times when he could have eviscerated his opponents with some hilarious remark.
But more than that, I respect the hell out of him for avoiding the national spotlight like the plague. He'll tell CNN to fuck off, but then give a small local newspaper as much time with him as they want. He truly serves his constituents, and isn't interested in grandstanding.
In my dream world he'll become president (after Bernie has served his 8 years).
posted by el io at 11:16 AM on June 23, 2015 [18 favorites]
But more than that, I respect the hell out of him for avoiding the national spotlight like the plague. He'll tell CNN to fuck off, but then give a small local newspaper as much time with him as they want. He truly serves his constituents, and isn't interested in grandstanding.
In my dream world he'll become president (after Bernie has served his 8 years).
posted by el io at 11:16 AM on June 23, 2015 [18 favorites]
Totally fine to talk about what could happen in this election
Dr. Stein runs a fine campaign, garners a single-digit fraction of the vote, and runs again next time?
posted by octobersurprise at 11:28 AM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Dr. Stein runs a fine campaign, garners a single-digit fraction of the vote, and runs again next time?
posted by octobersurprise at 11:28 AM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Dr. Stein runs a fine campaign, garners a single-digit fraction of the vote, and runs again next time?
An entire single digit would actually be a marked improvement.
posted by rollbiz at 11:34 AM on June 23, 2015
An entire single digit would actually be a marked improvement.
posted by rollbiz at 11:34 AM on June 23, 2015
"Do far more people really want Clinton to win, or do they just think she's more likely to pull it off? "
Since when is electability not part of the decision-making process?! You frankly have no right to expect people to ignore such an obvious, important aspect of the process.
When it comes to reasons to vote for her, there are many.
1> A huge part of the goal for any candidate is maximizing turnout. High turnout not only gets the candidate elected, but also gets many down-ticket candidates elected, allowing for working majorities to be created, in order to pass legislation with a minimum of painful compromise. Bernie is a socialist, and will have a very hard time uniting the party, much less attracting centrist voters... and centrist voters are incredibly important, because each one you persuade to vote Democrat rather than Republican is, essentially, two votes.
2> Demographics matters. Hillary Clinton appeals heavily to female voters, in the most common voting age ranges. One of the real problems that Democrats have had is that too many white female voters are voting Republican. Hillary Clinton has the potential of changing this, and possibly even making a long term impact on this key demographic, much in the way that Barack Obama has. Being known as the party that elected the first female President can make a big difference... and if you shift party preferences for women a few percentage points, you can swing a LOT of elections in the process.
3> Democrats ignore her supporters at their peril. A lot of Hillary supporters were very angry at her not getting the nomination last time around, but Hillary was able to prevent a schism in the party, by getting behind Obama and working in the State Department... one of the few appointments which are non-political. This was no mistake. There was a clear "tit-for-tat" that occurred, which is why Hillary has inherited the Obama campaign's top talent. "You get my support this time, we get yours next time around." In fact, President Obama may give Hillary's campaign a subtle nudge forward. He can do this as simply as allowing comments of his to be used in her ads... or, as I mentioned, by encouraging his most competent people to help her campaign. He's also doing a lot of fundraising right now... would you be surprised if those who endorse Sanders were to find that they don't get much in the way of political contributions this time around? I wouldn't. This is Hillary's last shot, and Sanders has nothing he can offer her. Do you really think the Democratic establishment will let a socialist outsider kidnap their party and lead it towards what all the pollsters say is a likely defeat? I don't.
538 laid down some brutal statistical honesty recently...
Bernie Sanders is a nice guy. We have a lot in common, as far as where we'd like to see the country go. I know a lot of good people who share similar ideals... but not all are capable of forming a working political coalition and becoming a successful president. Many don't have his kind of baggage, either. I'm sure he'd do just fine in the national election, as soon as he explains to women what he meant when he said "a woman enjoys intercourse with her man - as she fantasizes being raped by three men simultaneously." Something tells me that's not going to go over well with Hillary's supporters, though.
Really, he's got about the same amount of traction with non-white voters as Ron Paul, and I frankly don't care what the Democratic establishment needs to do to keep him from getting the nomination... they should do it, knowing full well that the alternative is likely giving the Republican Party the White House and the choice of several Supreme Court Justices.
If my choice is winning with a candidate who will give me 80% of what I want, vs. losing with one who would give me 100%, I will gladly choose 80% as it is clearly the best choice.
posted by markkraft at 11:35 AM on June 23, 2015 [17 favorites]
Since when is electability not part of the decision-making process?! You frankly have no right to expect people to ignore such an obvious, important aspect of the process.
When it comes to reasons to vote for her, there are many.
1> A huge part of the goal for any candidate is maximizing turnout. High turnout not only gets the candidate elected, but also gets many down-ticket candidates elected, allowing for working majorities to be created, in order to pass legislation with a minimum of painful compromise. Bernie is a socialist, and will have a very hard time uniting the party, much less attracting centrist voters... and centrist voters are incredibly important, because each one you persuade to vote Democrat rather than Republican is, essentially, two votes.
2> Demographics matters. Hillary Clinton appeals heavily to female voters, in the most common voting age ranges. One of the real problems that Democrats have had is that too many white female voters are voting Republican. Hillary Clinton has the potential of changing this, and possibly even making a long term impact on this key demographic, much in the way that Barack Obama has. Being known as the party that elected the first female President can make a big difference... and if you shift party preferences for women a few percentage points, you can swing a LOT of elections in the process.
3> Democrats ignore her supporters at their peril. A lot of Hillary supporters were very angry at her not getting the nomination last time around, but Hillary was able to prevent a schism in the party, by getting behind Obama and working in the State Department... one of the few appointments which are non-political. This was no mistake. There was a clear "tit-for-tat" that occurred, which is why Hillary has inherited the Obama campaign's top talent. "You get my support this time, we get yours next time around." In fact, President Obama may give Hillary's campaign a subtle nudge forward. He can do this as simply as allowing comments of his to be used in her ads... or, as I mentioned, by encouraging his most competent people to help her campaign. He's also doing a lot of fundraising right now... would you be surprised if those who endorse Sanders were to find that they don't get much in the way of political contributions this time around? I wouldn't. This is Hillary's last shot, and Sanders has nothing he can offer her. Do you really think the Democratic establishment will let a socialist outsider kidnap their party and lead it towards what all the pollsters say is a likely defeat? I don't.
538 laid down some brutal statistical honesty recently...
"Clinton looks as strong as — or stronger than — any of these past front-runners. . . but the foundational flaws in Sanders’ candidacy are pretty easy to spot. Sanders may be polling well in mostly white New Hampshire, but he hasn’t been able to figure out how to earn more than 5 percent of the nonwhite vote, according to national polls. . . . Indeed, it’s difficult to imagine why someone who has described himself as a socialist, has never competed for minority voters and has no roots within the Democratic Party should worry Clinton much. She might actually be relieved to be challenged by someone who has so little chance at winning the nomination.Bernie Sanders is a nice guy. We have a lot in common, as far as where we'd like to see the country go. I know a lot of good people who share similar ideals... but not all are capable of forming a working political coalition and becoming a successful president. Many don't have his kind of baggage, either. I'm sure he'd do just fine in the national election, as soon as he explains to women what he meant when he said "a woman enjoys intercourse with her man - as she fantasizes being raped by three men simultaneously." Something tells me that's not going to go over well with Hillary's supporters, though.
Really, he's got about the same amount of traction with non-white voters as Ron Paul, and I frankly don't care what the Democratic establishment needs to do to keep him from getting the nomination... they should do it, knowing full well that the alternative is likely giving the Republican Party the White House and the choice of several Supreme Court Justices.
If my choice is winning with a candidate who will give me 80% of what I want, vs. losing with one who would give me 100%, I will gladly choose 80% as it is clearly the best choice.
posted by markkraft at 11:35 AM on June 23, 2015 [17 favorites]
Totally fine to talk about what could happen in this election
nation overwhelmed with apathy, perishes quietly in front of tv covered with cheeto crumbs, heart confiscated for usage by karl rove
posted by poffin boffin at 11:36 AM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
nation overwhelmed with apathy, perishes quietly in front of tv covered with cheeto crumbs, heart confiscated for usage by karl rove
posted by poffin boffin at 11:36 AM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
I probably agree with Jill Stein on a ton of things, but as far as I can tell, she is not a good organizer. I mean, the two times she ran for Governor of Massachusetts, she got between 1.5% and 3.5% of the vote, and the Massachusetts electorate is a lot more aligned with her than the national electorate. She got 0.36% in the last presidential election. By contrast, Ross Perot got nearly 20% of the national popular vote.
Y'know, I am one of those scarce individuals who voted for Jill Stein ALL THREE of those times, and I am still not sure she would have been any good at those jobs. But I would indeed very much like to see her establish herself here in Massachusetts at the state level rather than the near-pointless exercise of running as a Green presidential candidate.
posted by briank at 11:41 AM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
Y'know, I am one of those scarce individuals who voted for Jill Stein ALL THREE of those times, and I am still not sure she would have been any good at those jobs. But I would indeed very much like to see her establish herself here in Massachusetts at the state level rather than the near-pointless exercise of running as a Green presidential candidate.
posted by briank at 11:41 AM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
but at least in conversations I've had (on this site and elsewhere), it always boils down to "Bernie wouldn't ever win," as opposed to "I'd rather vote for her because I like what she has to say."
Eh, I think you're underestimating that people actually genuinely like Clinton. As a person, as a politician, as a woman, and yes, as a person that's taken more than her share of attacks from Republicans (and some from her own party) and still able to stand up and say "You ain't so bad."
posted by FJT at 11:42 AM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
Eh, I think you're underestimating that people actually genuinely like Clinton. As a person, as a politician, as a woman, and yes, as a person that's taken more than her share of attacks from Republicans (and some from her own party) and still able to stand up and say "You ain't so bad."
posted by FJT at 11:42 AM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
I agree with a fair bit of the Green Party platform, but as a political party they really need to find a way to attract good local candidates and do good things at first the city and then the state level - nationwide. Too often, even at the local level the Green candidate comes off as a crank. Running for Executive Office isn't (just) about taking a moral stance. It is about proving you can administer things in a way that makes life better for more people. That means getting down to work and finding ways to get from where we are today towards where you want to go. Idealism helps paint the target, but it isn't a road map to get there.
What impresses me about Bernie is that he has proven his capability not only to stand strong and centered with his values, but also to effect policy and change to match. That's a very rare combination.
posted by meinvt at 11:46 AM on June 23, 2015 [7 favorites]
What impresses me about Bernie is that he has proven his capability not only to stand strong and centered with his values, but also to effect policy and change to match. That's a very rare combination.
posted by meinvt at 11:46 AM on June 23, 2015 [7 favorites]
The Green party desperately needs to do something about their crank problem. The party is absolutely filled with people who can sound great for a few minutes, and then pop out with some chemtrails level craziness.
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:06 PM on June 23, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by Mitrovarr at 12:06 PM on June 23, 2015 [7 favorites]
Do far more people really want Clinton to win, or do they just think she's more likely to pull it off? I have yet to hear someone give a reason to vote for Clinton that wasn't "she's more electable."
Sure. A lot of Democrats will probably see him as too liberal. A lot of Democrats are people of color, and I expect it's going to be hard for a white Jew from New England who they've never seen talking about race to convince black or latino voters that he understands and cares about them to even that probably-not-that-high degree that Clinton has.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:09 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sure. A lot of Democrats will probably see him as too liberal. A lot of Democrats are people of color, and I expect it's going to be hard for a white Jew from New England who they've never seen talking about race to convince black or latino voters that he understands and cares about them to even that probably-not-that-high degree that Clinton has.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:09 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
"Eh, I think you're underestimating that people actually genuinely like Clinton."
Oh, she's likable... But Bush Jr was pretty likable as well. I'd have a beer with both of them.
And would want neither to lead the country.
I voted green for presidency a couple of times. The last time though was when the republicans were reportedly actively supporting his campaign (to derail the democrat candidate, as it were).
I went up to some green supporters at a parade (Pride or something) and wanted to discuss these allegations with me. They were both young folks, college age. Neither one of them were willing to have the conversation. My sympathies were for their party, but I couldn't bring myself to vote green since then.
posted by el io at 12:12 PM on June 23, 2015
Oh, she's likable... But Bush Jr was pretty likable as well. I'd have a beer with both of them.
And would want neither to lead the country.
I voted green for presidency a couple of times. The last time though was when the republicans were reportedly actively supporting his campaign (to derail the democrat candidate, as it were).
I went up to some green supporters at a parade (Pride or something) and wanted to discuss these allegations with me. They were both young folks, college age. Neither one of them were willing to have the conversation. My sympathies were for their party, but I couldn't bring myself to vote green since then.
posted by el io at 12:12 PM on June 23, 2015
I will take the Green party seriously when they put some serious effort into getting a representative in the House first. Or even a state chamber. Stop throwing all your fucking money at the same idiotic symbolic gesture year after year and try to show that you're actually interested in participating in governing. Getting a candidate elected at the state level is not that hard.
posted by phooky at 12:14 PM on June 23, 2015 [25 favorites]
posted by phooky at 12:14 PM on June 23, 2015 [25 favorites]
"I voted green for presidency a couple of times. The last time though was when the republicans were reportedly actively supporting his campaign (to derail the democrat candidate, as it were)."
It happened. Ben Stein, who is a creationist Nixon cronie, who once called George W. Bush a "civil rights leader" donated big to Nader, and wasn't the only well-known Republican who did so.
posted by markkraft at 12:19 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
It happened. Ben Stein, who is a creationist Nixon cronie, who once called George W. Bush a "civil rights leader" donated big to Nader, and wasn't the only well-known Republican who did so.
posted by markkraft at 12:19 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Never voted Green before, but I'm going to seriously consider voting for Jill Stein this time around. She is probably the candidate closest to my views who will still be around for the general. I'll have to look into a few things though, the Greens sometimes seem to buy into some cooky environmental ideas I'm not really a fan of.
Actually I had a similar dilemma (Stein vs. Obama) during the last presidential election where I'd told all my sixth grade Social Studies students that I was voting for Obama (they assumed I was voting for Romney because I'm white. I -- was not.
Upon just now realizing you are a teacher, I can't think of any other Mefi username I hope is a real life name as much as yours.
"Good Morning, Class!"
"GOOD MORNING MRS. PTERODACTYL!"
posted by Drinky Die at 12:21 PM on June 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
Actually I had a similar dilemma (Stein vs. Obama) during the last presidential election where I'd told all my sixth grade Social Studies students that I was voting for Obama (they assumed I was voting for Romney because I'm white. I -- was not.
Upon just now realizing you are a teacher, I can't think of any other Mefi username I hope is a real life name as much as yours.
"Good Morning, Class!"
"GOOD MORNING MRS. PTERODACTYL!"
posted by Drinky Die at 12:21 PM on June 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
"Stop throwing all your fucking money at the same idiotic symbolic gesture year after year and try to show that you're actually interested in participating in governing."
This is why the progressives fail to make any actual... y'know... progress. Heaven forbid they muddy themselves with politics and compromise to get the best deal possible for the public. That could only lead to criticism!
posted by markkraft at 12:22 PM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is why the progressives fail to make any actual... y'know... progress. Heaven forbid they muddy themselves with politics and compromise to get the best deal possible for the public. That could only lead to criticism!
posted by markkraft at 12:22 PM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
The Green party desperately needs to do something about their crank problem.
This is one of those endogenous loops that's hard to crack. Imagine you're an ambitious politician who's vaguely progressive and cares about the environment. You've won some nonpartisan but competitive local election, so you have experience running a campaign. You've got some of that special-something charisma that really helps win high level office. Why on earth would you run as a Green candidate, and be virtually guaranteed to lose and to have your political career fizzle before it can even start, when you can run as a Democrat and have a sort-of-organization that knows a thing or two about winning races helping you? Which leaves the Greens a candidate pool that's heavy on cranks and other people who just aren't very serious about actually winning the races they're in. Which means the Greens never do well, which limits their candidate pool...
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:23 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
This is one of those endogenous loops that's hard to crack. Imagine you're an ambitious politician who's vaguely progressive and cares about the environment. You've won some nonpartisan but competitive local election, so you have experience running a campaign. You've got some of that special-something charisma that really helps win high level office. Why on earth would you run as a Green candidate, and be virtually guaranteed to lose and to have your political career fizzle before it can even start, when you can run as a Democrat and have a sort-of-organization that knows a thing or two about winning races helping you? Which leaves the Greens a candidate pool that's heavy on cranks and other people who just aren't very serious about actually winning the races they're in. Which means the Greens never do well, which limits their candidate pool...
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:23 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
It happened. Ben Stein, who is a creationist Nixon cronie, who once called George W. Bush a "civil rights leader" donated big to Nader...
So that's who won Ben Stein's money! Ha ha ha we got a great show coming up tonight ladies and gentlemen, the Mighty Mighty Bosstones are here.
posted by griphus at 12:23 PM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
So that's who won Ben Stein's money! Ha ha ha we got a great show coming up tonight ladies and gentlemen, the Mighty Mighty Bosstones are here.
posted by griphus at 12:23 PM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
Do far more people really want Clinton to win, or do they just think she's more likely to pull it off? I have yet to hear someone give a reason to vote for Clinton that wasn't "she's more electable."
I'm not a Clinton voter, but there are many good reasons to support her. She has a lot of experience in government. She gained domestic and foreign policy experience in the Senate and served very competently as Secretary of State. She has been through the gauntlet of the highest level of media and political pressure and always carried herself with strength, dignity, and intelligence. To me, she has always expressed genuine concern and love for her country and people. I do think if as President she receives that 3 AM phone call that she will make a wise decision. She has gained all this experience as a woman which in politics, like many fields, usually means a steeper difficulty level to make progress in the face of a patriarchal system. She will be a competent President who will govern from the Center Left.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:29 PM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
I'm not a Clinton voter, but there are many good reasons to support her. She has a lot of experience in government. She gained domestic and foreign policy experience in the Senate and served very competently as Secretary of State. She has been through the gauntlet of the highest level of media and political pressure and always carried herself with strength, dignity, and intelligence. To me, she has always expressed genuine concern and love for her country and people. I do think if as President she receives that 3 AM phone call that she will make a wise decision. She has gained all this experience as a woman which in politics, like many fields, usually means a steeper difficulty level to make progress in the face of a patriarchal system. She will be a competent President who will govern from the Center Left.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:29 PM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
Oh, she's likable... But Bush Jr was pretty likable as well. I'd have a beer with both of them.
And would want neither to lead the country.
Well, the original post was asking if people genuinely wanted Clinton to win. My interpretation is if you like someone, you'll probably want them to win. Even when a voter says they only vote based on the issues, I tend to think that they're underestimating how their own perception of a candidate influences how they think.
But I can't think of any way to determine at that, at least until we have robots try to run for office.
posted by FJT at 12:37 PM on June 23, 2015
And would want neither to lead the country.
Well, the original post was asking if people genuinely wanted Clinton to win. My interpretation is if you like someone, you'll probably want them to win. Even when a voter says they only vote based on the issues, I tend to think that they're underestimating how their own perception of a candidate influences how they think.
But I can't think of any way to determine at that, at least until we have robots try to run for office.
posted by FJT at 12:37 PM on June 23, 2015
This is why the progressives fail to make any actual... y'know... progress. Heaven forbid they muddy themselves with politics and compromise to get the best deal possible for the public. That could only lead to criticism!
A-fucking-men to this. It's exactly why the left has failed to get anything done for 30 years or so while the right has, as the most prominent example, successfully chipped away at abortion rights to the point that they're practically non-existent for many women.
posted by holborne at 12:40 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
A-fucking-men to this. It's exactly why the left has failed to get anything done for 30 years or so while the right has, as the most prominent example, successfully chipped away at abortion rights to the point that they're practically non-existent for many women.
posted by holborne at 12:40 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Hillary is to the left of Obama in many key respects, too. Not only did she have a more progressive, medicare-based health program than Obama, she also came out in favor of raising taxes on the rich way back in June 2007, specifically citing income inequality, at a time when few were doing so.
What she's saying now isn't just in response to Sanders. It is what she actually has been saying for awhile now.
posted by markkraft at 12:44 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
What she's saying now isn't just in response to Sanders. It is what she actually has been saying for awhile now.
"when the Bush administration came in, they were determined to tilt the balance back toward the privileged. We are paying a very big price for this because middle class and working families are paying a much higher percentage of their income. That was Warren Buffett's position that he pays about seventeen percent because, don't forget, it's the payroll tax plus the income tax. When you cut off the contribution at $90,000 or $95,000, that's a lot of money between $95,000 and the $46 million that Warren Buffett made last year. He's honest enough to say, look, tax me because I'm a patriotic American and I want to make sure our country stays strong and is fair. So, yes, we have to change the tax system and we've got to get back to having those with the most contribute to this country."posted by markkraft at 12:44 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Democrats had control of Congress and the Presidency at the start of Obama's first term. If you define what was done with that power and the later diminished power as the left accomplishing nothing, then realistically it is completely impossible for the left to accomplish anything in our lifetimes.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:47 PM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 12:47 PM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
The Green party desperately needs to do something about their crank problem.
Hey, their candidates might be naïve, but I don't think they're on drugs.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:48 PM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Hey, their candidates might be naïve, but I don't think they're on drugs.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:48 PM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Is there some reason we're derailed on why everyone is morally obligated to vote for Clinton instead of talking about Jill Stein?
posted by dialetheia at 12:50 PM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
posted by dialetheia at 12:50 PM on June 23, 2015 [8 favorites]
Maybe because nobody knows much about Stein, while we've been hearing about Clinton for 25 years? People tend to derail to what they know about. I'd be glad to hear more about Stein, though.
posted by clawsoon at 12:53 PM on June 23, 2015
posted by clawsoon at 12:53 PM on June 23, 2015
In 2012 Jill Stein was arrested for bringing protestors candy. I don't think we can trust her to be tough on crime with that kind of record.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:57 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
posted by Drinky Die at 12:57 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Democrats had control of Congress and the Presidency at the start of Obama's first term. ... realistically it is completely impossible for the left to accomplish anything in our lifetimes.
First, Democrats != "the left".
Second, I don't think this "control of Congress" thing is really accurate.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:02 PM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
First, Democrats != "the left".
Second, I don't think this "control of Congress" thing is really accurate.
posted by me & my monkey at 1:02 PM on June 23, 2015 [4 favorites]
Mod note: Yeah folks, this has run pretty far afield. There's an open Clinton thread and an open Sanders thread if folks want to go talk in more depth about them; maybe in here let's at least keep it in the neighborhood of Stein or the Greens?
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:05 PM on June 23, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:05 PM on June 23, 2015
Second, I don't think this "control of Congress" thing is really accurate.
I said control of Congress instead of supermajority specifically to avoid that conversation. :P
Democrats are, if you don't believe in 3rd party dreams like I do, the only mechanism for the left to legislate. If that mechanism is broken even with firm control of Congress and the Presidency, there isn't much else to do.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:09 PM on June 23, 2015
I said control of Congress instead of supermajority specifically to avoid that conversation. :P
Democrats are, if you don't believe in 3rd party dreams like I do, the only mechanism for the left to legislate. If that mechanism is broken even with firm control of Congress and the Presidency, there isn't much else to do.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:09 PM on June 23, 2015
Mod note: One comment deleted. markkraft, please take it to the Hillary thread if you want to keep talking Hillary stuff. Thanks.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:29 PM on June 23, 2015
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 1:29 PM on June 23, 2015
“I don't see how one can argue that he wasn't a significant factor not only in Florida, but in the overall race.”
Well, that and all the solid Blue Palm Beach voters in the highest proportionate density of Jews proportionate to the population voting for the holocaust denying neoconservative anti-Semite.
Not to rehash 2000, but the point there is the same here. What made that (those) egregious act(s) possible was apathy.
Most people in the U.S. seemed to think Gore was a shoo-in.
But in Florida, waay more Democrats jumped the fence than voted for Nader.
Point being, the Dems have always been more ok with right leaning constituencies than left leaning ones, same as now. And have always been ok with putting a boot in the winkies of a third party candidate.
Why?
I don’t know.
I’d suspect they want to maintain the monopoly and having voters have no one else to vote for suits them. Even if they vote GOP. If you’re drinking Coke or Pepsi, at least you’re maintaining the sugary fluid lifestyle instead of drinking water. Which would make your system healthier and make sodas seem less palatable.
Same way. Third parties are good for the system. Because they pay more attention.
Would the voter irregularities have been made public without Nader in 2000?
Again, I don’t know. Whole lot of quiet either way about the voter lawsuit to protest disenfranchisement by Gore. Lotta crickets.
And Nader complained (and complains) quite a bit about voting irregularities, electronic voting machines, the way the counts go, etc.
The way it turned out, doesn’t seem to matter much, does it?
It’s a self-reciprocating system.
I’m pretty far …what, “right”? “conservative”? I dunno. I like guns. I like civil liberties. I like being left alone and leaving other people alone. I like clean water and hunting and pristine wilderness and conservation (which used to be the purview of the GOP). I hate war but not warfighters. I support private property rights but despise economic disparity.
As far as I can tell those positions are diametrically opposed to a large part of party platform politics in the U.S. (at least since the “Bull Moose” party).
Anyway, only people who even bring up the environment as a serious thing are Greens. So in Illinois they get my vote.
As far as I can see, there are no compromises to be had on certain things. And I’m not talking about big picture stuff (I’m convinced by the evidence on climate change tho) I mean you go out to hunt elk or fish or just hike around and enjoy nature and you have to pony up serious cash on land that’s already put aside because the coal mine owners think there’s just not enough goddamn mercury and carbon dioxide in the area (The Arch Coal thing f’rinstnce).
I mean both the GOP and the Dems use the term “undeveloped” land. It’s not “forest” or “wilderness” it’s “undeveloped.”
Been that way for years. As far back as I can remember. And as far back as I can research until the issue fades.
Back when the Green Party started, around 1984, Saint “fiscal conservative” Reagan was raising taxes and closing tax loopholes for businesses resulting in the biggest corporate tax raise in history and raised taxes on capital gains by 40 percent and Tipper Gore and Hillary Clinton were talking about how evil music was and how we needed to stop videogames. (“Zappa party” maybe? “Without deviation, progress is not possible”)
Genuine conservation, despite the gigantic leap in rhetoric to encompass a nearly catastrophic global ecological disaster on the horizon, still just getting lip service.
And business as usual is business as usual despite the issues changing respective parties.
So, y’know. Stein. Without change there's no, y'know, change.
Odds are she won't get much media play and Sanders will occlude her candidacy, but it's an easy choice in Illinois.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:42 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Well, that and all the solid Blue Palm Beach voters in the highest proportionate density of Jews proportionate to the population voting for the holocaust denying neoconservative anti-Semite.
Not to rehash 2000, but the point there is the same here. What made that (those) egregious act(s) possible was apathy.
Most people in the U.S. seemed to think Gore was a shoo-in.
But in Florida, waay more Democrats jumped the fence than voted for Nader.
Point being, the Dems have always been more ok with right leaning constituencies than left leaning ones, same as now. And have always been ok with putting a boot in the winkies of a third party candidate.
Why?
I don’t know.
I’d suspect they want to maintain the monopoly and having voters have no one else to vote for suits them. Even if they vote GOP. If you’re drinking Coke or Pepsi, at least you’re maintaining the sugary fluid lifestyle instead of drinking water. Which would make your system healthier and make sodas seem less palatable.
Same way. Third parties are good for the system. Because they pay more attention.
Would the voter irregularities have been made public without Nader in 2000?
Again, I don’t know. Whole lot of quiet either way about the voter lawsuit to protest disenfranchisement by Gore. Lotta crickets.
And Nader complained (and complains) quite a bit about voting irregularities, electronic voting machines, the way the counts go, etc.
The way it turned out, doesn’t seem to matter much, does it?
It’s a self-reciprocating system.
I’m pretty far …what, “right”? “conservative”? I dunno. I like guns. I like civil liberties. I like being left alone and leaving other people alone. I like clean water and hunting and pristine wilderness and conservation (which used to be the purview of the GOP). I hate war but not warfighters. I support private property rights but despise economic disparity.
As far as I can tell those positions are diametrically opposed to a large part of party platform politics in the U.S. (at least since the “Bull Moose” party).
Anyway, only people who even bring up the environment as a serious thing are Greens. So in Illinois they get my vote.
As far as I can see, there are no compromises to be had on certain things. And I’m not talking about big picture stuff (I’m convinced by the evidence on climate change tho) I mean you go out to hunt elk or fish or just hike around and enjoy nature and you have to pony up serious cash on land that’s already put aside because the coal mine owners think there’s just not enough goddamn mercury and carbon dioxide in the area (The Arch Coal thing f’rinstnce).
I mean both the GOP and the Dems use the term “undeveloped” land. It’s not “forest” or “wilderness” it’s “undeveloped.”
Been that way for years. As far back as I can remember. And as far back as I can research until the issue fades.
Back when the Green Party started, around 1984, Saint “fiscal conservative” Reagan was raising taxes and closing tax loopholes for businesses resulting in the biggest corporate tax raise in history and raised taxes on capital gains by 40 percent and Tipper Gore and Hillary Clinton were talking about how evil music was and how we needed to stop videogames. (“Zappa party” maybe? “Without deviation, progress is not possible”)
Genuine conservation, despite the gigantic leap in rhetoric to encompass a nearly catastrophic global ecological disaster on the horizon, still just getting lip service.
And business as usual is business as usual despite the issues changing respective parties.
So, y’know. Stein. Without change there's no, y'know, change.
Odds are she won't get much media play and Sanders will occlude her candidacy, but it's an easy choice in Illinois.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:42 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
I voted for Jill Stein last time, because I'm in a state that was sure to go for Obama (and, it did), so I felt I could cast a protest vote. OTOH, I did have this little itch in the back of my head that said that Stein probably lacked the qualifications to be President and that if I voted for someone I should actually think that they would do a good job, rather than voting for them to stick it to the man. As a result, I think I'll be voting for Clinton this time around (I'll vote for Sanders in the primary, assuming he gets that far).
I guess I'm glad she's there, though.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 2:20 PM on June 23, 2015
I guess I'm glad she's there, though.
posted by It's Never Lurgi at 2:20 PM on June 23, 2015
Look, it's quite simple here. If Bernie gets close enough to Hilary in the primary, the Democratic establishment will team with her to finish the job. Once the general election comes around, whoever is the lesser corporatist/imperialist, Hilary or Jill Stein, gets my vote. See, if Hilary doesn't want a "spoiler" candidate taking "her" votes, she should run to the left, or ever better to the less corrupt side, of Stein. See, no worries about "spoilers", it's all up to Hilary.
posted by nimmpau at 2:39 PM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
posted by nimmpau at 2:39 PM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
It's worth noting that the Libertarian Party gets a significantly higher percentage of the vote than the Green Party. More than twice as many (also, they have better ballot access).
Put another way (that I don't agree/approve of): the Libertarians 'steal' more votes from Republicans than the Greens do from the Democrats.
(source)
posted by el io at 2:45 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Put another way (that I don't agree/approve of): the Libertarians 'steal' more votes from Republicans than the Greens do from the Democrats.
(source)
posted by el io at 2:45 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
To be fair, some dumb liberals (cough) sometimes vote for Libertarians primarily because of their position on the drug war, so they aren't only stealing from the right.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:51 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Drinky Die at 2:51 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
I don't know what some people find so difficult about a conditional strategy.
"I will vote for third party candidate X unless they are within 5 percentage points of the more pragmatic candidate in my state in the week prior to the election."
Problem solved. Everyone worrying about the Nader effect, or "what if everyone does it," can relax. No one is going to repeat Florida 2000 by accident for another half-century at least. Just trust that people aren't total idiots, and if they vote and advocate for the third party candidate, either they mean "conditional on it not being close in my state," or they are happy to have the pragmatic candidate lose -- in which it's not a strategic mistake, but an intentional preference. The fear of Florida again is a red herring, a tool mainly used by the establishment not to ensure victory, but to drive the count down even further for third-party challengers. Which is as good a reason as any to vote for such a challenger.*
* "conditional on... etc."
posted by chortly at 4:06 PM on June 23, 2015
"I will vote for third party candidate X unless they are within 5 percentage points of the more pragmatic candidate in my state in the week prior to the election."
Problem solved. Everyone worrying about the Nader effect, or "what if everyone does it," can relax. No one is going to repeat Florida 2000 by accident for another half-century at least. Just trust that people aren't total idiots, and if they vote and advocate for the third party candidate, either they mean "conditional on it not being close in my state," or they are happy to have the pragmatic candidate lose -- in which it's not a strategic mistake, but an intentional preference. The fear of Florida again is a red herring, a tool mainly used by the establishment not to ensure victory, but to drive the count down even further for third-party challengers. Which is as good a reason as any to vote for such a challenger.*
* "conditional on... etc."
posted by chortly at 4:06 PM on June 23, 2015
Is there some reason we're derailed on why everyone is morally obligated to vote for Clinton instead of talking about Jill Stein?
Because Jill Stein is a joke. She has no experience governing. She can't put together a politcal coalition. She can't get any of her policies folded into government by leveraging her constituency, unlike the Libertarians. Let that sink in a moment. Libertarians have accomplished more to bring their concerns and policies to government than the Greens ever have or will. They're ineffective, hapless, naive, and don't play well with others, and these issues are rife throughout their leadership, which in this case is embodied by Jill Stein.
She would be a bad president who made soothing sounds the white establishment liberals like to hear when they think they're being rebellious and revolutionary. She's not fit for the office, and everyone on this thread knows it.
Let the greens take over a school board first. If they don't run the schools into the ground, we'll talk about their chances for higher office, like mayor. President? Really?
Fools and foolishness, that's what your green party vote gets you... no, wait, it won't get you anything at all. Not a seat at the table with the Democrats to shift policymaking your way, not any kind of liberal and progressive policies if the Republicans steal the thing because the Greenies get out the protest vote. You get nothing for your vote - not even respect, because, yeah, the Greens can't campaign, nevermind govern. You voted for someone who talks a great game but can't or won't deliver, or even try.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:15 PM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
Because Jill Stein is a joke. She has no experience governing. She can't put together a politcal coalition. She can't get any of her policies folded into government by leveraging her constituency, unlike the Libertarians. Let that sink in a moment. Libertarians have accomplished more to bring their concerns and policies to government than the Greens ever have or will. They're ineffective, hapless, naive, and don't play well with others, and these issues are rife throughout their leadership, which in this case is embodied by Jill Stein.
She would be a bad president who made soothing sounds the white establishment liberals like to hear when they think they're being rebellious and revolutionary. She's not fit for the office, and everyone on this thread knows it.
Let the greens take over a school board first. If they don't run the schools into the ground, we'll talk about their chances for higher office, like mayor. President? Really?
Fools and foolishness, that's what your green party vote gets you... no, wait, it won't get you anything at all. Not a seat at the table with the Democrats to shift policymaking your way, not any kind of liberal and progressive policies if the Republicans steal the thing because the Greenies get out the protest vote. You get nothing for your vote - not even respect, because, yeah, the Greens can't campaign, nevermind govern. You voted for someone who talks a great game but can't or won't deliver, or even try.
posted by Slap*Happy at 4:15 PM on June 23, 2015 [5 favorites]
Some Green Party mayors, 1990-present.
posted by eyesontheroad at 4:21 PM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by eyesontheroad at 4:21 PM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
And a broader, searchable list of what seem to be mostly Green Party city officials.
This is not a big list at all. It's not an impressive track record if it's complete, and it seems to be a little dated, but it seems pretty relevant when the conversation is, "the Green Party runs no campaigns except this stupid presidential one STUPID GREEN PARTY."
Clearly they're not doing a very good job and are incapable of governing since I never heard about their campaigns for city councils and rent stabilization boards in states I don't live in!
posted by eyesontheroad at 4:33 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
This is not a big list at all. It's not an impressive track record if it's complete, and it seems to be a little dated, but it seems pretty relevant when the conversation is, "the Green Party runs no campaigns except this stupid presidential one STUPID GREEN PARTY."
Clearly they're not doing a very good job and are incapable of governing since I never heard about their campaigns for city councils and rent stabilization boards in states I don't live in!
posted by eyesontheroad at 4:33 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Fools and foolishness, that's what your green party vote gets you...
I'll admit it's not quite the victory most would claim, but:
In New York's 2006 Gubernatorial race, I learned that the Green Party candidate was Malachy McCourt, an actor and writer with whom I'd once worked. At the time of the election, the Democratic Candidate was considered a lock for the seat, and I realized the day before election day that I didn't even know the Republican Candidate's name. I wasn't excited about the Dem candidate either way; however, the Green Party itself had some policies that appealed to me a bit more, and the thought of voting for Malachy for governor tickled me in a place I couldn't reach. So I did so, confident that even if my horse lost, a worse horse wouldn't win. And as predicted, it was a landslide for the Democratic candidate.
Who then a year and change later, resigned after a prostitution scandal.
So in my case, my Green Party vote got me the right to say, "hell, I didn't vote for Elliot Spitzer...."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:52 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
I'll admit it's not quite the victory most would claim, but:
In New York's 2006 Gubernatorial race, I learned that the Green Party candidate was Malachy McCourt, an actor and writer with whom I'd once worked. At the time of the election, the Democratic Candidate was considered a lock for the seat, and I realized the day before election day that I didn't even know the Republican Candidate's name. I wasn't excited about the Dem candidate either way; however, the Green Party itself had some policies that appealed to me a bit more, and the thought of voting for Malachy for governor tickled me in a place I couldn't reach. So I did so, confident that even if my horse lost, a worse horse wouldn't win. And as predicted, it was a landslide for the Democratic candidate.
Who then a year and change later, resigned after a prostitution scandal.
So in my case, my Green Party vote got me the right to say, "hell, I didn't vote for Elliot Spitzer...."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 4:52 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
Because Jill Stein is a joke. She has no experience governing.
Eugene V. Debs, the great Socialist candidate who made a splash in 1912 and ran from a Federal penitentiary in 1920 (for President, convict no. 9653), admitted privately that he would never have made a good President. He was running to build the Socialist Party, and was more valuable to them as an orator. He figured that once the Socialists were near winning, they would nominate someone who would be a capable administrator and Debs would step back into his role as a speaker instead of trying to actually be the President. While I'm not arguing for Stein particularly, the argument that a third-party candidate isn't good at governing or coalition-building in a party-building campaign rather misses the point.
posted by graymouser at 5:10 PM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
Eugene V. Debs, the great Socialist candidate who made a splash in 1912 and ran from a Federal penitentiary in 1920 (for President, convict no. 9653), admitted privately that he would never have made a good President. He was running to build the Socialist Party, and was more valuable to them as an orator. He figured that once the Socialists were near winning, they would nominate someone who would be a capable administrator and Debs would step back into his role as a speaker instead of trying to actually be the President. While I'm not arguing for Stein particularly, the argument that a third-party candidate isn't good at governing or coalition-building in a party-building campaign rather misses the point.
posted by graymouser at 5:10 PM on June 23, 2015 [3 favorites]
But Debs was a good organizer and a compelling messenger, and his runs were evidently in support of building a party, as you say. None of those things are true of Stein as far as I can tell. Her share of the popular vote actually was lower in the 2010 Mass. governor's race (1.4%, 33,000 votes) than it was in 2002 (3.5%, 77,000 votes). She had eight years to organize in Massachusetts, and her vote percentage and raw number of votes dropped by more than half.
posted by burden at 5:38 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by burden at 5:38 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
If the Greens or any other 3rd party really want to actually get engaged in politics, not only should they forgo the impossible-to-win waste of treasure national offices, but even the state offices are higher than they should aim initially: go for the local government. Town, county, city: anytime you see an elected position that is going unopposed (about half the local elections are unopposed around here) slot in a candidate and spend the few $$ it takes to run a local campaign. Once you're established at the root level, where the whole "grassroots politics" comes from, *then* start considering higher office. Otherwise you're just a noisy distraction.
posted by Blackanvil at 5:45 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Blackanvil at 5:45 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
If they held those offices, then they would have to engage in the kind of compromise and politicking necessary to govern or serve in a legislature. Many of those who love them now would hate them for it. It is one thing for a candidate to make a promise and quite another for them to keep it.
posted by humanfont at 6:06 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by humanfont at 6:06 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
I can state exactly why I will vote for Hillary or any other Democratic candidate for president.
I do not want two or more conservative supreme court appointments made by a Republican president catering to his wild eyed wingnut constituency.
Not for me. But for my six grand children and two greats.
posted by notreally at 6:14 PM on June 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
I do not want two or more conservative supreme court appointments made by a Republican president catering to his wild eyed wingnut constituency.
Not for me. But for my six grand children and two greats.
posted by notreally at 6:14 PM on June 23, 2015 [6 favorites]
Once you're established at the root level, where the whole "grassroots politics" comes from, *then* start considering higher office. Otherwise you're just a noisy distraction.
The Presidential level, particularly, does have some positives – you get a lot of free press that you couldn't otherwise buy. It's been used well in the past. Debs and Norman Thomas for the Socialist Party from 1900 through the 1930s were the prime examples, but the Socialist Workers Party has run candidates for decades and Peter Camejo's 1976 run was quite successful for the era (of course the party leadership then ran the SWP into the ground, but that's another story). I agree that the Greens have been really bad at it. The Nader run caused an influx into the Green Party but also a nasty, bitter rift in 2004 that really wrecked what good it had done.
On the whole I do agree with this strategically. Part of the reason I think the labor party idea is better than the Green Party is that the unions, while no longer as strong as they once were, still have significant infrastructure and can support candidates without building the whole thing from scratch. A recent experiment in Lorain County, Ohio was quite a success and I think actually has some potential as a general idea.
posted by graymouser at 6:40 PM on June 23, 2015
The Presidential level, particularly, does have some positives – you get a lot of free press that you couldn't otherwise buy. It's been used well in the past. Debs and Norman Thomas for the Socialist Party from 1900 through the 1930s were the prime examples, but the Socialist Workers Party has run candidates for decades and Peter Camejo's 1976 run was quite successful for the era (of course the party leadership then ran the SWP into the ground, but that's another story). I agree that the Greens have been really bad at it. The Nader run caused an influx into the Green Party but also a nasty, bitter rift in 2004 that really wrecked what good it had done.
On the whole I do agree with this strategically. Part of the reason I think the labor party idea is better than the Green Party is that the unions, while no longer as strong as they once were, still have significant infrastructure and can support candidates without building the whole thing from scratch. A recent experiment in Lorain County, Ohio was quite a success and I think actually has some potential as a general idea.
posted by graymouser at 6:40 PM on June 23, 2015
“Once you're established at the root level, where the whole "grassroots politics" comes from, *then* start considering higher office.”
There are impediments to such a plan. Ballot access is not federally standardized or regulated across all 50 states and there are arbitrary state laws in place such as having to run a candidate for governor or president and getting 5% of the vote to maintain ballot access, or getting gamed by having petitions a year before a general election *coughOhiocough* and having to sue to get the rules changed to remotely fair.
We have a winner take all system of general elections, single member congressional districts, situations where voters are not able to even register as third party and/or there’s no proportionate petitioning – e.g. Tennessee (Gore’s home state that he lost) the GOP and the Dems can run a candidate with 25 signatures. A 3rd party candidate has to get 2.5% of the votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election. So upwards of 40,000.
Bit of a problem running for state rep when your party has to run a governor, has to get a % of the vote and you have to get 1600 times the number of signatures of both your better funded opponents.
The way things are now, you are never – absolutely never – going to see a systemic change like that come from either of the two major parties.
So a vote for Jill Stein here is a vote for my great-grandkids to not have to hold their nose and make the same exact concession, again, between the lesser of two evils. And have it fail 50% of the time anyway.
Meh. We're going to have some major upheavals in the near future anyway.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:02 PM on June 23, 2015
There are impediments to such a plan. Ballot access is not federally standardized or regulated across all 50 states and there are arbitrary state laws in place such as having to run a candidate for governor or president and getting 5% of the vote to maintain ballot access, or getting gamed by having petitions a year before a general election *coughOhiocough* and having to sue to get the rules changed to remotely fair.
We have a winner take all system of general elections, single member congressional districts, situations where voters are not able to even register as third party and/or there’s no proportionate petitioning – e.g. Tennessee (Gore’s home state that he lost) the GOP and the Dems can run a candidate with 25 signatures. A 3rd party candidate has to get 2.5% of the votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election. So upwards of 40,000.
Bit of a problem running for state rep when your party has to run a governor, has to get a % of the vote and you have to get 1600 times the number of signatures of both your better funded opponents.
The way things are now, you are never – absolutely never – going to see a systemic change like that come from either of the two major parties.
So a vote for Jill Stein here is a vote for my great-grandkids to not have to hold their nose and make the same exact concession, again, between the lesser of two evils. And have it fail 50% of the time anyway.
Meh. We're going to have some major upheavals in the near future anyway.
posted by Smedleyman at 7:02 PM on June 23, 2015
She had eight years to organize in Massachusetts, and her vote percentage and raw number of votes dropped by more than half.
Compare and contrast with Bob Healy, one state over -
Running as an independent candidate in 2010, he won 39% of the vote for Lieutenant Governor, running on a platform of abolishing the office.
As the Moderate Party nominee for Governor in 2014, Healey won 22% of the vote while spending less than $40 on the campaign.
The Moderate Party started out as an anti-Teacher education reform protest party, but has now morphed into more of an anti-corruption, Roosevelt-Republican party after Ken Block lost control of it to Bob Healy, who is nuts, but smart. He has a ground game, and understands where both the Center-Right Dems and Far-Right GOP have blind spots. He hasn't been able to parlay this into coalition building and public policy, and isn't interested at all in local and legislative offices, which is why I didn't vote for him.
And now I'm told to take a Presidential candidate seriously who's share of the Gubernatorial vote as the head of her state's most prominent third party is best described as a rounding error? Compared to the Cool Moose Party longhair, who raked in 22% of the vote? The dude utterly sunk Allen Fung, a rapidly rising Republican shooting star, in the mold of Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley, a friendly, diverse face to completely evil mainstream Republican regressive economic and social policy.
That's how you get something done as a third party.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:18 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
Compare and contrast with Bob Healy, one state over -
Running as an independent candidate in 2010, he won 39% of the vote for Lieutenant Governor, running on a platform of abolishing the office.
As the Moderate Party nominee for Governor in 2014, Healey won 22% of the vote while spending less than $40 on the campaign.
The Moderate Party started out as an anti-Teacher education reform protest party, but has now morphed into more of an anti-corruption, Roosevelt-Republican party after Ken Block lost control of it to Bob Healy, who is nuts, but smart. He has a ground game, and understands where both the Center-Right Dems and Far-Right GOP have blind spots. He hasn't been able to parlay this into coalition building and public policy, and isn't interested at all in local and legislative offices, which is why I didn't vote for him.
And now I'm told to take a Presidential candidate seriously who's share of the Gubernatorial vote as the head of her state's most prominent third party is best described as a rounding error? Compared to the Cool Moose Party longhair, who raked in 22% of the vote? The dude utterly sunk Allen Fung, a rapidly rising Republican shooting star, in the mold of Bobby Jindal and Nikki Haley, a friendly, diverse face to completely evil mainstream Republican regressive economic and social policy.
That's how you get something done as a third party.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:18 PM on June 23, 2015 [1 favorite]
And frankly, she hasn't won national office
What do you mean by national office? If you mean "office the whole country votes for", that's.... well, just President. No one running for President has "won national office" by that definition, which makes it kind of strange.
If you mean "a federal elected office", then.... she ran for and won a Senate seat which is basically the highest federal elected position other than president/VP.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:36 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
What do you mean by national office? If you mean "office the whole country votes for", that's.... well, just President. No one running for President has "won national office" by that definition, which makes it kind of strange.
If you mean "a federal elected office", then.... she ran for and won a Senate seat which is basically the highest federal elected position other than president/VP.
posted by thefoxgod at 8:36 PM on June 23, 2015 [2 favorites]
If the Green Party has real support, I agree with those that say they should focus on smaller offices. California's system would seem to have potential --- if you're in a very liberal area, you could come in second in the primary and end up in a general with a Democrat vs a Green. Then no one has to worry about "the Republican" winning and can vote for whichever candidate they like. Of course they're also running against a bunch of other non-right-wing candidates in the primary, but it seems plausible.
Thats _if_ they actually have enough support to win election anywhere. I'm not sure thats been established.
(I am much more aligned with the Democrats than the Greens, so for me voting Democratic is both a practical and an ideological thing, which makes it much easier --- I can sympathize with those who are torn between a genuine ideological support for the Greens and a desire not to have a Republican president and indefinitely Republican Supreme Court).
posted by thefoxgod at 9:35 PM on June 23, 2015
Thats _if_ they actually have enough support to win election anywhere. I'm not sure thats been established.
(I am much more aligned with the Democrats than the Greens, so for me voting Democratic is both a practical and an ideological thing, which makes it much easier --- I can sympathize with those who are torn between a genuine ideological support for the Greens and a desire not to have a Republican president and indefinitely Republican Supreme Court).
posted by thefoxgod at 9:35 PM on June 23, 2015
« Older Petting Cthulhu | “It is an artist's duty to reflect the times.” Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by exogenous at 9:17 AM on June 23, 2015 [7 favorites]