- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- portland_oregon@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- portland_oregon@lemmy.world
“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”
You must log in or register to comment.
Green party has been dead since Nader.
Pretending they had a chance in a voting system that can barely support two parties was kinda pitiable. Until we have RCV for federal elections at a minimum, they will never have a shot.
A-fucking-men.
The Green Party should be the RCV party and that should be their main focus. After that then they and any other party would actually stand a chance. Republicans are actively banning RCV from being implemented and Democrats are slow walking it, but we need to keep pushing.
TBH, I don’t see it happening except organically from within the Democratic Party. If enough progressive Democrats get elected, I think it stands a chance to happen in our lifetimes.
Any democrat has a vested interest in first past the post continuing.
This is just not true. Places which are doing RCV are literally state at metro democratic strongholds. Democrats are literally the only ones pushing it.
Democrats are literally the only ones pushing it.
Also Alaska, for some weird reason.
I disagree, which is why I specified the word “progressive.”
Vested interest meaning it benefits them, i doubt you disagree with the current system of only two parties being considered for elections improves the odds of those two parties winning elections
What I disagree with is your implication that they will only ever act in their own interests. I do not know that to be true in the future (and neither do you), as not everyone is motivated by money or power. Enough politicians who see it as vital to the health of US democracy, and change will happen.
I’m not proposing that it will, only that it is far from a precluded possibility. As Boomers die out and retire, I have hope for the Millennials and Gen Zers who replace them.
Actually, an RCV system may help the democrats, at least in the short term.
For the last couple of decades, the “spoiler” candidates generally take from the democrats more than the republicans. Last big spoiler third party that screwed the right was Perot that I remember. With RCV, then the ‘fringe’ votes can still be cast and democrats can work toward being the second choice of those hardliners. At least in the short term, it alleviates the need to actually compete for votes with candidates that are going to lose anyway.
Longer term, it may cause a viable third party or more to get some steam (attracting practical candidates that no longer see the need to be a D or R to get votes, the parties generally getting left alone by outside forces that find them not worth weaponizing), but I don’t think the politicians are too concerned on that long a time frame.
Unless they gain more support from endorsing RCV than they would lose to third parties. They’re slowly bending to long term third party pressure.
deleted by creator
That would mean actually caring about running campaigns for state goverments. State governments are the ones that can (and in Alaska’s case have) implement RCV.
Actually, score voting would be better. IRV (also known as RCV) has been proven to lead to the same 2-party domination and has many disadvantages.
The Green Party should be the RCV party
They are. Holy shit.
That’s all well and good, but useless in any federal race because the federal government does not dictate how the elections/voting are done.
Brings it back around to if you care so damn much, then focus your resources on state governments.
You should reread the elections clause. Congress has authority to regulate elections
It’s right there in the platform.
This is a little discussed problem with fptp (along with many others) it gives minor parties perverse incentive to play spoiler, which gives foreign actors an opportunity to find spoilers.
They have a shot, by joining the Democratic Party. The same way that progressives join liberals, make their voice heard, and let the voters decide.
Or, just here me out, the Democrats adopt ranked choice voting from the Green Party platform, ditch aid to Israel, and make Jill Stein obsolete. I know, I know, it’s crazy. But, it might just work.
Or just hear me out, the green party stops playing spoiler every 4 years. Proving that their platform is meaningless and empty. And instead focuses on running and recruiting for state and local legislature to actually pass ranked Choice voting. And where it makes sense, such as offices no Democrat is running for. Recruit and endorsed a candidate to run as the combined democrat/green party candidate. Instead of constantly splitting the vote helping conservatives and the bourgeoisie.
I guess we’re never getting ranked choice voting then. And the genocide will continue until morale improves, according to bourgeois liberals.
Until we have RCV
Whens that?
Depends. How hard are you working on it?
The Green Party is.
Im supporting the leading candidate that has ranked choice voting as part of their platform
And you’re completely aware that won’t work?
Maybe he just needs to work harder on it.
Its the only thing that can. Its not happening until then
So it won’t work. Okay then, we’re on the same page there.
San Francisco has had ranked choice voting for years, and the fucking Green party didn’t get it for us lmao
Progressive Democrats like ranked choice voting.
If you are talking about federal candidates, it is not the only thing that can, and in fact it won’t happen even then because a federal candidate gets zero say in how the elections are done.
No federal office is going to give you RCV.
The logistics of federal elections are the purview of the state governments.
That one’s interest do not lie with understanding anything. They’re either too naive to. Or paid to appear to naive to
They will if we elect them
When Congress votes it into law.
It’s not up to Congress, states decide how to run their elections.
Not true when it comes to Congressional races. I did a post a couple days ago about a bill that three Dems just introduced https://lemmy.world/post/19772020
Until they don’t. That’s not a guaranteed feature. As SCOTUS and Conservatives have taught me over the last several years, historical precedent doesn’t mean shit.
We elect congress
Yep. Glad you see the progression.
Step 1:elect people that support ranked choice voting.
I.E. jill stein
How can she be elected?
jill stein is running for congress?
Why is the Green party not focused on congressional candidates then?
Maybe they should take some of the money they spend on Stein’s vanity run and instead use it on their Congressional races.
When’s the last time you saw an ad for a Green Party candidate? Or saw a candidate holding rallies in your state?
There’s plenty of local and even state positions where Republicans run unopposed and Democrats don’t even put up a candidate. Why aren’t Greens investing in those races? Those are literally the perfect opportunity for Greens to start making headway.
Ive been thinking more and more that the only way forward for the green party may just be to pic a few states and focus on local races. Get control over city councils and some mayoralships. Hell, a green caucus in state houses could actually do some good
The fact that they’re not doing that but just going straight for an unwinnable Presidential election tells you a lot.
They do. Council seats, school boards, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Green_politicians_who_have_held_office_in_the_United_States
Federal officials
As of 2023, no nominee of the Green Party has been elected to office in the federal government.
State officials
As of 2024, 8 Greens have held state-level office. However, only 3 were elected or re-elected as Greens.
As of 2024, no Greens currently hold state-level office.
Four current Mayors are listed, though only one “ran as green”. Seventeen Greens are in city and county councils.
Here’s their list, if you’re curious.
I post this not to endorse Jill Stein, but rather because I wanted to see the info for myself so that I could understand what they consider an “elected position”.
Thanks
Thats cool, etc
Yeah, to be relevant they need to win some elections in large cities and state legislatures. That would be the base necessary to start winning congressional seats and then work up from there. Because the Jill Stein narcissism tour every four years is clearly doing more harm than good.
And it would be the best thing in the world for the Dems. They need cogent and real opposition and right now they’re just running against crazies - which is important, but doesn’t do much for establishing an agenda. A functional Green Party would actually help pull the Dems back more to the left.
The best part of running for a state legislature or congressional position is that they could team with democrats to block the GOP, so unlike the presidential election you aren’t voting against your interest for electing a third party.
Those races are also FPTP so they do risk the same spoiler effect. Maybe it would do for a deep blue area?
I’m searching around and something like CA-12 was 90% Biden. Candidates could split that like five or six ways and still not have any danger of a Repub.
I don’t think there are any state level positions that would accommodate that. Even Vermont is only D+16, so the third party is a larger risk.
Seeing the disrepair the Republicans have left the south in, I wonder if there is room to do a grass roots campaign in more red areas with a focus of charity and community service? “We are here to help. No, we are not Dems” might work in Louisiana or Alabama
Probably, but that would require the Greens to be competent.
I actually think that would work. Campaign on: Charity, Community, and Clean Environment.
There are some parts of the US where they are not first-past-the-post.
- Alaska - uses top 4 primary + ranked choice general
- Maine - uses ranked choice voting
- California & Washington - use a top-two primary
The Greens could effectively run in those places, as well as races where the Democrats aren’t running a candidate.
But when I see them running for local office, they’re basically running to be on the ballot, not mounting a serious effort to win.
Says quite a bit that Greens aren’t even doing much in California or Washington.
You can also vote the Democratic primaries, too.
That worked out, suprisingly well, for Sanders. Think about how much change you could affect voting for Sanderses at every level.
I remember in the late 90s the Green Party in my district was on a roll, culminating in the election of a member to the California State Assembly (one of the highest posts ever held by the Greens in the US). Then came Nader’s presidential bid and its perceived role in the election of Bush, which permanently crippled the legitimacy of the local party. They’re still doing great work with voter guides, legislative analysis, etc.; but they’ll never escape the shadow of Nader and Stein.
I think the only viable path for a third party now is to start a new one from scratch, and disavow presidential bids from the outset.
If they were a serious political party. But that would require you to believe that they are wildly incompetent and being supported for that incompetence. Rather than they’re doing this intentionally. Not seriously running to win or improve anything. But being a divisive spectacle to destroy solidarity on the left.
Sam Seder has been saying rhis for a decade at this point.
Its how you build a political movement.
Funny, I just heard him bring it up in a clip. Glad I’m not the oblyone thinking this, means I’m not completely crazy. Could a political party operate a community grocery “store” with campaign funds?
This is how the Tea Party and MAGA co-opted the Republicans, and it’s the model progressives should use to move the needle in the Democratic party (and they have, with some success).
If progressives want to see change, progressives need to vote. In every election. General or primary.
Who needs party membership when you have unlimited money cheat code from daddy Putin?
What makes you think a politically irrelevant person like Stein would capture the attention of putin?
Oh hey wow who put that picture here.
And the republican billionaires who think you will spoil races.
They never organize, canvass, campaign… they never put in the work. It’s easy to sit on Twitter all day and disparage the Democratic Party (yes they have many flaws as well) and nothing else.
They’re lazy grifters.
What exactly did Jill Stein do with that $7 million for the recount? She was interviewed by Mehdi Hassan and he kept asking her why she won’t call out Putin when she has no problem calling out Bibi. Yes two things can be true at once. She just couldn’t explain why she refused to call Putin out on his war mongering and genocide.
How does the Green Party suddenly get money around election time when they don’t do shit for the previous four years?
People are asking.
How does the Green Party suddenly get money around election time
That’s - clearly - when they’re doing their best work for their supporter. You thought the ‘green’ wasn’t about greenbacks?
People are asking.
Nyet, no one is asking, don’t be silly. 🙃
Maybe has something to do with the dinner she had with him.
No but you see she said he was only there for like 10 minutes and she never talked to him so it’s fine.
https://zeteo.com/p/exclusive-mehdi-interviews-jill-stein?utm_campaign=post
For those that don’t want to give Elon fucking muskrat a click. Fuck Twitter.
Edit: never mind it’s a preview… So fucking important but we need to pay him to see it.
Is there a good article out there with highlights of the interview? I feel like this would merit its own post, it’s an amazing watch and very important to see for those still considering Stein a legitimate option.
Jill Stein is both a terrible candidate and possibly a Russian agent. Even if I do align with much of the green parties stances and I live in a solidly blue state, I would never vote for her out of principle
Indeed. I might vote for some Greens down-ballot, but Stein is a stain on the party and its cause
then you are effectively falling right in line with the lies the DNC sold you since the “russian agent” theory is easily debunked after 5 seconds of googling.
I am more concerned with her lack of knowledge on any policy, to be honest with you
I only hear about this candidate a month before the election for the last 50 years, how is this mummy still here?
Because of foreign financing to draw votes away from the Democrats.
Don’t forget those shady domestic PACs that drop a dime on her campaign as well. I wonder who those donors could be… 🤔
And Stein’s answer every single time this comes up?
“What about Gaza?”
She is literally an operative for Russia and the Republicans. This isn’t even a meme or conspiracy theory, it’s simply a plain truth.
I don’t understand how a genocide can be taken so lightly. Some people have trouble casting a vote for any political party that sponsors one.
Removed by mod
The other thing I don’t understand is all the anger and vitriol from you guys. Everyone who lives in the US and contributes tax dollars to the federal government supports genocide. The US has been supporting Israel unconditionally for decades. Do you really think Kamala Harris is sincere about stopping this, given how Biden’s administration has handled the situation? Or any other Democrat or Republican since Carter?
They do more then what Trump does. Regardless by letting Tump win you are saying you are okay with the genocides going on in Ukraine. At least more might survive under Harris. Under Trump they will die too. And you will be every bit as guilty as anyone who voted for trump because you could not get over your ego and do the littlest fucking thing for your beliefs.
Does anyone in the green party even have experience on the federal level?
Again, not understanding where the anger is coming from. I’m not even supporting a specific candidate. I’m pointing out that 3d parties that take a stand against US imperialism will always have support, because neither major party can be trusted in this regard. And again, for some people, this is a line they won’t cross. I’ll stop now because clearly this is unproductive.
You’re actively getting in the way of stopping a genocide. Of course people are angry at you.
Lol yeah Russian puppetry sure is anti genocide
Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent real change. By sidelining those voices, you’re indirectly helping Trump win!
Amen, brother! I’m socialist and voting third party, and Lemmy practically hates me and insults me every day.
Good so see someone else who is questioning the Duopoly. Stay strong, brother!
The US has been supporting Israel unconditionally for decades.
Yes because support for Israel is a complicated issue. All of the middle east is a complicated issue. We were spurned on by guilt for allowing the Holocaust to happen and then groups like AIPAC have spent millions(probably billions at this point) to make lack of support for Israel be considered antisemitism. And both democrats and republicans are supported by not only large numbers of Jewish Americans who believe that whole heartedly but a huge number of non-Jewish people who’ve been convinced of it as well. So no candidate who opposes Israel directly can get elected, literally ever. Because literally millions of Americans will vote against them just for uttering even the slightest waiver of support for Israel. Meanwhile Arabs in the middle east have made themselves well hated by most Americans through acts of terror against us for the last 60 years. So a large plurality of otherwise liberal Americans don’t really care that Israel is wiping out Palestinians. Especially after Hamas gave Israel such a great excuse by attacking a bunch of innocent people at a rock concert and taking all those hostages.
So yes. The Democrats are using kid gloves to try to put a stop to what Israel is doing in Gaza. Because if they didn’t, they would lose millions of votes of support. And since republicans don’t give a shit about genocide, they are more than happy to pay lip service to AIPAC and Israeli interests. Meanwhile Trump and his allies are drawing up their plans to literally end our own democracy should he get elected.
But hey, you’re voting you conscience and choosing to toss your vote in the garbage by voting for the one candidate that opposes Israel. Cause she’s come out of hiding once again to stamp her name on a ballot and give you that peace of mind.
Okay Mr better party choice. Here’s a scenario: You and your friends vote for Jill Stein over Kamala Harris. Now, Kamala Harris has something of a chance to get a ceasefire out of Israel and stop the killing she has stated that that is her goal. But she doesn’t get elected because you and your friends voted for Jill Stein. No, instead Donald Trump gets elected and he pumps the gas on the genocide in Gaza as he has stated several times that he absolutely will do. He pours every military asset we have into Israel and gives them carte blanche to wipe out everyone in Gaza. And then on top of that he pulls all of our aid out of Ukraine and Russia steamrolls over the ukrainians wiping them out.
Now who supports genocide?
I wonder what it was about your comment that made the mods remove it. I don’t see any rules broken.
I have since altered it to remove the offending remarks. Basically I called the person an idiot, but in some slightly stronger language. Unfortunately it doesn’t look like the mods care to restore the comment.
I support the college protestors even when people say they’re hurting the cause, but I would say Jill Stein definitely hurts the cause.
I think you’re suggesting Trump would be worse than Harris for the cause. But my point is that a lot of people feel that voting for either is sanctioning genocide, and Stein fills that niche by condemning it. It’s pretty low-hanging fruit for a politician.
I’m legitimately curious as to how college protestors could be hurting the cause.
Jill Stein can’t even call Putin a war criminal: https://youtu.be/h1JUMeWaBVg
A messenger who is inconsistent on genocide is not a good messenger of genocide.
I’ve given more details elsewhere, but the short version:
We can classify US presidential votes into three categories:
- Vote for the Democrat
- Vote for the Republican
- Vote third-party/independent or don’t vote
The most effective vote to make on an anti-genocide platform is #1.
Voting for a Republican is voting for a party that appears to be profoundly okay with the genocide in Gaza AND wants to start some genocides of their own (e.g. against trans folks, immigrants and racial minorities). This is the most pro-genocide vote.
Voting for a Democrat is voting for a party that has a fairly significant group that opposes the genocide, and which appears to be movable on the topic.
Any other vote is roughly equivalent to not voting. On the presidental front, there is no chance in this election that anyone other than a candidate from one of the main two parties is elected, and that’s also true for most senate or house races. (Possibly all, but I don’t want to make that strong claim since I haven’t actually researched all the races.) Voting for a candidate who you know won’t win is explicitly choosing not to have a say between the tho feasible candidates.
I do have one caveat though…
If you live in West Virginia for example, it’s a bit more complex. There your choice is essentially “the Republican or not the Republican,” so third-party/independent moves into category 1. However, then I’d argue that voting for the Democrat for president may still be the preferable response because if the Republican wins the electoral college but, (as has happened in every presidential election since 1990 except 2004) the Democrat still wins the popular vote, it further delegitimises the Republican’s presidency and the electoral college.
You put it much much better than I ever could. Best comment 10/10
Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent real change. By sidelining those voices, you’re indirectly helping Trump win!
I know, it’s like when Jews bring up the Holocaust all the time. So annoying!
Imagine being such a scumbag that you make fun of the Holocaust because you don’t like a country that didn’t exist in 1944. Or is it maybe the race of people you don’t like
Right, making a joke about a past Holocaust is so much worse then implicitly endorsing one your own country is perpetrating right now.
So this is about Jews not Israelis. Got it. Glad the mask is off
No this is about how your righteous indignation about the Jewish Holocaust is complete BS because you refuse to speak out against one your letting happen now. You would have been a coward then as you are now.
Says the American, who has genocided half the world without an apology. Your people genocided mine and called us all sorts of names. Now you’ve moved on and want to take the moral high ground while there’s a line of bodies and blood behind you
I was against those genocides too. The Zionist brain is so diseased that they really believe they can justify genocide by saying “Not fair, you did it too!” Ahahahah
lol you guys give in to propaganda so fucking easily
😂 🤡
The ronald dump supporter thinks other people are the ones vulnerable and susceptible to propaganda.
Pure fucking comedy.
Removed by mod
It’s almost like the 3rd parties have 0% chance of winning even a single electoral vote.
Removed by mod
Even if you assume she isn’t a bad faith actor, she’s still objectively failed to pass the one thing the world needs, the Green New Deal, and environmentalism is in the worst shape it’s been in decades.
That’s not all her fault, but her protest candidacy weirdness put Trump in office the first time instead of spending that time and effort on actual policy so…
Fuck off already?
Haha oh really. It had nothing to do with Hilary being the worst candidate ever? The authoritarian electoral college founded to preserve slavery? The rampant voter suppression by Republicans that Democrats refuse to stop. It was all her fault huh?
Certainly if she has been trying to effect real change in a realistic way, rather than an egocentric impossible run at the presidency…
Things would have been different. She was one of many straws, which if subtracted, would have prevented trump
So for that and that alone, she and the rest of the greens can fuck right off.
See the No Labels folks for a more common sense way to be activist on national level politics.
Greens would be great if they would focus on good, winnable races from the bottom up…
What that called again?? Uhh ‘grass roots’
She funded an investigations that showed Hilary had won a state that went to Donald Trump. But sure it’s her that doesn’t care about democracy not the Democrats that rolled over on not one but two elections where they likely won.
I’ll agree that Dems have given up way too easily, mostly based on naive “for the good of the country” white knighting.
It probably didn’t start with Al Gore and the hanging chads, but that would have been a good time to realize that sometimes these fights are existential
Doesn’t change the fact that Stein is currently a russian-funded spoiler and she’s a drag on the Greens and does great disservice to all of the non-major parties.
I hope No Labels and other serious ‘third paries’ spend time focusing on voting reform like RCV or similar. Of course, many nerds will (probably correctly) claim that RCV is flawed in whatever way and we should try to move to some other even more complicated system. And then nothing will happen and we will continue to be stuck in a bi-party system with smaller factions only ever having the opportunity to act as spoilers in national or even state-wide races.
All her fault, no, but if she was a real progressive she would have learned a lesson and made a play for a lower office. But it’s very clear that’s not what she’s being paid to do.
Is she really responsible for the problems of the US Green party?
As near as I can tell the EU Green parties had a different trajectory. They initially started winning seats in parliaments on purely environmental platforms. Those MPs actually started pushing green agendas in various parliaments. That, in turn led to more people voting for them. Eventually that had to adopt policy positions beyond the environment and they tended to be pretty left.
The US never had Green party members in a position where they could actually do anything useful about the environment. That means they could never fulfill their primary goal in the US. So when they tried to branch out the same way the EU Green parties did, they just turned into a vague hodgepodge of leftists ideas.
Is there any suggestion that Jill Stein’s replacement would have any chance of saving the US Green party?
The Green party is doing exactly what it was designed to do. It’s siphoning off eco-conscious Democratic voters just significantly enough to affect voting margins but not enough to win. To be clear I’m not saying that Even a significant number of people in the green party have that as a goal, but top down, that’s all it’s about.
We are a two-party system and they are allowing the green party to exist to use it as a wedge.
Then I guess y’all should starting reworking how your system works, because it doesn’t sound like a democracy at all if you can’t vote for what you actually believe in.
America has what I like to call ‘Monkey’s Paw Democracy’; almost as if someone wished for a representative Government from a cursed object.
Now instead of voting for policies they like, voters are forced to vote against policies they dislike or risk being punished my having their rights slowly chipped away.
We would, but as it stands now it’s an authoritarian dictatorship, right wing hellscape, and a marginally awful moderate right wing dystopia in a trench coat and they’re not about to cede any distance to allowing us new liberties.
If we don’t get at least a 60% margin there’s a really good chance the guy that said this will be the last time you ever have to vote, I’m going to be a dictator on day one and I’m going to imprison all of the opponents, legislators and donors that went against me.
Outside of an actual moderate or left-wing coup which is pretty much impossible I don’t see there’s any way that this country is getting out of this.
Agreed, but while we’re working on that in multiple avenues, we still need to vote for the harm reduction choice.
I’ll say that I sort of despise Fairvote.
They lie about RCV pretty much all the time.
The system has more problems than First Past the Post, and still doesn’t fix the third party problem.
No, a far better system is STAR. It actually fixes the problems that it sets out to fix.
Someone should inform the Whigs
It would be nice but you’d have to go back to 1850 because we eradicated them and made sure it couldn’t happen again.
Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent real change. By sidelining those voices, you’re indirectly helping Trump win!
Hahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahah. You’re hilarious!
Right?!
The issue is she sucks all the oxygen out of the room with her pointless presidential runs and does nothing for the four years in between. There’s an inconsequential number of Greens who run and win elections in small cities and towns or less consequential elections, and none of them have won any federal elections. A real party leader would recruit and foster candidates in large cities and state legislatures— and then get folks to run for the US House, the Senate, state governorships, and then the presidency.
Stein is less a party leader and more a figurehead who basically seems to be in it for the grift. And so US Greens (especially in comparison to those in the EU) are less a party and more just a convenient label for those of a certain bent that want to run as something other than as a Democrat.
My question was more along the lines of the “(not so) the great (wo)man” hypothesis.
Let’s imagine that Jill Stein was permanently abducted by aliens. What do we think would happen?
Would the Green Party just collapse?
Would the former member just join the Democrats?
Would they start a new party?
Or maybe someone new would take over who could do a better job?
I think we’d likely just get someone who’s functionally equivalent.Maybe vote count is instructive:
Nader 2000: 2,882,955
Cobb 2004: 119,859
McKinney 2008: 161,797
Stein 2012: 469,501
Stein 2016: 1,457,216
Hawkins 2020: 407,068
I don’t think the party would collapse without Stein. They have been around for decades and they have a cadre of oranizers who will continue to show up regardless of results. Stein is just the most famous person they can use for a presidential election, and you can see from the above results what happens when they run someone nobody has heard of.
I think they genuinely believe in their core values, and it’s unfortunate that Stein is their only viable candidate. They won’t ever be a real political party until they start winning local/state elections, but they’re looking to secure more federal funding by getting enough votes. If Stein disappeared then they would keep doing this but they’d never breach half a million votes. Maybe a progressive democrat in the House would smell an opportunity and break ranks to run for president with the Greens. That could maybe get them a million or two votes again.
Or maybe it absolutely does not matter who they run and they just get a lot of votes when the Democrats run particularly shitty candidates for president.
Nader 2004: 465,650
Nader wasn’t even the Green candidate in 2004. Nader ran as an independent in 2004.
That year the Green Party ran David Cobb, who got 119,859 votes, putting him behind the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and the independent Ralph Nader.
In 2008, Nader ran again as an independent and beat the Green Party once again, with 739,034 votes, versus McKinney’s 162k. In between were the Libertarians in fourth place, and the Constitution Party in fifth place.
The Green Party has never even come in third place, and several times hasn’t even come in fifth place, in our two party system.
My mistake, thanks
In terms of her affect on the Green party, those numbers make it look like she’s fairly run-of-the-mill. Her first one was low and later on she posted numbers similar to more famous candidates.
I did a quick search on where those candidates are and it seems that many of potential Green party candidates are in swing states. It also looks like many of them are specifically siding with them because of their stance on Gaza.
That suggests that she’s just fine for the Greens and is likely even helping them. She’s a problem for Democrats because there’s an assumption that those voters would switch to the Democratic ticket if they don’t vote Green.
Right. If democrats want those votes then Biden needs to make significant progress on ending the genocide now. The threat from third parties exerts an outsize pressure on the Democrats to actually do something. But of course they likely won’t, and instead Trump will take advantage of this.
I don’t think it would even have to go that far.
It’s mostly that Harris needs to be able to present credible red lines. Right now, the perception is that Israel can get away with absolutely anything.
Anything to break that perception it might be enough. A light version might be something like, “Every time X happens, we’ll delay weapons shipments by a week while we investigate.” That’s not much and it might not even change Israel’s behavior but I suspect that just articulating some policy and sticking to it would be sufficient.
Ah, I get your question now. Unfortunately I think it’s impossible to say, but I do know it’s impossible to find out while she’s still there.
please, she’s such a fucking bobble-headed, putin-slopping dork.
Counterpoint: The Green Party hasn’t done much to keep people engaged. They killed themselves.
At least the Tea Party had a decent run and engaged with the people who would vote for them. Though, it let MAGA convert or overtake it, but the point still stands. The Tea Party did more in the 10ish years it existed than the Green Party has done in 20 years.
Counter-counterpoint: the Tea Party was an astroturf movement funded by big oil, big tobacco and the Koch brothers. Given massive amounts of support by media companies (lots and lots of oxygen). With the purpose of taking over the GOP and entrenching their toxic industries and power.
With the perspective we have now it is clear that their plan was to push Republican supporters over into fascism (not to say that it wasn’t latent within many of them) and reduce the risks of democracy to the oligarchy.
The US green party is essentially an astroturf movement to prevent people from even going as “left” as the Democrats. The Tea Party is there to move Republicans to fascism. The Greens have been co-opted to lubricate that process for them.
“given that she herself has received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Google, Lockheed Martin, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, and McKinsey.” I don’t see this information on the FEC website. Can anybody actually find this information? I sort this page by Amount, and it doesn’t list these companies. It lists people:
Pretty sure they’re referring to individual donations where those companies are the employer.
The writer of the article read it on Facebook. Fake news is the new standard.
I am by inclination Green, but I live in Europe where the Greens have been through their scandals and emerged somewhat presentable. I don’t believe that is the case in the US, where the Greens and particularly Jill Stein are basically just useful idiots. They disrupt the candidates most aligned to their own cause. And in Stein’s case, she’s disrupts her own damned country.
Jill Stein doesn’t know how many members of the House there are in Congress. 600?!?!
There is a 100% chance that Trump couldn’t name how many members there are in the house. I’d be shocked if he could list the branches of government without help.
note I’m not saying that’s acceptable. But if that’s your test for “is this a serious candidate” I hate to be the bearer of bad news…
That’s interesting.
My brain’s first answer was 435, then I took 538 and subtracted the 100 senators and got to 438.
But that’s including the 3 from DC I think, so back to 435? Gonna look this up.
Edit: 435, must’ve been DC.
