Please don't vote for the Green Party candidate Jill Stein...

[CajunBlazer]

....if Bernie or Hillary doesn't win the nomination.

I had never heard of her so I had to do some reading. Jill Stein is about as qualified to be President as Ben Carson. Like Carson she is physician.

Unlike Carson, she has run for several offices over the last 14 years - Massachusetts House of Representatives, Massachusetts Secretary of the Commonwealth, Governor of Massachusetts, and President of the United States on Green Party ticket in 2012. She lost each of those races by very large to huge margins.

However, in 2005 she did manage to win a grand total of 539 votes in her home town and get herself elected as one of 21 Town Meeting Representatives of Lexington, Massachusetts. Lexington has a population of 31,394. She was reelected to that post in 2008.

In her entire life she has run nothing bigger than her medical practice. With that total lack of experience I can't see why anyone would believe that she is even vaguely qualified to be President of the United States and leader of the free world.

A vote for any third party candidate is a vote for Trump or Cruz. Staying home on election day will have the same affect. We are all united in at least one way: None of us can afford 4 or 8 eight years of a Republican like Trump or Cruz in the White House and 20 years with a majority of ultra conservative justices on the Supreme Court.

[RiverLover]

1. Green Party platforms~

http://www.gp.org/platform

[cantbeserious]

2. Predictably Spreading Establishment FUD - Meme Number 27

eom

[CajunBlazer]

6. Hmmm... Facts = Establishment FUD

[restorefreedom]

35. nailed it. nt

[revbones]

3. No, a vote for someone is a vote for that person.

You may believe it has additional connotations, but don't inflict that belief on others. Don't create a false Sophie's Choice for them.

Also, it's pretty much known that Jill Stein won't win. That said, the benefit that some may see for voting for her, is to help the viability of the Green Party rather than waste their vote on Trump Or Not-Trump.

I'm not advocating for Jill Stein, just against the crap Sophie's Choice and loyalty pledges some are expecting.

[dana_b]

10. +1

[oldandhappy]

93. and a vote that gets noticed

Repubs probably do not care but Dems do. Still talking about Ralph Nadars numbers. 3rd party candidates numbers are noticed. Maybe nothing is done about it! I have no plans for Jill but for those who do, it is not a lost vote as long as you accept you will not win.

[sammythecat]

95. another +1

[CajunBlazer]

100. So you advocate voting for someone totally unqualified for President?

In addition, the Green Party died in 2000 when it was accused to giving George W. Bush the Presidency. Fair or not, it is a stigma it will not over come. No green party candidate has since won 1/5 of the votes Nader won in 2000. It is the victim of the phenomenon which gave rise to the saying, "Third parties are like bees, when they sting they die".

[revbones]

118. No, but I recognize the validity in the choice that others might have made

and don't disregard them, or try to guilt them with the politics of fear.

What would it hurt if there was a viable third party? Not much. Some may see it as throwing away your vote, but others may see it as there never being a third party until enough people do throw theirs away.

Regardless, it's doubtful you'll convince all of them to vote for Hillary by using Trump to inspire fear.

[CajunBlazer]

141. There has never been a viable third party in our political history...

... because under our winner take all system its almost impossible for a third party to survive. If you want a viable third party to vote for I suggest you move to a country with a parliamentary system.

In our system when third parties actually impact elections, they soon fade into obscurity. That's because that impact is always to take away votes from a major party candidate with the same ideology allowing the candidate with the opposite ideology to win. After that no one wants to visit that problem again.

Hence the saying, "Third parties are like bees; when they sting they die."

[Chan790]

125. Consider the alternatives.

We have:

-A guy I agree with on virtually everything except gun control and he's a pacifist. (This is the person I would prefer to vote for.)

-A fascist...not the typical petty pro-business conservative accused of such. An actual fascist in the tradition of Hitler, Mussolini and Franco.

-A women the totality of her past experiences as a corporate-puppet, liar and being a bit too hawkish even for me...fundamentally disqualify her from earning my vote for President.

-A man wearing a boot on his head.

This is not a strong Presidential field outside of Sanders. Stein's qualifications are weak. Trump's and Clinton's qualifications make them unfit to serve as President. Supreme's eminent qualification is that he realizes that campaign politics is something worthy of mockery.

[CajunBlazer]

142. So logically you should enable the fasciest to win by voting third party?

Got it.

[Chan790]

144. Third-party?

I'm voting for Sanders.

Even if he's not the nominee...voting for Sanders.

[CajunBlazer]

146. Same difference.

Voting third party, voting for Sanders as a write in candidate, or not voting instead of voting for Clinton will all have the same affect.

Oh, wait! You still think Bernie will win nomination?

[Chan790]

147. It's supporters like you that are making possible reconciliation outreach go so poorly for Clinton.

To be quite frank, with an attitude like yours, is it any surprise I'd rather do jumping jacks for 4 years straight in broken glass than vote for Clinton? Really, you're doing a great job hardening attitudes against supporting the eventual nominee...if that nominee is Clinton.

You (Not Hillary and not a generalized "you&quot should quit while you're behind. I don't see this outreach to Sanders supporters thing going so well for you.

[Cassiopeia]

154. Well said.

[ghostsinthemachine]

4. An Outsider!

Jill, Jill,Jill!

[JonLeibowitz]

5. You are incorrect.

1) Failing to win election makes one a poor politician, or an idealistic one who doesn't play where one can win (the Green party won't be winning any time soon). It doesn't make one's ideas any less sound. She has no experience, but nobody actually expects her to win so this is unimportant.

2) A vote for a third party is not a vote for Trump or Cruz. In the same way that staying home is not a vote for Trump or Cruz. Staying home is choosing not to affect the outcome in your state, it is saying either outcome is the same to you. Voting green increases the voter totals and thereby reduces the popular vote mandate of whatever president is elected. It is a vote of no confidence in both major party nominees, and that is valuable so that the elites know that the American people are not standing behind their charade. I don't think the same is valid for a write-in: these may not be counted at all.

3) A vote for a third party is a vote for whatever candidate you choose. It is really that simple.

You could make a good argument against voting 3rd party, but this is not one.

P.S. None of this should be construed as my advocating voting Jill Stein or any 3rd party. My vote is my own, and it is a very private decision.

[CajunBlazer]

38. Oh, I get it. It's all about a protest vote.

1. You essentially admit that she's not qualified to be President, but that's okay because she doesn't have a chance of winning?

2. A vote to give the Green party more visibility? The Green Party reached its apogee in 2000 when Ralph Nader won 2.7% of the vote in his quest to be President. Some Democrats still blame Nader and the Green Party for the Presidency of George W. Bush. George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by a disputed 537 votes Florida while Nader received 97,421 votes. While the real blame in my opinion lays at at the feet of the Supreme Court, even Nader agrees that had his voters voted for Bush or Gore, they would have given Gore the Presidency. Since then the Green Party Presidential candidate has never received one fifth of the votes Nader received in 2000. It is a perfect example of the political saying, "Third parties are like bees, when they sting they die". Why waste a vote trying to give viability to a party that is for all practical purposes already dead.

3. You can of course vote for whomever you chose, that's your right. But I also have a right to remind people that a vote for a third party candidate and staying home on election date are exactly equivalent for all practical purposes - they both have absolutely no effect on the outcome, unless of course they give the election to the Republicans. Normally only the people of maybe eight swing states would have to be concerned about that situation. But if Trump will slip a wild card into the deck if he is the nominee. He has the ability of turning red states blue and even blue states red.

So again I ask you, don't waste your vote.

[JonLeibowitz]

47. I didn't enter this thread for you to convince me of what to do.

I am very comfortable with how I will vote, and will be sure not to tell you.

I do however vigorously reject your premise that voting one's conscience is "wasting your vote". That's your perspective and I won't have it forced on me.

[srobert]

57. Staying Home and Voting 3rd Party Are Not the Same

I'm not wasting my vote on a candidate that cannot win. I'm signalling the major parties that my vote is available to them in future elections, provided that they nominate candidates who will support policies that I think are necessary to our nation's well-being, and oppose policies that I think are destructive to it. For me, that means a clear consistent opposition to trade policies that have been disastrous for working class people, support for a public health care system that includes everyone, rather than serves the needs of pharmaceutical companies and insurance company executives, and environmental and energy policies that don't slowly destroy the world that we live in. I'd prefer to vote for Bernie Sanders this November. Please give me that option. If not, then I'm going Green, in hopes that Democrats will respond to it by giving me a better option in 2020.

[revbones]

126. If you're voting for Hillary then many feel you are wasting your vote. nt

[TM99]

7. It is the platform

not the personality.

That appears to be Clinton supporter's blind spot.

It is not Sanders even, it is what he represents and the positions & principles that he holds. That is what his progressive supporters care about. That is what we and he means when he says the revolution is about us and not him.

Dr. Stein is a congruent and principled politician. And yes, in our two party system she and the Greens have had little electoral success.

That is likely to change if Clinton gets the nomination.

[CajunBlazer]

63. That's true only if the person has absolutely no chance of winning.

Would you vote for Trump behaved in the exact same way he is acting now but was running on the Democratic or Green Party platform? No, I didn't think so.

So your logic is illogical.

[TM99]

101. No, you did not understand at all

and made the illogical statement.

Those of you who will vote for the Democrat no matter what are those that would vote for Trump if he had a D after his name.

That is our problem with Clinton and many of her supporters. Clinton is not a progressive. She is a neoliberal and a neocon. And so many are willing to vote for her simply because she is Democrat (haha!) and is running against the Republican.

[CajunBlazer]

105. Yes he was. When you view the world from the extreme left wing.....

....everything else look right wing to you.

[TM99]

112. You first sentence makes no sense.

Who is the 'he' in question. What was he?

I have never been extreme left wing. I am no more left wing that FDR, JFK, LBJ, etc. I am a traditional progressive leftist. I have an anarchist streak which I have used as a powerful activist voice against minority oppression and war, even though I was in the army, and for environment issues. I support fair trade. I was on the right side of history with regards to LGBT civil rights.

Neoliberalism is a center right political philosophy, and that is the foundation of the DLC/Clinton 'revolution'. That is simply fact.

[bettyellen]

8. Agree. It's not a way to "build the green party"- that would take actual work.

[brush]

157. Agreed. We only hear about the green party every presidential cycle . . .

They come out to run for the highest office in the land (talk about hubris) but don't seem to do the groundwork of building an organization that runs a full slate of candidates during the off years or mid-terms.

For instance, who's running for Congress or the Senate, or for that matter, governor or state rep for the Green party in any state?

[bettyellen]

158. Yep, it is an empty gesture. Magical thinking.

[Bjorn Against]

9. I won't vote for Jill Stein if Bernie gets the nomination

The Hillary campaign has already made it very clear to me that they don't want my vote however, I am one of those Bernie supporters they have spent the entire primary season telling you how awful we are.

Because the Hillary campaign has made it clear that they do not want my vote I will be voting for Jill Stein if Clinton is nominated.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

11. Some will vote selfishly, some wont.

If someone doesn't see the harm that can come from a President Trump, Rubio or Cruz, then there is nothing you can say to convince them.

Nothing is more evident and obvious than the overwhelming and destructive harm that this result would produce.

No excuses, none. The damage that will be done will be irreversible and deadly, these guys mean business.

[srobert]

65. I See the Harm, Why Don't You?

Yes, I see the harm that a Trump, Rubio, or Cruz Presidency would do. Why don't you see it? Because forcing me to choose between Hillary and one of them ... well I've already told you what I'm going to do. Don't put me in that position. Why don't you see the harm that more of the same from 3rd way Democrats will do? Because in the long run, I think that is even worse. We can survive a Trump Presidency for 4 years. I'd rather not have to do that. But my vote this year will depend on the willingness of Democrats adopt a more progressive position on critically important economic issues.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

92. You make no sense at all. Unless you believe a Trump, Rubio or Cruz WH is the same

as Hillary.

Then you are very wrong, horribly and destructively and terribly wrong.

[Fawke Em]

139. Many do believe another Clinton presidency would be just as bad.

In different ways, perhaps, but not all. Clinton is a neocon - her position on foreign intervention is nearly identical to the Republicans. Her positions (pre-Bernie) on Wall Street mirrored many Republicans (and, even though she talks against it now, I don't trust she'll actually ever do much about Wall Street's excesses).

Granted, she's better on social policy than most Republicans, but the company she keeps scares many when they consider who she'll pick for a Supreme Court nominee.

[TM99]

104. One person, one vote.

Every voter is a selfish voter.

You can pat yourself on the back and believe that your vote is not a selfish one and another's is, and it is simply mental masturbation.

Each of us individually decides who best represents our political philosophy and how we want the US to be. If a party wants the majority of votes, then they need a candidate that can inspire the majority of voters.

Sanders does that. Clinton does not. I don't know how old you are but I have heard my entire life (and I am almost a half a century old) that 'these guys mean business'. Fear is just not going to work anymore. It has not brought about positive changes.

[NurseJackie]

12. Excellent try, but ...

... they don't care. I'd write more explaining why I feel that way, but, well ... you know ...

[m-lekktor]

33. Oh HELL YEAH she is!

[oberliner]

36. Jill Stein is not a Democrat

She runs against Democrats and works hard to defeat them.

[oberliner]

48. She has only ever been a member of the Green Party

She has been running for office as a Green Party candidate since 2002.

She is, in fact, specifically opposed to the Democratic party itself.

"The enemy is not just the billionaires – it is the political parties who are basically working hand in glove for the billionaires."

[oberliner]

56. That was the first time she ran for office

And if you believe that "The Democratic Party is a cesspool of corporate-backed corruption" then why would you not join a different party such as The Green Party?

[oberliner]

67. Good point

That makes a lot of sense.

[pinebox]

55. You may want to rethink that

and I am not advocating for her at all.
Check this out. That is from her official twitter. That stance will appeal to a LOT of people.

[oberliner]

58. I'm not saying she doesn't appeal to a lot of people

I am just saying that she is not a Democrat. And that she runs against Democrats on a different party's ticket.

In fact, she is currently advocating for Bernie supporters to switch over and give their support to her instead.

[pinebox]

61. Which is ironic

considering that one of the biggest cries from Hillary supporters is "Bernie isn't a real Dem".

[oberliner]

70. Well he has been proudly Independent for quite some time

And has made a point through most of his political career to not run as a Democrat, but as an Independent.

[Lizzie Poppet]

14. Good points, but I doubt many Stein voters will be thinking she'd ever actually win.

I get symbolic voting, at least in states where the outcome isn't remotely in doubt. If I decide I can't stomach either major party offering, it really doesn't matter if I vote for Jill Stein, Vermin Supreme, or my cat.* Our electors are going to the Democrat.

In swing states? Not so much. Unless a voter really doesn't think there are significant differences between the candidates, I suppose. Which I think is insane, but it's not my call to determine someone else's priorities...

* For the record, I'd take Vermin Supreme in that three-way race. I don't like Stein, and my cat's kind of a Republican: it's all about her.

[CajunBlazer]

69. Surely they are more intellegent than that!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

15. Voting for a third party candidate isn't "a vote for Trump". It's a vote for a third party

candidate.

I voted for Jill Stein in 2012, John McCain did not gain a vote. Nor, did Obama lose one.

0 + 0 = 0
0 - 0 = 0

[nichomachus]

16. Mrs. Clinton is a failed presidential candidate

Are you saying we shouldn't vote for her either?

[RiverLover]

52. Continually voting for the lesser evil because they talk pretty to us while campaigning has

increased income inequality, decimated the working class, lowered wages, increased off shore drilling, increased fracking & radioactive waste pumped into the ground & without regulation to ensure safety for Americans, increased wall street gambling, caused one recession with another one bubbling beneath the surface as I type, increased monopolies, increased use of BigAg chemicals killing bees bats, butterflies, & birds, increased healthcare costs, food costs, rental costs, increased attempts at purchasing politicians, promoted endless war for corporate profit, increased drone killings of innocent civilians in foreign lands, increased lobbyists in DC writing legislation for our DC senators, increased lobbyists in our states writing legislation for our state senators...

"We can't solve our problems using the same thinking that caused them." I believe Albert Einstein said something to that effect. He was a pretty sharp guy.

[LWolf]

17. Absolute Bullshit.

This part:

"A vote for any third party candidate is a vote for Trump or Cruz."

A vote for any candidate at any time is EXACTLY FUCKING THAT: a vote FOR THAT CANDIDATE. It doesn't become a vote for a fucking Republican because you don't like the math when whatever candidate you are pushing doesn't earn them.

DISCLAIMER: I HAVE NOT, I AM NOT NOW, NOR EVER WILL, ADVOCATE VOTING 3RD PARTY HERE AT DU.

I find it highly interesting that, when an establishment, neo-liberal candidate can't earn the enthusiastic support of the anti-neo-liberal wing of the party, this argument is always trotted out to try to herd us into line. It always fails, at least with me. I am not scolded, threatened, or blamed into anyone's line. I trust my own judgement over those who try to do so.

If you are really concerned about a Republican win in November, I suggest you start supporting the Democratic candidate who consistently polls as defeating them by the biggest range. That would be an honest solution to your fears; don't nominate your problematic candidate.

[RoccoR5955]

23. How about if you live in a reliable Democratic state? n/t

[LWolf]

26. How about it?

What kind of conversation can we have about this at DU while complying with the TOS?

[RoccoR5955]

27. I can keep my mouth shut about the presidential race

while endorsing the Democratic Party candidates down ticket.

[LWolf]

28. True.

That's a strong option, and one I have tended to myself.

[CajunBlazer]

46. If Trump is the Nominee, I think there will be fewer reliabile Democratic states

Trump could easily turn some red states blue and blue states red. He would be a totally unconventional Republican candidate.

In addition, final country wide election totals are important. They give a reason for the new President to claim a mandate for change in the way Washington works.

[RoccoR5955]

49. I don't think that New York

will vote for tRump. Sorry.

[UglyGreed]

24. Here, here!!!!

start supporting the Democratic candidate who consistently polls as defeating them by the biggest range. That would be an honest solution to your fears; don't nominate your problematic candidate.

and L Wolf drops the mic and walk away....

[Logical]

81. I am a Bernie supporter and agree, a vote for a 3rd party candidate, who is liberal, takes.....

votes away from our democratic nominee and helps trump/cruz. Simple math.

[LWolf]

130. It's simple math

based on incorrect data. Republicans get as many votes as they get. They don't get more votes when Democrats drive their own potential votes away. They get the same number, and the nominee who can't get the broad spectrum of votes doesn't get as many.

That's simple math, too. Simple enough that I'll say again: anyone who is worried about losing those potential votes in November should be campaigning for the candidate who polls better than every Republican. That's simple logic, to go with the simple math.

[Logical]

131. Wow, I give up. But make believe is fun I guess! nt

[LWolf]

132. Oh, come on.

It's not "make-believe" to know that a 3rd party vote is not counted for Republicans.

It's not "make-believe" to know that if actual Democrats flee the nominee to vote 3rd party, giving the Democratic nominee fewer votes than a more robust candidate would have garnered, that it's a party failure to have chosen someone who couldn't inspire those votes.

It's not "make-believe" to know that independent and 3rd party voters exist, and that anyone wanting a GE win will make sure they put up a candidate who CAN earn some of those votes. Instead of relying on bullying and fear tactics to put people in line, the party ought to try something new, like nominating a candidate who can bring the votes.

I think it's make-believe to blame others, rather than the candidate and the system that nominated that candidate, myself.

The math that counts is the number of votes FOR each candidate. Counting votes before they happen is bad math, bad policy, and frankly, dangerous.

[CajunBlazer]

140. So it's everyone's fault but those who decided to vote third party ....

if their votes could have ensured a Clinton win, but Trump won instead.

Yea, that logic works.... in an alternate universe.

[LWolf]

143. If you MUST have someone to blame,

blame the people who voted for a nominee that couldn't win the vote.

Don't blame the people who, democratically, chose to award their vote to someone else. That's democracy. It's messy, and it's not something that you can control. If you are at all democratic, you respect each person's right to choose whom to vote for.

I'm sorry that, in your alternate universe, a scapegoat is necessary.

[dana_b]

89. Exactamente!!

"I suggest you start supporting the Democratic candidate who consistently polls as defeating them by the biggest range. That would be an honest solution to your fears; don't nominate your problematic candidate. "

[oasis]

18. Trump is poised to put 3 clones of Scalia on SCOTUS.

That should be enough motivation to support the Democratic nominee.

[LyndaG]

153. Definitely

[artislife]

19. Remember Ross Perot?

Bill has him to thank for getting in the White House.

That said, we all vote selfishly. Every single one of us. What we selfishly see as the best future for ourselves and loved ones. For our selfish number one reasons, for the best of our version of the nation.

Don't believe that it is only certain voters. You are advocating your selfish reasons, it is your filter that makes your choices the best.


You have been fascinating to watch on this board. It is so strange that you talk about selfishness without a hint of self awareness.

[basselope]

21. Exit polls showed Perot split the vote 50/50 and that Clinton would have won w/o him.

[CajunBlazer]

68. Clinton? And your information is false.

First I'm sure you meant to say that Bush would have won any way. But that's false!

According to Nader himself, "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all." (which would net a 13%, 12,665 votes, advantage for Gore over Bush.)

So the Nader vote in Florida did give us George W. Bush for at least his first 4 years in office and arguably his entire 8 years in office. The Supreme court might not gotten involved - remember it was the Democrats that filed the legal protest - and if they had, the result might well have been totally different.

So you don't have to go too far out on limb to say that Nader's candidacy gave us wars in Iraq and probably Afghanistan, a global economic melt down, and cost us a majority on Supreme Court.

The Green party candidates for President since have never received even one fifth of the votes nationally that Nader received in 2000 proving the saying, "Third parties are like bees, when they sting they die".

[Garrett78]

80. They're talking about Perot's impact in 1992.

Not Nader's impact in 2000.

[basselope]

82. Talking about Ross Perot in 1992

Exit polls showed he split his vote 50/50 from Clinton and bush.



However, someone did an anlysis that showed what would have happened if 60% of Perot voters went to bush and Clinton still wins.

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=113938.0

[TM99]

117. I can't take you seriously

if you are going to lie about the facts.

What Nader said is not the reason Bush was able to steal the election in Florida. Nader received around 95,000 votes in Florida. Registered Democrats who voted for Bush numbered 200,000. If Nader had not run and the split went as he said, Bush would still have gotten more registered Democratic voters and the offset was never enough to change that.

Nader did not spoil the 2000 election. It is a myth you neoliberal trot out year after year, and it is bullshit. Bush Democrats gave the Bush machine the opportunity to steal the election in Florida. Period.

[Garrett78]

85. I have little doubt Clinton would have won anyway, but...

...you have to look at the exit polls in the individual swing states, as the national popular vote isn't what determines the winner.

Kind of like how people claim Obama couldn't have won re-election without independents when data suggests that isn't necessarily true. For instance, Obama lost the independent vote to Romney by double digits in the crucial swing state of Ohio, but Obama won Ohio anyway.

[CajunBlazer]

59. I strongly believe the almost everyone votes in their selfish self interest...

... even if that "self interest" involves protecting the weakest among us. And those who don't end up under the wheels of history.

[basselope]

20. If its Clinton vs Trump, what other choice do I have?

Can't vote for either of them.

Jessie Ventura said he might run... so maybe I will vote for him.

[RoccoR5955]

22. NO!

I live in a reliable Democratic state. If Clinton gets the nomination my vote goes to Jill Stein.
Not just for the Green Party platform, but so that the Green Party can get Federal election funding.

I will vote for Democratic candidates down ticket, like Zephyr Teachout, who is running for Congress in my district.
And as a rule, I do not vote in uncontested elections. If there is no opponent, my vote simply is of no concern.

As part of the TOS here at DU, I will have to just keep my mouth shut about Clinton, on the off chance that she should win the nomination. I shall not donate to her campaign, and I shall not get out the vote for her.

I have my OWN standards, and shall not be swayed by people who are putting out all of this FUD.

[CajunBlazer]

73. Federal election funding? LOL Like that is going to happen.

The high water mark for Green Party candidates was 2000 when Nader got 2.7% of the vote.

No candidate since has received even one fifth of Nader's total.

To qualify for federal funds in the next Presidential election Jill will have to pull down 5% of the total vote - needless to say it isn't going to happen. Another wasted vote.

[RoccoR5955]

129. Well AFIAC

I will not waste my vote on a candidate that I cannot believe in.

[CajunBlazer]

135. You have a right vote however you please

I'm sure some on DU will miss you after Hillary secures the nomination.

[RoccoR5955]

136. No they will not.

I will just keep my mouth shut about the presidential race, while promoting my Democratic candidate who is running in the NY 19, Zephyr Teachout, a Bernie supporter.

[Mufaddal]

25. Jill Stein is not the Green Party candidate yet

Odds are good she'll get it; just pointing out that the Greens are in the middle of their own primary right now.

[2banon]

29. Oh no, not this old tattered canard again.

The way to avoid Drumpf getting "elected" to office is to vote for Bernie in the primary, because in the General election Hillary will LOSE to Drumpf in a "new york minute". But Bernie will beat him hands down.

It's that simple.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Ah more advice from the Reagan Excuse Making Committee. This is the Primary, not the General.

Do you understand the difference or are you confused like Hillary when she called Ronald and Nancy champions of the AIDS era?

[winter is coming]

31. You were only supposed to spring forward by one hour.

Election day is nearly eight months away. Chill the fuck out.

[Kip Humphrey]

32. credit given for crawling out from behind the barricade. Now, attacking Jill Stein,

someone you have no idea about beyond a 5 minute Google search for which you couldn't go beyond page one, has a long record of fighting for and promoting progressive causes and grassroots organization, but also has a long record of trashing 3rd-Way corporate influences that you so ardently support. It is absolutely no surprise that you know nothing about Jill Stein. I mean why should you? She has been working in the trenches fighting social, racial, criminal, and economic injustice in this country for over 25 years - areas of life that are likely foreign to people such as yourself.

So, go ahead and make yourself feel good about yourself in your choice of Hillary by trashing a longtime voice for progressive causes. Feels good, yeah?

[CajunBlazer]

76. Who cares what she's fighing if you can't win ....

...It's not a lot of help for those you are fighting for because you have no power to help them.

[Garrett78]

34. It's a protest vote.

I don't live in a battleground state and have no problem with voting Green, as I did in '08 and '12 (I find it hilarious that people who are pro-Obama are anti-Clinton). The hope is not that Stein will become POTUS (unless one is utterly delusional) but that the Green Party will eventually achieve federal matching funds.

What I would like to see is instant-runoff voting (IRV). Along with public financing, of course. With IRV, people could rank their choices. I could make Stein my #1 and the Democratic Party nominee my #2, so that if my #1 doesn't win, my vote automatically goes to my #2. That way people would feel a lot better about voting their conscience, and eventually a 3rd party could become viable. IRV and public financing (and *only* public financing) and disallowing gerrymandering would make a world of difference. We'd still have quite a few problems, of course. Such as the fact that it's virtually impossible to pass a constitutional amendment when a fraction of the electorate can block it (13 states, regardless of how small those states are). People talk about tyranny of the majority, but what we have in the US is tyranny of the minority (Wyoming has just as many Senators as California, and that's just ridiculous). Or tyranny of a narrow majority where winning 51-49 means you get everything.

[oberliner]

37. Seems like there are more Green Party people here than Democrats recently

Maybe it's just me - or has anyone else noticed this?

[Kaleva]

44. I'd say there's always been a significant Green Party presence here at DU

[oberliner]

51. I don't remember as large a contingent last presidential election cycle

Do you?

[Kaleva]

71. I'm going by DU polls and political map questionnaires

Not scientific by any means but there always seemed to be a large contingent of responders whose views were, IMO, more in line with the Green Party platform then with the Democratic party platform.

[TM99]

121. No, what you are noticing

are the leftists that are independents. They may vote Green. They may vote socialist. Many are former Democrats more and more pissed off at the neoliberal take-over.

Like organized religion in this country, both political parties have been losing registered voters for a decade now.

This is the new reality that so few of y'all seem to understand. Neither party has strong enough numbers to count on their registered voter base alone to carry even state elections let alone national ones. Without the independent voters on the left or the right, neither party will win.

And instead of building a coalition with those voters, both parties are disrespecting, insulting, and pushing them away. Imagine what the outcomes will be come fall.

[oberliner]

122. Except this particular website is supposed to be for Democrats

So it seems odd to have such a high level of hostility towards the party being expressed so frequently.

In theory, the primary raison d'être for DU is to help elect Democrats.

[TM99]

123. No this particularly site

is for ELECTING Democrats.

There is no requirement to be a registered Democrat in order to post here.

You might want to actually ask yourself why there is so much hostility towards the party this election season.

[H2O Man]

148. Well said.

[nadinbrzezinski]

138. Nope, what you noticed is a lot of democrats

who are pissed and will vote for Jill Stein. That is what you have noticed. I have as well. Taking notes.

[noamnety]

39. I'm sorry - today's loyalty oath has already been posted.

Please try again tomorrow.

[revbones]

119. so true. nt

[Cheese Sandwich]

42. Hillary is even less qualified.

Supporting wars to overthrow the governments in Iraq, Libya, and Syria, leading to the rise of ISIS? If that doesn't disqualify someone I don't know what does. Supporting NAFTA, favored trade status for China, selling the TPP around the world. That disqualifies her too. She's using her campaign against Bernie Sanders as a chance to trash the idea of a national health insurance program. She went along with union busting on the board of Walmart. Taking millions of dollars in speaking fee bribes and "charity" donations from major corporations and then protecting them. Some people have different ideas about what it means to be qualified I guess.

[ThePhilosopher04]

43. I will be voting for Bernie Sanders, either as the nominee ...

or as a write-in candidate. Thanks for your concern.

[pinebox]

45. I'll vote who I want to and who best represents me. Thanks!

Meanwhile you may want to do some digging on who Jill Stein is.
Watch this epic smackdown she put to Mitt Romney in a debate.
The guy narrating is flippin' annoying however but this is good! Get popcorn! lol

[bigwillq]

50. .....

[malletgirl02]

53. Hillary Supporters have been constantly

insulting Bernie supporters, yet you demand us to support Hillary if she wins the nomination. For the record I will vote for Hillary if she wins the nomination, but she won't get one cent from me nor will I volunteer for her. The constant insults from Hillary supports have been just to much.

[CajunBlazer]

77. A number of Sandere's supporters have consistantly described Hillary as "EVIL"

Should that keep us from voting for Bernie or supporting him with our time and money if his is our nominee?

[malletgirl02]

109. Hillary Clinton supports have also been

attacking Bernie. It is different attacking actual supporters though. If you insult me directly don't expect me to give money to your candidate.

[forsaken mortal]

60. Hillary is just another neo-con and I'm not impressed with the behavior of her followers

I'll unapologetically be casting my vote for Jill Stein if I have to choose between Clinton and Trump. I'm not going to be held hostage to two candidates I loathe.

[pinebox]

62. Millions will be doing that

[oberliner]

74. That is definitely not true

There is no scenario that will result in Jill Stein getting millions of votes.

[pinebox]

90. I'll disagree

obviously you've not seen the movement on twitter

[CajunBlazer]

97. Twitter = internet polls

[pinebox]

133. LOL sure. DU = small bubble

You guys really illustrate the digital divide well

Revolutions are fought on twitter, literally. Arab Spring ring a bell?

[CajunBlazer]

134. I assume you are familiar with Twitter

If you are familiar you know that a small of animated people can cause any subject to go viral. We proved that here locally when UAB fans and students were fighting to get our football program back after it was taken away from us by our evil masters at the University of Alabama.

During that fight we experienced something despicably underhanded and our students took Twitter. Within an hour the issue was trending number one nationally. Don't tell me Twitter can't be manipulated like internet polls.

We did the same thing when the local media published internet polls on the UAB football situation. One of us would notice the poll and notify the entire group on line. Within minutes of all of us voting multiple times, our side would be winning the poll 95% to 5%. (Sound familiar?)

[pinebox]

137. Please cite where DU has waged a revolution in a foreign country

We'll talk then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter_Revolution

[H2O Man]

149. espectfully disagree.

I believe that Bernie will be the Democratic Party's candidate. Thus, progressive people will not have to act upon their consciences by voting third party.

[pinebox]

152. good one!

[jeepers]

66. If everything else fails

I would like to see the green party offer Bernie Sanders its nomination.

[CajunBlazer]

79. Oh, that would be great - split the progressive vote - give the election to the Republicans

Nice logic!

[Goblinmonger]

75. Why does this feel like a name-gathering expedition?

Like it's a preparation for the "great purge"?

In the chance that Clinton gets the nomination, I'm pretty sure that Skinner is going to get a list of people that need to be banned for TOS violations.

I'll likely vote for Clinton if she gets the nomination. But let me tell you all this as clearly as possible:

I am fucking SICK AND TIRED of holding my nose and voting for a moderate because I have to worry about SCOTUS seats. I'm 49 years old I don't know how much longer I can do that.

[CajunBlazer]

84. And this while Tea Party people are saying they are sick and tired....

...voting for moderate Republican candidates. The two ends of the spectrum reflecting one another. Maybe they have more in common than we think.

[Goblinmonger]

86. I think that talking point is a week or more old.

But, yeah, sure, Sanders supporters are exactly the same as Trump supporters. If you really believe that, there is no hope for you. If you don't believe it and are just saying it, well...

[CajunBlazer]

99. It's a lot older than that - and it's still valid.

Look up "the Horseshoe Principle" when you have time.

[Goblinmonger]

106. Well aware

So you are saying the politics and policies of FDR are just fringe politics like Trump?

[CajunBlazer]

111. FDR would cringe at some of the far left positions being taken today....

...just as Reagan would be defeated early on had he been in the present Republican field.

Remember that FDR was in favor of taking extreme measures because people were starving and the country had collapsed economically. Had he been President under much better circumstance he would have never floated some of his proposals and the electorate would have never voted for him for one term, much less for, if he had.

[Goblinmonger]

115. Have you looked at the income gap lately?

and compared it to the 20s?

It's not pretty. Obama saved us from a depression but we are still not poised to do well unless some serious measures are taken to close that gap.

[Jester Messiah]

78. I'll vote for who I please.

Bernie is my first choice however.

[Bleacher Creature]

83. They don't care. They just want to burn the whole place down.

Thanks for trying to talk sense into people, but it's starting to look like a lost cause.

Even if the Green Party candidate was a qualified candidate, it's still a protest vote for someone who can't win. Any time someone who doesn't vote for one of the only two viable candidates closest to their views, it's a lost vote for the better candidate.

And just so that I'm not misunderstood, ANYONE on this site who doesn't vote for the Democraric candidate this November is helping the GOP candidate - even without directly voting for them.

[Smarmie Doofus]

87. You do understand that the Stein/Green Party mindset is not about...

winning elections? In the sense of: right now; 2016?

She hasn't won elections because she's not TRYING to win elections,'

She's trying to get people thinking about alternatives to the de facto one-party system we have now. Which Gore Vidal famously described as the "The Money Party". One party; w. two right wings.

Was Vidal wrong? Hmmmmmm......

[CajunBlazer]

96. Yes he was. When you view the world from the extreme left wing.....

...everything else appears to be "right wing"

[nomorenomore08]

127. Calling them the Money Party wasn't wrong. But the Republicans are clearly further to the right.

And Trump has now pulled to the right flank of nearly all of them.

[dana_b]

88. some vote for the Green party to help them stay on the ballot

and receive General Election Funding, not because they think that the Greeens can win.

"Minor party candidates (nominees of parties whose Presidential candidates received between 5 and 25 percent of the vote in the preceding election) may receive public funds based on the ratio of their party's vote in the preceding Presidential election to the average of the two major party candidates in that election. "

[CajunBlazer]

103. Get Federal Election funds? That will never happen

They need 5% of the vote to receive federal funding next time around. Their high water make was 2.7% in 2000 and no other Green candidate has received one fifth of that total since. Yet another impossible dream.

[kerry-is-my-prez]

91. Never thought I'd see the day where so many people are openly saying they are voting green here.

Some even campaigning or stating that they will vote for Jill Stein. Even new members.

[CajunBlazer]

98. Especially new members - ought to tells us something.

[mvd]

94. Actually Jill is the most similar to my views

Experience is a factor, but not the only factor. Jill would surround herself with good people. That said, I am plenty comfortable voting for Bernie. And would vote for either of our candidates in the general election. It is the most important election I have been a part of.

[LostOne4Ever]

102. Every single voted is earned

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=#009999]Bernie won my vote in the Primary.

But beyond that, the Republicans have earned my vote against them by voting for the democrats in the general.

Instead of attacking a person with good positions, either promote the democratic party and earn people's votes; or, righteously attack the Republicans and make the case that voting for democratic party's nominee is the best way to give Trump or Cruz the middle finger.

Villianizing Jill Stein will only push people away.[/font]

[CajunBlazer]

108. Since when is revealing a person's record, or lack there of, villianizing her?

[LostOne4Ever]

110. Play ignorant if you wish, but this is only going to be counterproductive and push peeps away. NT

[CajunBlazer]

114. So asking Democrats not to vote for the Green Party candidate is going to push people away?

Whoa!!! Think about what you're saying. If that's the case, they don't need to be pushed; they're are already gone or, more precisely. they were never here to start with.

[malletgirl02]

113. Well when people

reveal Hillary Clinton's record Hillary supporters say that is villianizing her.

[AgerolanAmerican]

107. There are strategic benefits to it

If a third party can cross thresholds in vote percentage they qualify easier for the ballot - the two main parties have authored together no end of legal hoops to keep other competitors out of the picture.

If the DNC keeps serving up leadership like DWS and continues to respond primarily (if not exclusively) to the concerns of Wall Street and K Street, it could not hurt to have laid the groundwork for an alternative now.

[Betty Karlson]

116. Hillary Outreach to Bernie supporters has become desperate -

and still strikes a wrong note. Instead of smearing Sanders they are now smearing Jill Stein. Comparing her with Carson is not unlike comparing Sanders with Trump. Both tone-deaf and distasteful, to say the least.

[H2O Man]

155. Interesting points.

I'm a combination of disappointed and surprised by the "outreach" associated by supporters of Hillary Clinton's campaign. By "outreach," I include a wide range of behaviors -- including their not engaging in efforts to "talk shop" with the people of the Sanders movement.

But I'd say the saddest things is the OP's that start out to make a point on an issue that deserves open discussion .....but doing so in a clumsy way, or not being able to hold back on getting that one little stab in there.

I obviously support Bernie, and am not going to campaign for his opposition here. But I wish some of the more thoughtful, experienced Hillary supports would present a work shop for their people on DU:GDP. I can easily come up with a list of ten important, positive traits/issues they could address, to advocate for Hillary's campaign -- without offending anyone but republicans. And I could easily list a half-dozen things not to say, unless you are actually a republican plant hoping to divide Democrats here.

[Kittycat]

120. Thanks for your concern

Noted.

I do my own research, which is why I support Bernie Sanders. I can't wait to vote for him on Tuesday, then again this fall. Have a great day!

[Attorney in Texas]

124. I will vote for Sanders.

[CajunBlazer]

145. Bernie, as a write in candidate?

Why not save yourself the trouble and not vote - it amounts to the same thing. And if you are intent on voting, you could vote for Mickey Mouse. When they tabulate the election results a vote for anyone or anything but the two main candidates and not voting will have the same exact affect. None.

[Attorney in Texas]

159. Sanders as the nominee.

[CajunBlazer]

160. ...

[nomorenomore08]

128. Reluctantly, I have to agree with you here. The stakes are way too high this time.

You can grouse about "another neo-liberal President" all you want, but at least we know she won't literally be building concentration camps. In Trump's case, I'm not so sure.

[Ken Burch]

150. I won't. But if you really want to hold Stein's vote down, don't support the nomination

of the most militarist, corporate subservient candidate we could go with.

We can only win progressive votes in the fall of we make the difference between our party and the R's as big as possible. There is no center anymore, and there are no significant bloc of voters anywhere who are both socially liberal, pro-Wall Street on economics, and pro-perpetual war in the Middle East.

[CajunBlazer]

156. "There is no center anymore" - Wrong!

That is factually incorrect. The far left makes up a very noisy and animated, but small fraction of American voters - the highest estimate I've seen is 13%. The majority of Americans are moderates on both the left and the right with a smaller, but very significant percentage viewing themselves as far right. The vast majority of Americans favor the capitalist system; where they differ greatly is on how much to control its excesses by law and regulation. Over half of all American voters say that they would be uncomfortable or very uncomfortable with socialist running for President.

It appears that Americans are not ready for a "political revolution".

[democrattotheend]

151. Has she even said that she is running?

I thought I read that she does not plan to run if Bernie gets the nomination.

Has she already been nominated by the Green Party? How does their nomination process work?