Why the Green Party matters.

[DanTex]

The Green Party functions like a GOP SuperPAC. They aren't officially aligned with the GOP, but their objective (which Nader made explicit) is to help the GOP win elections. Not because they share the same policy goals, but because they think that GOP victories will bring about a socialist awakening. More concisely, they are idiots.

Trump is an idiot too. That the Greens are idiots doesn't mean they can't wreak havoc. They did in 2000, when Nader's candidacy was one of the decisive factors in bringing about the W presidency. He wasn't the only decisive factor (SCOTUS, voter purges, poor campaign decisions, etc.), but there can be no doubt that he was one of them. That was my first election as an adult, I won't forget it.

That year, Nader pulled 2.7% of the vote, most (not all but most) from voters that would otherwise go Democratic. In 1996 he only pulled 0.7% of the vote. Fast forward to the present. Jill Stein got 0.36% of the vote in 2012. It's almost certain that she will get a higher number this year -- the longer a Democratic administration is in office, the more influence the Greens have (they got 0.10% and 0.12% in 2004 and 2008). I don't think Stein will rise to Nader's 2.7%, but 2% is not out of the question.

Even 1% of the vote is a very big deal. For context, Bernie Sanders broke records by having 2.5 million people donate to his primary campaign. That comes out to a bit over 2% of the GE electorate. Placing a dollar value on 1% of the vote would come out to hundreds of millions. It's hard to think of any other individual who could be a more powerful ally of Donald Trump than Jill Stein. If the Koch brothers get on board with Trump and come through with $1B of SuperPAC money, then OK, that's probably a bigger deal. But given the choice between having Sheldon Adelson withdraw the $100M that he is planning to spend on Trump or having the Green Party withdraw from the presidential race, it's an easy choice: get rid of the Greens. $100M won't buy 1% of the electorate away from Hillary, but Jill Stein might.

So to the question of whether discussing the influence of the Green Party is a legitimate topic on DU, the answer is of course yes. The Greens are likely to have more influence than the Libertarians, even though the Libertarians will get more votes, because the Libertarians draw more evenly from both sides, but the Greens draw much more from Dems. They are likely to have more influence than any individual Trump surrogate like Chris Christie, Rudy Giuliani, etc. Nobody here would suggest that we shouldn't discuss Christie (or Giuliani or Palin...), so the suggestion that we shouldn't discuss Stein, who is numerically more of a threat, is nonsensical.

I don't think the Greens will succeed in electing Trump, and I don't think Chris Christie will either. But the risk to the nation is great. We must, in our daily lives, try as we can to influence people against GOP lies and propaganda, and we must also influence people against Green lies and propaganda. Particularly those of us who remember 2000, something that most first- or second-time voters won't have a good memory of. We need to fight all pro-Trump forces, not just the ones wearing Trump t-shirts.

[cosmicone]

1. Jill Stein is a joke and I wonder about

the mental health of people supporting her over Hillary.

[DanTex]

2. I agree. But Trump is a joke too. W was a joke. Nader was a joke.

Sadly, being a joke doesn't mean a person can't cause tremendous damage to the nation.

But you are right, Stein is thoroughly out to lunch when it comes to policy. She's an anti-vaxxer, and her understanding of economics seems to come from a Dr Seuss book. She's a lot like Trump in those ways.

[Silver_Witch]

3. You seem nice....

[pangaia]

81. Thanks for saving me.

[Silver_Witch]

117. My pleasure...

So hard to feel censored. I feel like I am walking on eggshells!

[pangaia]

118. eggshells..me too..

But I have found it an interesting exercise for me. I can take out whatever negativity creeps in on the guy in the Cadillac Escalade going 60 MPH on I-90 in the left lane with 25 of us lined up behind him.

[Silver_Witch]

128. Giggle

[yardwork]

158. If you don't feel comfortable supporting the Democratic nominee, why do you post here?

[KMOD]

4. Any scorched Earth policy is dangerous,

and incredibly selfish.

Great post, Dan.

[think]

5. The Green Party must be terrible. What issues do they support?

[KMOD]

11. There is nothing wrong with their platform.

What is wrong is their leaders believing that Trump is a better alternative. That's what's wrong. Horribly wrong and ridiculously ignorant.

[rhett o rick]

14. Do you have a link showing that she believes that Trump is a better alternative?

[JaneyVee]

35. Its not that Greens like Stein thinks Trump is better, its that...

She believes Democrats and Hillary are equally as bad as Trump. Which is looney bin bullshit.

[KMOD]

42. Exactly!

It's dangerous looney bin bullshit to think both parties, and candidates are the same, and it's frustrating as all hell that they're too ignorant to get it.

And the fact that they'd be willing to risk a President Trump, just for some sort of ignorant and sick revenge, is disgustingly selfish, arrogant and clueless.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

48. It's all perspective.

There are no facts when it comes to subjective things. I believe Clinton could run a country much better than Trump, but I believe they're both in it for themselves to a degree.

[JaneyVee]

94. Jill Stein spends her life running for president on pure ego.

[PoliticalMalcontent]

112. A large ego is damn near a pre-requisite for running for president.

Is your complaint that she continues to run, or that the green party continues to exist?

[Demsrule86]

175. the greens and their minions said the same about Gore and Bush...

the result...a rightwing court that destroyed the Voting rights act, United, Hobby Lobby, states don't have to expand Medicare, two wars and 9-11. The Greens have much to answer for...and never learn.

[Hortensis]

49. Define your meaning of "neoliberals," please. It's often used

by some inaccurately as a slur against some Democrats. Are you using it in that way or correctly to refer to very far right conservative ideologues? And if so, ridiculous as it might sound, do you feel the latter are influencing the Democratic Party to adopt neoliberal policies?

This was in response to the post that was removed, but please feel free to answer anyway, Rhett.

[philly_bob]

90. Neoliberal and neoconservative -- deceptive terms used in political trickery

Beware of those who claim to be either.

[LanternWaste]

115. And also beware of those who use them as shibboleths merely to label anyone who disagrees with them.

And also beware of those who use them as shibboleths merely to label anyone who disagrees with them. They each have a precise and particular definition.

[philly_bob]

141. LanternWare, please help me out with those precise definitions.

My main objection is how slippery and misleading they are. "Neoliberal" is conservative, as I understand it. Agree?

[bettyellen]

96. Well she said Obama had the house and senate for two years and was worse than Bush.....

Which is totally wrong and spreading RW lies. She's off by 7 months, just for starters. They should have a smarter candidate, she's a sad ass fool.

[KMOD]

102. yes

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/green-party-candidate-jill-stein-says-hi

[progressoid]

19. ?

I'll admit I don't keep up with their official platform. But I find it hard to believe that they think Trump is a better alternative to Clinton.

I did a cursory search of their site and couldn't find anything to support that. They seem to dislike them equally.

[JaneyVee]

36. Disliking them equally is insane.

[progressoid]

89. Irrelevant. KMOD stated that they think Trump is a better alternative to Clinton.

I was trying to find evidence of such a statement.

[KMOD]

103. here

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/green-party-candidate-jill-stein-says-hi

[Ash_F]

34. I've never heard this

Not from Jill Stein anyway.

[ConservativeDemocrat]

29. You mean neo-cons, not neo-liberals

Neo-cons favor using the military as a first resort, rather than a last one. Neo-liberals are libertarians

I know that communists and other extremists can't tell the difference between the people they hate, but there is a difference.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

/ And I have looked at the Greens' terrible agenda. Jill Stein favors healing crystals and is skeptical of "big vaccine", and bashes GMOs, and is basically full of unscientific foggy headed patchouli oil woo.

[840high]

39. .that^

[DanTex]

58. Their agenda is a bunch of meaningless words on a website. They have no intention of

actually getting people elected and advancing their agenda in congress. In fact, they have never gotten a single person elected to either the house or the senate.

Their intention is to discourage Democrats from voting Democratic, in order to get more Republicans into government. Their most profound achievement as a party was playing a decisive role in W becoming president in 2000. And Jill Stein is hoping to repeat that and make Trump president this year.

[DanTex]

57. They don't support issues, they support Trump.

In their entire existence, the Greens have elected zero people to the House and zero people to the Senate. They aren't a party that tries to get people elected into government and thereby effect change through legislation. They try to effect change by propagandizing, discouraging Democratic voters for the purpose of electing more Republicans.

Their platform is not a set of policies they hope to enact once elected, it is a propaganda tool to help the GOP. A Green vote is not a vote for any of their issues, because there is no chance whatsoever that voting Green will help advance those issues. A Green vote is a vote for Trump. The Green party exists to give people a way of voting for Donald Trump without having to actually mark a box that says "Donald Trump" next to it.

[think]

62. It's one thing to not like the Green party. It's another thing entirely to be honest

about one's reasons for disliking them.

[DanTex]

63. I don't like them because they help elect Republicans. Are you accusing me of lying about that?

[think]

67. They don't support issues Dan? Really?

[DanTex]

70. No, they don't. They support Republicans.

When was the last time the Greens did anything to advance any of their "issues" in the house or the senate? Never. Because they've never elected anyone to either, and they know that they can't. They know that all they can do is take votes away from the Dems and help the Republicans win, and they do it anyway. And they do it intentionally.

They aren't interested in helping any of the policies they claim to stand for become reality. People who care about actually turning a progressive agenda into legislative reality aren't Greens, they are Democrats. The only significant accomplishment of the Green Party is purposely helping Bush take over in 2000.

[think]

72. So if one was to ask a Green party member what they stand for they'd say the GOP?

Is that what you're claiming?

[DanTex]

73. “If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.” --Ralph Nader

That's what I'm claiming. Their leadership stands for electing Republicans in order to shock the system, to "make things really explode" as Susan Sarandon put it.

I'm sure that there are gullible Green Party members who have been duped into thinking that the Greens are something other than what they really are. But like I said, the Greens have made zero progress, ever, towards making any of the things they claim to stand for a reality. They aren't even trying. Green voters who think they are supporting progressive policies are no different from gullible Republicans who believe that trickle-down economics is really the best way to help the working class.

In the upcoming election, the Greens and the GOP want exactly the same thing: they want people who are on the fence between Dems and Greens to vote Green. Why do they want that? Because that makes it more likely for Trump to become president. Stein knows just as well as Trump that the chances of her winning are zero. Like Nader before her, she is running a campaign that has one goal, and can have only one possible effect: helping a Republican become president.

[think]

74. Got a link for that?

[DanTex]

75. Here.

When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush." Not that he actually thinks the man he calls "Bush Inc." deserves to be elected: "He'll do whatever industry wants done." The rumpled crusader clearly prefers to sink his righteous teeth into Al Gore, however: "He's totally betrayed his 1992 book," Nader says. "It's all rhetoric." Gore "groveled openly" to automakers, charges Nader, who concludes with the sotto voce realpolitik of a ward heeler: "If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win."

http://www.outsideonline.com/1837851/ralph-nader-2000-campaign-interview

[think]

77. Ok. Someone on a blog says so. One might expect a more valid source. Usually a claim like this would

have more sources and ones people have actually heard of.

But anyhow I doubt you're going to convert many Greens by claiming they support the GOP.

Because most Greens I've met do care about issues and none of those issues are ones I see the average republican championing.

And I've never seen a Green advocate for the GOP. But I'm sure you can steer me to some obscure blog where someone claims they have....

[DanTex]

78. It's not a blog, it's an interview with a journalist, published in Outside Magazine.

Are you seriously suggesting that Outside Magazine fabricated that quote? Give me a break.

[creeksneakers2]

140. Many times I've seen them say

that they hope to make the Democrats lose so that the Democrats will conclude that they need far left votes to win. The Greens hope from that point they'll be able to dictate policy.

[Ken Burch]

133. It's not as if they WANT Trump to win(or that we have any way of proving that).

Why isn't it enough to argue that a vote for the Green ticket inadvertently helps Trump?

What purpose is served by accusing them of malicious intent?

We can win hold the Green vote down by running(without apology)on the merits of our platform and our ticket, and by reminding people that the Sanders campaign made a big difference for the better in what the party stands for.

Accusing the Greens of conspiring with Trump could only make us look like a group of paranoid bullies.

[DanTex]

136. Nader wanted Bush to win. This is documented.

Stein has made similar comments as Nader, suggesting that Hillary is worse than Trump.

But more importantly, if she doesn't want Trump to win, why is she trying to siphon off Democratic votes? Why did she try to get Bernie to join the Green Party ticket? What possible result could any of that have except for helping Trump win?

If, as you suggest, she doesn't want Trump to win, then why is she taking actions that can have no other possible effect besides making a Trump victory more likely?

[Ken Burch]

137. Because she is not the brightest bulb in the socket.

In any case, we wouldn't be able to follow a scorched-earth demonization campaign against the Greens with a progressive administration.

We can win this on the merits. Why is it so hard for you to trust that?

[DanTex]

138. When did I say we can't win this on the merits? I think we can.

As I said in the last paragraph of my OP:

I don't think the Greens will succeed in electing Trump, and I don't think Chris Christie will either. But the risk to the nation is great. We must, in our daily lives, try as we can to influence people against GOP lies and propaganda, and we must also influence people against Green lies and propaganda. Particularly those of us who remember 2000, something that most first- or second-time voters won't have a good memory of. We need to fight all pro-Trump forces, not just the ones wearing Trump t-shirts.

What do you disagree about?

[Ken Burch]

139. It sounds to me like you want us to anathemize the Greens

in the way that the Communist Party and its members were anathemized in the early 1950's.

The CP made some horrible choices (choices far worse than the Greens could ever make), but it led to ugly, stifling consequences that when this country decided to equate simply being part of that organization with evil.

Anathemizing the Greens would have the same effect.

What I think we should do is to recognize that the Greens exist largely because of bad choices this party made in the Eighties and Nineties(the concerted effort after 1988 to drive progressives out and to blame progressives for defeats they bore no responsibility for, which created a climate of bitterness, hopelessness and despair among people who identify, in various ways, as parts of the left) and that the best ways the party can respond to that party's continued existence is to recognize the validity of at least some of its message, and to adopt significant parts of it).

Also, while I don't have any use for the Green candidate myself, I think that attacking her too aggressively is going to make her the subject of sympathy she wouldn't otherwise get. Some people will vote for a candidate simply because they believe that candidate is being bullied.

So what I'm saying is somewhere between "you get more flies with honey" and "don't give your opponents help they DON'T need".

I'm just as committed as you are to trying to hold the Green vote down to the lowest possible level.

(if I had been devising Democratic strategy against the Greens this year, I'd have advocated THIS approach:

An offer to that party that, in exchange for not nominating a presidential candidate this year, we as Democrats would commit to supporting a major program of electoral reform...the abolition of the Electoral College for presidential elections(possibly replacing it with a "two-round" system on the French model), the introduction of instant-runoff voting for gubenatorial and U.S. Senate elections, and proportional representation for Congressional and state legislative races as well as local government elections.

This would turn the Democratic/Green relationship from bitter rivalry to constructive cooperation, and lead to more progressive politics at all levels.

[DanTex]

143. I don't want to anathemize anyone. Comparing this to the red scare is crazy.

I don't want to drag people in front of congress and blacklist them or any of that. I just want to recognize political opponents and tools of the GOP for what they are. I think Greens have every right to be Green, just like Republicans have every right to be Republican.

I agree with your electoral reform ideas: instant runoff voting, proportional representation, no Electoral College. Problem is, that would require a constitutional amendment, so it's not going to happen.

[Ken Burch]

144. Constitutional amendments have passed before. n/t.

[Demsrule86]

182. Really?

"Green Party presidential candidate Dr. Jill Stein says she believes presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton could be worse than presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump." She clearly says Hillary would be worse...and that makes Stein the enemy.

http://reason.com/blog/2016/06/13/green-party-candidate-jill-stein-says-hi

[Ken Burch]

183. Stein herself is unreachable. I never meant try to persuade Stein to change HER mind.

The voters who would consider voting for her ARE reachable, however. We just need to point out and point up the good things we've added to our platform(and the good message our party has sent by being willing to listen and change, which indicates that activists can influence the course of the next Democratic administration if they will campaign and support for it).

We need to keep making it clear to them that Bernie's candidacy made a difference, and that supporting HRC is not a betrayal of what they fought for in the primaries as a result of that difference. That would win us votes without losing them anywhere else.

You're not going to reach those voters by treating the Greens as a den of evil, and by implying that THEY, as opposed to Stein, are guilty of wanting a Trump presidency. And you aren't going to impress any OTHER voters by doing so.

By all means we should say "a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump".

We should not say "if you're even considering Stein, you personally WANT Trump to be president". All that approach can do is to guarantee that those people will vote for that candidate instead of ours.

We are more likely to win if we AREN'T heavy-handed and if we don't keep trying to use the fall campaigns to get payback for 2000. It sucks that 2000 ended as it did...but that was sixteen years ago. A lot of voters this year were in training pants when that campaign occurred.

[Demsrule86]

184. The Greens are a den of evil

They do no good for anyone, and any person who would help Trump by voting for a Green is unreachable. Bernie has influence supposedly...maybe in time his endorsement will help...but there is nothing more Clinton can do.

[MohRokTah]

123. Stein says Trump is better than Clinton. eom

[AgadorSparticus]

107. +1 exactly!!

[Tortmaster]

59. Here's the short list:

1. Anti-Vaxx

2. Homeopathy

3. Electing Republicans

[think]

65. I'd prefer no discussion to a dishonest one. Democrats hopefully can do better than that...

[MohRokTah]

126. The poster was teling the truth.

Stein pushes homeopathy and is an anti-vaxxer who stated Trump was better than Clinton.

[Gothmog]

146. I live in the real world

The facts presented above are facts. Pretending that these facts do not exist will not change anything

[Demsrule86]

176. An honest discussion?

One praising Stein or the Greens is not honest...this is a Democratic site...the Greens are an opposition party and say awful things about Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

174. the ability to lose every election is what they are most known for.

And their agenda is a spoiler's agenda.

[AgingAmerican]

6. What a bizarre OP to see on a Democratic website

They must have all gotten the same email.

[rhett o rick]

8. Yes sadly bizarre. At one time there was no need for a Green Party because the Democratic

Party included their issues. I am a Democrat and have been since 1966. I want to see our Party move back and make the Green Party unnecessary.

[Tortmaster]

60. When you attack the Democratic Party and support the ...

... Green Party, you are hard to listen to, my friend.

[pangaia]

82. Rhett is not, in my opinion, attacking the Democratic Party,

but rather stating the wish to improve it.

[progree]

85. So, Democrat Since 1966, who should we vote for?

Last edited Thu Jul 14, 2016, 10:03 AM - Edit history (1)

8. ... At one time there was no need for a Green Party because the Democratic Party included their issues. I am a Democrat and have been since 1966. I want to see our Party move back and make the Green Party unnecessary.

Hillary Clinton will be the one and only Democrat on the general election ballot for president, but you say you won't vote for her:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=5077828

226. But I refuse to vote for DINO's. I refuse to vote for Democrats that

bowed down at George Bush's feet and took the coward's way out. She failed Democrats, she failed Iraqis, she failed our troops, she failed the world when she abandoned Democratic principles and gave war powers to the Republicans. If we had wanted Republican rule we would have voted for them. Democrats voted for her and she walked hand in hand with the Republicans and killed a million innocent Iraqis. How many Iraqi children died?


So since we shouldn't vote for Hillary, should we write in Bernie, or vote for Jill Stein (you certainly have been making this thread into a big infomercial for the Green Party), or rather than throwing our vote away (as both these futile gestures would), just go ahead and vote for Trump? And "hopefully" bring on the disaster that leads to the Great Socialist Revolution? Whatcha think?

[Gothmog]

109. Why did Karl Rove fund Nader in 2000 and 2004?

For some funny reason, Karl Rove funded Nader in 2000 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader's campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP's Laura Meckler headlined "GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads." She opened: "Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. ... 'Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,' Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: 'What's Al Gore's real record?' Nader says: 'Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.'" Meckler's report continued: "A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader's speeches." Bush's people - the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council - knew exactly what they were doing, even though the liberal suckers who voted so carelessly for Ralph Nader obviously did not. Anyone who drives a car the way those liberal fools voted, faces charges of criminal negligence, at the very least. But this time, the entire nation crashed as a result; not merely a single car.

This is from the GOP bag of dirty tricks that worked once

The Green Party helped the GOP and is still helping the GOP

[KMOD]

13. since you brought up bizarre OPs

http://jackpineradicals.com/boards/topic/by-endorsing-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-may-have-positioned-himself-to-win-2/

what are your thoughts on this?

[rhett o rick]

15. Interesting that you support JackPineRadicals and post their OPs here.

[KMOD]

18. Oh, I don't support them at all.

I did respect the poster it was named after, and I respect one of the admins there.

Many of my posts from hillaryclintonsupporters.com have been shared here and were discussed thoroughly. I happily engaged in many of those discussions.

But back to what I posted. Do you agree with it?

[Gothmog]

147. Discussing and disagreeing with a position is not supporting that position

KMOD presented a post about a position that KMOD disagreed with. That is not supporting that position

[progree]

153. The person you replied to is unable to respond. Due to a posting of his in this thread, I'm pretty

sure.

[Gothmog]

154. I was not aware of that but it does not make a difference

Again, claiming that posting a link to a post that you are disagreeing with is not an endorsement of that position in my opinion.

In any event, I strongly disagree with the claims of that poster

[progree]

156. No problem.

I'm not sorry at all to see that poster go in for a review. I wasn't meaning to give you a hard time, I just thought you (and others) might be interested in knowing Sorry for any misunderstanding.

[Demsrule86]

180. there is a great deal of that...they discuss our posts their too. nt

[AgingAmerican]

24. I don't care one way or the other what some OP on some other website says

I note that site has also been singled out for scapegoating over the last few days. My suggestion would be to grow a thicker skin.



The avalanch of hate we have seen the last few days (Jill Stein, JPR, The Green Party, etc) reeks of David Brock, but I can't say for sure because I'm not on his emailing list.

Castigating the left is pretty stupid at this point in the game, don't you agree?

[KMOD]

25. Jill Stein is not the left.

She's a loon.

And I have a pretty thick skin. My posts from other sites have been posted here. I answered for them.

Interesting that no one dares to answer for that crap. Should I assume that you agree with it?

[AgingAmerican]

26. Yes, she is on the left

And what you guys are doing is akin to a circular firing squad and is political suicide at this point in the election.

Argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

[nolawarlock]

28. Jill Stein is so left she's right.

[Hortensis]

31. Close. The far left and far right are kissing cousins.

They are different but the extremist traits both share mean they have more in common with each other than either does with the non-extremist types on their supposed "side."

You can take the names out of arguments by far leftists and far right and be unable to tell which is which. That's because 9 times out of 10 both are attacking moderates, especially Democrats, using the same kind of lies.

"Especially Democrats": One big difference, or similarity, is that both are usually far more hostile to liberals and the Democratic Party than to Republicans, although teapartiers don't like them either.

Another similarity is that you're usually considered either with them or against them. They are both vastly intolerant of any disagreement, which turns even strong sympathizers into targets.

All this is why, even though many strong liberals actually share many of the same ideals and desire for strong pushes for solutions, few belong for long to groups taken over by extremists, like the Greens.

[nolawarlock]

33. It's the whole horseshoe theory.

Heck, before I'd ever heard of horseshoe theory, I always thought that. I've always said if aliens were looking down at our worst, Hitler and Stalin would look like two assholes killing anyone they could and the political differences between them would be lost.

[BlueMTexpat]

46. For those who don't know

about "horseshoe theory," here's a good place to begin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory

The horseshoe theory in political science asserts that rather than the far left and the far right being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, they in fact closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe.

[nolawarlock]

54. Or, as the old saying goes, "extremes meet."

[BlueMTexpat]

55. Or are as close to

meeting that it is very difficult to tell the difference, if such exists ....

Both extremes are all-or-nothing authoritarian models.

[Hortensis]

47. Exactly. And no surprise that, although Bernie's

base is largely moderate liberals, he's energized both some on the far left, and also to a smaller degree some on the far right, and that the most disaffected on the far left will now move right to vote Trump.

Happens every election, though. Can't, and definitely would not want to (!), please everyone.

[nolawarlock]

53. Well I take my hat off to Bernie.

I was never for him but I'm glad he's helped to synchronize his ideas with Hillary's. I think they work well together.

[Hortensis]

69. Bernie has that ability to speak compellingly

that Hillary lacks. I once went looking for a quote from each on a major issue. Hers stated ideological commitment to achieving something we all want, but not one could go on a poster. Almost all of his could.

She really is a policy wonk. Even without details, her "we can and will do this" statements somehow seem perfused with the practical reality of long, hard slogs to accomplishment. So ironic that this woman is widely seen as profoundly dishonest, when her statements are effectively completely devoid of sparkly attractions and distractions, pie in the sky promises, or any attempt to ignore obstructions to achievement. Unfortunately, her policy explanation orientation also means they're devoid of Bernie's compelling directness and brevity.

[BlueMTexpat]

44. + a million or so! eom

[KMOD]

32. .

[KMOD]

30. You guys? Do mean us Democrats?

Look, you are more than free to start your very own party. But the Democratic Party is under no obligation to be dictated to by Jill "looney" Stein.

The Democrats are the left, and they just selected one of the most liberal candidates in decades to be our nominee.

A candidate who has a record of achievement spanning decades.

Opposition to Hillary is just not rational for anyone on the left. If anything it proves you weren't left to begin with.

Hillary Clinton is the epitome of what the left would wish for in a candidate. Jill Stein is freaking crazy.

[AgingAmerican]

45. And you are obsessed with her why?

I don't get it

[KMOD]

51. Why is it you can never offer any productive conversation?

My goals, or as you call it.... my obsession, is for every person to have affordable access to health care treatment. Including immigrants who are frightened to get vaccines in fear that they will be deported.

I want equality for everyone. I'm so tired of the crap from Republicans trying to tell people which bathroom they can use, or who can marry who.

I'm saddened and angry that in 2016, we still lack equality in the justice system. Black Lives Matter.

I'm sick to death of red states attempting to limit women's rights.

As a mom of three college children, I'm hurting by the cost of college.

I want a better safety net for those who are down and out. That should never happen in a country as rich as ours.

I am a huge nature lover who is worried about our environment.

I hate war, and wish for peace.

This is why I support Hillary Clinton. Her goals, are my goals. You can call it an obsession, but I call it be human, and being rational.

[AgingAmerican]

110. This OP is productive conversation?

[MohRokTah]

127. Nope, she's a wingnut on the right who says Trump is better than Clinton. eom

[AgingAmerican]

129. She is barely to the left of center

You are to her right

[MohRokTah]

130. Nope, she's EXTREME rightwing.

And I would appreciate it if you would stop the personal attacks on me.

[AgingAmerican]

131. Name one of her policy positions that is 'EXTREME rightwing'

Thanks in advance. And she is to your left.

[MohRokTah]

132. She says Trump is better than Clinton

And I will no longer answer you as you refuse to stop the personal attacks.

[AgingAmerican]

134. Exact quote plus link please

Thanks in advance

[MohRokTah]

135. I do not respond to posters who attack me personally multiple times. eom

[840high]

40. Agreed.

[nolawarlock]

27. I personally think everyone on JPR should be institutionalized.

[BlueCaliDem]

83. At minimum. eom

[DanTex]

64. What's bizarre about it? The Greens are an opposition, pro-GOP party.

And what is this email you're talking about?

[rhett o rick]

10. I do agree that the Green Party matters. They now carry the torch for issues that

used to be carried by the Democratic Party. It's easy to disparage Jill Stein with ad hominem attacks but what issues do you disagree with?

And to continue to disparage a great man like Ralph Nader is childish. He did nothing illegal and in 2000 there was a lot of illegal shit. But it is so much easier to choose a scapegoat. It's not true that he stole votes from Democrats. If he did, it would mean that apparently the Democrats couldn't provide a good enough reason for those people to vote Democratic. His votes were from people that were pissed off at the continuation of the DLC via Al Gore. Eight years of DLC was enough for many.

Once again we are at a situation where the Left of the Party isn't happy with the positions of the candidate. So let's blame Jill Stein and Ralph Nader.

[KMOD]

16. Jill Stein and Ralph Nader

are not Democrats. They are selfish, clueless, ignorant radicals.

[JaneyVee]

37. Jill bashes Democrats with ad hominem attacks. Shes a nutjob.

[auntpurl]

43. May I ask, in what way

are your posts here on DU helping Hillary win?

[Jim Lane]

56. You might reasonably pose the same question to nolawarlock

I'm sure any pro-Trump people who monitor DU are delighted to see posts like #27. Clinton people tell progressive Democrats that they "should be institutionalized"! Break out the champagne in Trump Tower!

[giftedgirl77]

79. The assholes posting at that site are not Dems.

they are far left loons that live in a fairy tale & are closer to the Tea Party than to Dems.

[Jim Lane]

106. You're running up Trump's champagne bill but he can presumably afford it.

He probably just orders the champagne and then stiffs the vendor anyway.

I'm one of the people who posts at both DU and JPR. Your characterization of us as "assholes" is duly noted.

[giftedgirl77]

113. Meh, the one's being referred to are proclaiming there

is no difference between HRC & Trump while declaring to vote the useless Green Party instead. Those ppl are a loud sad little minority that can suck rocks.

If you feel you're part of that Klan I can't help you.

[DanTex]

61. The Green Party carries water for Trump, and that's all they carry.

They've never elected anyone to the house or the senate. Their "issues" are a pro-GOP propaganda tool, they have neither the intention nor the ability to implement anything they talk about.

For Jill Stein to say she has proposals to fix America's problems is like an overweight 50-year-old talking about his plans to win an olympic medal in gymnastics. And voting for Stein is like contributing to that 50-year-old's olympic medal gofundme drive. And after 2000, it's actually worse than that. It's like contributing to the gofundme drive with full knowledge that the guy ran the same scam last olympics, then pocketed the money and used it to buy a summer home.

[redstateblues]

80. A Great Man? LOL. Though you are right about one thing

Narcissism is not illegal- it is however what drives Nader

[progressoid]

12. Ugh. This Nader/Green thing again?

That's a big burr in your britches ain't it?

[rhett o rick]

17. There seems to be a need to find someone to hate. nm

[KMOD]

21. Wait! Someone is hating someone besides Hillary?

Say it ain't so!

[progressoid]

22. Yeah, maybe we could put more energy into being Democrats instead.

[KMOD]

23. That would be lovely.

[840high]

41. They are through hating Bernie so

had to find new victims.

[Chathamization]

86. Yep, Sanders endorses Clinton and over the next two days we get a big influx of posts about Stein.

It's...interesting. Particularly the symmetry between the two groups of disruptors - in their own way, both of them jumped from Sanders to Stein immediately after Sanders endorsement.

[DanTex]

68. It is a "burr in my britches," yes. Like I said, 2000 was my first election as an adult.

I'm not going to forget watching Nader intentionally throw the presidency to Bush, and all the damage to the nation that ensued. The Green Party brought us one of the worst presidents in history, and now they are trying to get an even more dangerous man elected. I don't think Jill Stein has the charisma or celebrity to be as effective a GOP surrogate as Nader was, but she still has the potential to be a strong ally of Donald Trump, and it's a threat that no Democrats who saw what happened in 2000 can take lightly.

[progressoid]

87. She's not going ally with the Donald.

Jesus, even Republicans don't want to ally with him.

[DanTex]

88. She already is, same as Nader was a Bush ally.

She's attacking Clinton, trying to draw her voters in order to help Trump become president. Like I said in the OP, it's like a SuperPAC, the Greens aren't officially associated with the GOP, but they carry the GOP's water.

[progressoid]

91. What? Show us when/where she's indicated she's trying to help Trump get elected.

[DanTex]

92. Actions speak louder than words. Her actions are obviously helping Trump

get elected. There is no other plausible outcome or objective for siphoning voters away from the Dems.

Nader openly admitted that he would rather see Bush win. The Greens have always been anti-Dem and pro-GOP.

[progressoid]

97. OK, so this is mostly a threat in your head.

The bigger issue is convincing the undecided people in the middle (not the half percent on the ultra left) who may go to Gary Johnson .

And convincing people to even vote at all.

[DanTex]

98. It's a very real threat. I lived through the 2000 disaster, did you?

No Nader candidacy, and we don't end up with President Bush.

Try and answer this. What could Jill Stein possibly accomplish by attacking Hillary and trying to get Democrats to vote Green, other than help Trump become president? There's nothing.

[progressoid]

104. "What could Jill Stein possibly accomplish by attacking Hillary"?

Well, probably the same things she's accomplishing by attacking Trump. Maybe she thinks she's going to make a difference in the world. Or maybe it's just hubris and vanity. Regardless, she's not a major problem to worry about.

Yes, I remember 2000. That was the year 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush. Nader got 97,488 votes total. Do the math.

#1) The Democratic Party assumption is that most, if not all of Nader's votes came from people who would have voted for Gore if Nader had not run. That is a myth according to exit polls.

In Florida, CNN’s exit polling showed Nader taking the same amount of votes from both Republicans and Democrats: 1 percent. Nader also took 4 percent of the independent vote.
...
Had Nader not run, Bush would have won by more in Florida. CNN’s exit poll showed Bush at 49 percent and Gore at 47 percent, with 2 percent not voting in a hypothetical Nader-less Florida race.

If Nader hadn't run, about half of the Nader voters would have stayed home according to the exit polls.

#2) OK. So you don't believe exit polls. Then let's look at the actual votes.

Gore lost 191,000 self-described liberals to Bush, compared to less than 34,000 who voted for Nader.

Let's repeat this because it reinforces point #1: self-described liberals overwhelmingly voted for Bush instead of Nader.
Thus simple common sense says that the assumption that Nader's votes would simply go to Gore if Nader hadn't run is wrong (just like the exit polls said).

#3) So why did Gore lose to Bush? Democrats.

there are two other Florida constituencies that cost them more votes than Nader did. First, Democrats. Yes, Democrats! Nader only drew 24,000 Democrats to his cause, yet 308,000 Democrats voted for Bush.

Nader wasn't the real betrayal of Democrats. Democrats were. Nearly a third of million of them. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth

I remember the elections of 96, 92, 88, 84, 80 and 76 too.

Goodnight. yes, I know it's morning but I worked through the night so...

[DanTex]

111. I'm not denying that Stein could "make a difference in the world."

Handing the election to Trump would make a huge difference in the world, in the same way that Nader made a huge difference in the world when he helped bring Bush to power.

But, other than that, what could she possibly accomplish? The answer is nothing. Getting 3% of the vote as opposed to 1% isn't going to do anything for the policies she claims to care about, on the contrary, by helping the GOP get elected, it will bring about the opposites of those policies. There is no link whatsoever between her presidential campaign and actual progress on green party issues.

[Orsino]

100. Votes we can't win don't have to be anyone else's fault but our own. n/t

[The Second Stone]

20. Stein seems genuinely unhinged and goofy

She would be harmless if she were not going to take half a percent of the vote.

Some of the Green types, in no particular order

1. Those who think Dems are worse than Reps because Dems keep the status quo from going revolution by incremental changes
2. Those who want to go socialist (Greens are socialists IMO)
3. Those happy to get money from Reps who want to get that 1 percent away from Dems.


My prediction is that the electoral college win projections will continue to narrow, but stablize at about 65/35 percentage chance for Clinton. This will be an utter disaster for Reps, and the might not recover.

I have no inside info, just based on a loose estimate.

[KMOD]

52. okey dokey

Thanks.

[beachbum bob]

66. the "greens" ego are more important than America's wellbeing and why sacrificing american lives

really doesn't matter to them.....they are as far-out of touch with america as the most rampant teapartier

[Demsrule86]

71. When I think back on the horror

of the 2008 meltdown where people lost their life savings, jobs and even the will to live...suicide rates for those above 50 is very high...often I am struck by the role the greens played in this mess by helping to elect Bush. If 2008 or even the great depression did not bring about socialism or communism...whatever you call it...what would it take? It will never happen. Thus all the greens do is help the GOP enact their fascist agenda. I can't stand any of them. As I have often said the Greens and Nader are dead to me. I will never forgive them 2008.

[yardwork]

159. Very good point.

I remember further back. The great socialist revolution didn't happen in 1968 or 1970 either, despite concerted efforts on the part of certain people. Instead, we got Nixon for two terms.

And in 1980 we got Reagan, thanks in part to third party runs supported by the same type of know it alls.

[Demsrule86]

173. Exactly right...we never get anywhere by voting Green or third party.

They are spoilers.

[1StrongBlackMan]

76. Posted to for later.

[NorthCarolina]

84. They function like a GOP Super PAC? That makes me wonder, exactly how different,

operational wise, are Democratic Super PACs from GOP Super PACs seeing as they both raise large sums of money from many of the same sources?

[Bluenorthwest]

93. What a detrimental attitude this OP expresses. In 2008 I saw Michelle Obama make

a bee line to a guy in a Green Party Tee shirt here in town, none of this 'You are a GOP PAC crap, she walked up, introduced herself and explained why a Green should vote for Barack, cross over and vote Democratic. That seems like a far wiser approach to me. By election day, I would occasionally see 'Green Dog Democrat' tee shirts around town. Strikes me that the Obamas did that whole thing the right way. Two terms and all that, hard to argue with really.....

[DanTex]

95. Jill Stein is the one with the detrimental attitude. Strange that you don't have a problem

with her attacking the only human on the planet who can prevent Trump from becoming president. I wonder why that is.

Speaking of Obama, Jill Stein just called him "Bush on steroids". I guess you don't find that "detrimental" either.

I'm not the first lady. She can't come out and call the Greens what they are, it would be bad politics. But I'm not a politician, so I can.

[Bluenorthwest]

99. When Michelle did what I recounted she was not First Lady either. Just smart.

I am telling you that I favor the Obama method over your own. Why you feel obliged to cast shade upon me for liking Michelle's methods I do not know.

I'm saying your attitude is detrimental to winning votes for Democrats. I am commenting on your verbiage here. I don't care for it and offered an example of that which I see as wiser politics. From Mrs Obama.

If your goal is to win more votes, this is a bad choice.
What are your objectives with this OP? What do you hope to obtain with this sort of rhetoric?

[DanTex]

101. How do you feel about the Stein method? Do you think it is detrimental to Democrats and helpful

to Trump?

[Arazi]

121. Obvious ignore of BNW's questions. Rude

[DanTex]

124. Nope, BNW is ignoring my questions. Why are Green defenders afraid to answer these basic questions?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

105. It provides a scapegoat when the Democratic Party loses.

The solution for the Democratic Party is to lure the left by moving to the left.

[Demsrule86]

145. They caused the loss in 2000.

If they were not there, Gore would have won with enough votes to prevent the GOP from stealing the election. If the Dems move to far left, they will lose just like the Greens who never win...if they are so left...why is that? They act as spoilers.

[Gothmog]

148. Without the Greens, we would not have the Iraq war, Citizens United and the gutting of the VRA

I am living with the effects of the gutting of the voting rights act. The Iraq war and the SCOTUS opinions in Citizens United and Shelby County (the opinion gutting the Voting Rights Act) are all due to the Green Party

[Demsrule86]

172. Exactly right

The Greens caused all of this shite...can you imagine what would happen if the Greens managed to help Trump get elected....we might not survive.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

151. Only if you assume that they would have voted for Gore.

They were Greens and voted for their party. How about the Democrats who sat it out or voted for Bush?

[progree]

155. All 97,488 votes for Nader were from Florida Green Party members??

[font color= blue]>>They were Greens and voted for their party.<<[/font]

All 97,488 of them? I don't think so.

Officially, Bush beat Gore by 537 votes in Florida. Nader got 97,488 votes in Florida. {1}

Even accepting Nader’s dubious claims that,

"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."

that still means a net of 13%, or 12,665, more votes would have gone to Gore than to Bush. {2}

This one has 21% would have voted for Bush, and 47% would have voted for Gore, for a 26% gap, or 25,347 more votes for Gore than Bush {3}

{1} http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0876793.html
{2} http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Nader_presidential_campaign,_2000
{3} http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
` http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nader-to-crash-dems-party/

Yes, yes, I know there were a number of reasons Bush beat Gore -- all of them were essential to Bush's victory (if even one of these elements had been missing, Bush would have lost),

e.g. Kathleen Harris purging the voting lists of supposed felons, Gore running a poor campaign, media dubbing Gore a serial liar (Love Story and all that), the butterfly ballots giving Gore's votes to Buchanan, the U.S. Supreme Court stopping the recount -- yada. But it doesn't wipe out the fact that even with all that, Gore would have won if not for Nader drawing thousands more votes away from Gore than from Bush.

As for the Supreme Court -- if the vote count on election night and the days and weeks after the election had put Gore ahead by 12,000 or 25,000 votes instead of down by 500 or 600, it would unlikely have gone to the Supreme Court; and even less likely that they would have declared the 12,000 or 25,000 vote count loser to be the winner of Florida's electoral votes.

[Demsrule86]

179. It is not just about Florida

Although had Nader not been on the ticket Gore would have won. It is about the year they spent saying Bush and Gore were the same...and that Dems and the Gop were the same...Bush sure showed that was not true...you would think the Greens would have learned their lesson, but they never do.

[Demsrule86]

171. No. Democrats voted for Greens ...just like this year

Those who should know better suggest that...And it will create a Trump presidency if enough listen...the Greens suck...they never accomplish anything. They actually help the GOP get their agenda passed when the Greens cause Democrats to lose as they did in 2000. United can be laid at their door.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

167. I think that's misleading to the point of being wrong.

It is true to say that if the Greens had not run then Gore would have won, so I agree with the body of the post.

But the title is misleading. A great many factors contributed to Bush's victory, any one of which would have put Gore in the White House if changed, because the margin was so narrow; the Greens were far from the most significant causal factor, so stating baldly "they caused is" is deeply misleading.

[Demsrule86]

170. Gore would have won

If the Greens and their supporters had not spent a year running Gore down and saying he was the same as Bush...also...no question Nader cost us Florida...it was close because he ran and this allowed the GOP to steal it. The Greens are dead to me.

[Gothmog]

108. Great OP-the Green Party is an arm of the GOP

Nader is an idiot who gave us George W Bush, Citizens United and the gutting of the Voting Rights Act. Nader and the Green Party are branches of the GOP

[TheFarseer]

114. Come on, that's just not true.

The Greens help keep the Democrats to the left by offering an alternative for those who see the Dems as not progressive enough. Without this alternative, the Dems would likely drift further right. Frankly, most Green voters are pretty radical, don't understand compromise and wouldn't vote if there was no Green party. It's the Dems job to make sure there is at least some difference between the Ds and the Rs to keep reasonable people from making a protest vote with the Greens.

[DanTex]

116. The problem is that their method of moving the Dems left

involves making it more likely for Republicans to win elections. Nader openly admitted that he would rather see Bush win, because it would force the Democrats to move left to distinguish themselves more from the Republicans.

Did it work? No. The Dems after 2000 were the same as before 2000. All Dems with presidential ambitions at the time voted in favor of the Iraq War. So the whole "move left or else you'll get Naderized" strategy failed completely.

It did bring us some things though. It brought us the Iraq War, the Bush Tax cuts, Justices Alito and Roberts, the near-collapse of the economy, etc.

This year, we have Jill Stein going around arguing that Hillary is at best equally bad as Trump, and in some ways even worse. The same kind of rhetoric as Nader was spewing. And that's just crazy talk. Even Noam Chomsky has said he would vote for Hillary to keep the GOP out.

Yeah, some Green party voters are radicals who wouldn't vote if not for the Green party. But a lot would otherwise vote Dem. The Green Party took 0.7% in 1996, 2.7% in 2000, and down to around 0.1% in 2004 and 2008. So the number of consistent Green voters is tiny. The bulk of the difference is people who vote Green sometimes and Dem others.

You can see from those numbers that 2000 was a wake-up call, that most Green voters in 2000 didn't vote Green again once they saw how truly awful the Republicans are. But when a Dem is in office, people start to forget, and a Green party demagogue is there to rile them up with the same lies about how the parties are no different.

[TheFarseer]

120. You make some solid points in paragraph 2 & 5

Personally, I never want it to get to the point where I'm just voting for a letter. Looking back on it, it seems silly to say Al Gore is no different than GWB and yet I think you can make a case that on a few issues, Hill and Trump are the same and on a few, Trump is more liberal. It makes me wonder if this will also seem silly in 16 years. I think hardcore Greens would say they just need to "yell louder" so the Dems will be forced to move left or lose way too many votes but like you said, it just doesn't seem to work. Jill Stein would probably be more effective running for Congress.

[DanTex]

122. I don't see any real case for what you describe here:

"on a few issues, Hill and Trump are the same and on a few, Trump is more liberal." The only way that you can make that case is if "few" means something like 1 out of 1000. In fact, GWB and Gore are closer than Clinton and Trump. Here's my argument.

The great majority of the issues, Trump is way out to the right. Immigration, all race issues (including law enforcement and prison reform), tax policy, healthcare, abortion, environment, church and state, torture, nuclear weapons, education, unions, minimum wage, gun control. That's a lot of very important issues. And that's off the top of my head. Also, there are other issues which were never even "issues" before Trump. Trump has threatened to curtail the freedom of the press. He has also boasted about using the presidency to avenge personal grudges.

One counterargument, really the only one, is: Trump is just saying things, he won't actually do that. People make this argument, and it strikes me as really bizarre. The argument is, he's pretending to be a racist authoritarian, but if he's actually elected he'll do....what exactly? What makes anyone think he won't govern as a racist authoritarian? He once tweeted a picture of himself eating a taco salad with the caption "I love latinos". He's praised Putin and Kim Jong Un. He's obviously a clinical narcissist. He's obviously racist. He obviously thinks he is the greatest person who ever lived, and whatever he decides is the greatest decision ever. Where does the idea that the "real Donald Trump" is better than the character he plays on TV come from?

Besides, if one is to argue that Trump is just playing a role with all the horrible things he says, what makes anyone thing he's genuine about the supposed issues where Trump is "more liberal" as you put it. Let me address these.

The first is trade. Trump is supposedly "more liberal" by being against TPP, whereas Hillary was in favor of TPP before she was against it. It should be noted that Trump is on the record being a big proponent of free trade deals less than five years ago. His clothing lines are manufactured in low-wage nations, and his buildings are built and staffed by foreign underpaid workers.

The main complaints that liberals have about FTAs is that they don't protect worker's rights, they don't protect the environment, and the enable more corporate power. But Trump against all those things. He wants to lower the minimum wage, and he's anti-union (at present, one of his Vegas casinos is actively fighting unionization). He thinks global warming is a hoax. And he is enamored with corporate power. For him, putting "America first" means making rich Americans richer, and plundering the resources of countries we invade.

The other issue where people say he's "more liberal" is on war. First off, Trump is resolutely against the Iran deal, one of the great foreign policy accomplishments of the Obama administration. He has threatened to use nuclear weapons in the middle east. He wants to ignore the Geneva conventions and implement torture "much worse" than waterboarding, and he wants to assassinate family members of suspected terrorists as an intimidation measure. He claims to have been against the Iraq War from the beginning, but this has been proven to be a lie. And he's also spoken in favor of actually stealing oil from nations that we invade.

On both trade and war, if we take Trump at his word, or even at 10% of his word, he is way way way to the right of Hillary. He is off in insane territory. The only argument that Trump is "more liberal on some issues" than Hillary is that he doesn't mean anything he says. But like I said, if that's the argument, it means trusting the argument of a hateful racist narcissist.


So anyway, this is the problem I have with people like Jill Stein who try to act like Hillary and Trump are the same, or even that Hillary is worse. It's totally wrong, and it's dishonest. It's not even close. Say what you will about Hillary, she has her faults, but she's a thousand times better than Trump.

[Gothmog]

119. And yet Karl Rove funded this party in 2000

Why would Karl Rove fund Nader and the Green party? It was not because they were good for the GOP

[Maru Kitteh]

142. K&R.

[BobbyDrake]

149. We should start calling them the Green Operative Party, so the initials match. nt

[Her Sister]

162. Green Operative Party ! Yes yes yes!

[Demsrule86]

177. Yes we should they are in bed together

and have similar goals...to destroy the Democratic Party. Neither the Green Operative Party or the Grand old Party can govern of course.

[Gothmog]

150. Cornel West is supporting Stein and the Green Party

I strongly disagree with West on all of his positions. I was offended by West's grandstanding on the Democratic Platform committee

[glennward]

157. I believe that he and Nina and Susan will be out campaining for Jill in a few weeks. nt

[Peigan68]

160. Nina? I guess she's decided to give up any future she might have had in the Democratic party

For Jill Stein? Okey dokey.

[Spazito]

152. Well said!

[Her Sister]

161. Green Party = Hate Democratic Party + Hard Hard-ON for GOP !

[quaker bill]

163. Bad premise

"$100M won't buy 1% of the electorate away from Hillary, but Jill Stein might"

The notion that these votes default to Hillary if Jill Stein is not there is simply foolish. The people I know who will vote Green were never voting for Hillary. A good number might have voted for Bernie, but roughly 0% have any interest in voting for Hillary. You might get a few of them if Hillary picks Elizabeth Warren as VP, but not that many, and most will simply see this as Warren selling out. The risk inherent in making Hillary the nominee is and always was, more or less no votes from that direction. To the extent you or anyone ever thought otherwise, you were confused about the choice you were making.

No, they are not Republicans, or Libertarians, though some are anarchists, for the most part they are simply not into Hillary. You may find this inexplicable and that is fine. It is what it is and the quicker you learn that you aren't changing it the better for all of us.

Fighting the Greens makes them bigger. Ignoring them and building a governing majority without them is a far better choice. Obama ignored them and they got 0.36% of the vote, we would be best off to pay attention to that example.

[DanTex]

164. "The people I know who will vote Green were never voting for Hillary..."

Well, gee, that settles it. Please.

Yeah, there are some far-left nuts who would never have anything to do with the Democrats. They are something like 0.1% to 0.3% of the electorate which turns out for the Greens consistently.

Beyond that, the Greens take votes from the Dems. The last time there was a significant Green turnout was in 2000, and Nader's votes came primarily from people who would otherwise vote Dem and voted Dem in the past. Like I said in the OP, I don't expect Jill Stein to reach Nader's numbers, but she will get more than she did in 2012, and those extra votes will be coming from Democrats.

[quaker bill]

165. I worked for Al Gore in FL in 2000

I still think the notion that Greens steal from Dems is bogus. Whether Jill Stein is there or not, these folks are not voting for Hillary. You do not have to approve of this, or even believe it, but I would strongly recommend a plan to win that works without them, as at very best, they are very unreliable Dem voters.

The people who voted for Nader in 2000 were not voting for Al Gore even if Nader was not there. Al Gore simply had too much of the Clinton flavor with him. The concept that you will get a different result with Hillary is simply silly.

We have had this debate here a million times now. I have usually taken your side. My point has always been that out of the 77,000 of them, at least 540 might have voted Dem if Nader was not there, I never thought it was much more than that, maybe 1000 with a tailwind, but that would have changed the result. We had not ever and have not since had a result close enough that any third party candidate has made a difference.

If I was a Green, I would love a good fight with the Dems as it would make the party seem relevant. I am pretty sure that they aspire to be newsworthy. I say marginalize them by paying no attention to them at all and just winning the election without them. This is the most aggressive thing you can do.

[progree]

168. Exit polls, according to Nader, show that 38% of his supporters would have voted for Gore

if Nader wasn't on the ballot.

Another exit poll found 47% would have voted for Gore.

Please see post #155.

[cosmicone]

166. Anyone who votes Green is a Republican sympathizer n/t

[hrmjustin]

169. Those who think the Greens are our allies are wrong.

Thry are our competitors and in no way shape or form our allies.

[CrowCityDem]

181. They matter because Jill Stein gives progressives a bad name.