We can win & hold the Green vote down with a positive campaign...we don't need to be McCarthyite

[Ken Burch]

Last edited Sat Jul 16, 2016, 01:32 AM - Edit history (2)

Obviously, the key task is unifying all progressive voters behind HRC in the fall...the only voters in play at this moment are voters to HRC's left. There are no voters at all to the right of HRC that we will ever have any chance to win over, and we don't NEED voters to HRC's right. This isn't 1992. The country won't ever be that far to the right again.

It would be a bad idea for anyone on the left to vote Green presidentially or write-in Bernie(something Bernie specifically doesn't WANT anyone to do). I agree with everyone else here on that point.

My only point of dispute is on the most effective way to do that.

The way to win voters over from the Greens, from writing-in Bernie against his wishes, or from staying hom is to point up how much more progressive the Sanders movement has made the party's platform, how much more influence that campaign has had in opening up the party to voices previously silenced, and how many more possibilities of change exist from working with us now than did in some years in the past.

A campaign that doesn't do that...that focuses instead on demonizing and anathemizing the Greens and others on the left, that tries to turn the Greens into this year's CPUSA, will drive people away from us, will drive turnout down, and will shore up the determination of those who don't trust us from a progressive direction to continue to stay away from us.

Hope wins...greenbaiting and redbaiting and accusations of conspiracy with the right doesn't. Trying that again is trying what totally failed in 2000. If the tactic fails once, it will always fail.

Trump, and only Trump, is the threat. Trump, and only Trump, has the potential of defeating us and then possibly setting up a fascist white-supremacist state.

You beat someone like that by spreading hope...not by trying to browbeat people into conformity.

We can win ON THE MERITS.

Trust that.

Let's get out there and do that.

[seabeyond]

1. Again?

[Hortensis]

58. No kidding. Now we're "McCarthyite?"

What can anyone expect from millions upon millions of Democrats who chose Hillary, even like, respect and admire her?

The fact is, many of those millions have no idea the Green Party even exists, but those who do see Stein's 3% in the polls and are not concerned. That includes the many millions who voted for Bernie are are now solidly behind Hillary--something like 85% of them and climbing.

[Demsrule86]

232. They love the Greens on the other site.

I think the Greens are useless and to vote for them is a kick in the teeth to your fellow man...like LGBTQ, women, minorities ...etc. It is an incredibly selfish act to vote third party and help Trump with five SCOTUS picks in the next term which could do long-term damage to this country...probably worse than what Reagan did.

[Hortensis]

235. Agree for sure that today's Greens are useless except as a way

of expressing rejection of the rest of the parties. But, hey, that makes them valuable to some. Lol.

Seriously, it's a shame. Our nation really needs a large, effective movement focused on examining all policy through the lens of environmental as well as economic and social realities, but the influx of extremists, malcontents, the earnestly clueless, and just general ding-dongs overwhelmed competent members, and the party started decompensating even while it was forming.

As for people voting as they wish? I guess I'd be more excited if we were losing more votes to them. But they are actually very few and we're not. Anyway, most of these fringe people were never the Democrats' to win or keep.

[JTFrog]

100. Not very subtle either.

Chumming the waters with these hollow strawmen everyday seriously makes DU suck.

[seabeyond]

102. Not subtle at all. Which is even more insulting, lol. Nt

[snooper2]

127. We are here to MAKE DU GREAT AGAIN!

LOL

[NurseJackie]

178. It's tiresome, isn't it? Besides ...

... why would any smart candidate chase after a mere 1% of "fringe" voters at the risk of losing 10% mainstream voters?

There's no need for Hillary to try to romance and woo voters who'd never vote for her anyway.

This is all so silly. I wish it would stop.

[NCTraveler]

2. The way to do it is to focus on Clintons progressive platform. Nt

[Ken Burch]

13. The progressive platform we worked together to build.

But yes, that's it.

Accusing the Greens of knowingly being part of a RW condspiracy is

A) Unprovable on the level of fact(how do WE know what the Greens know, or what their intent is);

B) Gives them the chance to play the victim and gives them the chance to gain sympathy votes they don't deserve.

Why do what failed in 2000?

[NCTraveler]

15. I think the greens have a solid platform.

I don't think they are a tool of the right. I do think Stein is such a political moron that she gives people the right to question if she is.

[Ken Burch]

19. I'm pretty much with you on that. n/t.

[The Second Stone]

31. I disagree. The Greens are a mix of willing and ignorant fools

and amply demonstrate that every time they defend their past support for Nader. Every vote matters.

That many of them are completely ignorant of their status as tools isn't an excuse. We all have to bear the consequences of what each other do with our votes.

[sweetloukillbot]

37. In Arizona a few cycles ago they were a tool of the right

A handful of Greens ran against Democratic seats in the State House and Senate. They were previously registered Republican operatives who changed registration within a week of the deadline to file to run, received financial and organizational assistance from seated Republicans in the state house, did absolutely no campaigning and cost good Democrats their seats by siphoning votes.

I'm not saying that Jill Stein is a stalking horse for Trump, I don't think she is at all, but that is a Republican ratfucking technique.

[Hortensis]

65. Interesting. They strike me as in meltdown

over conflict between purpose and power. Bernie is environmentally concerned, but unquestionably he's very concern-lite compared to their original base. That didn't stop the Green Party leadership from trying to turn their party over to him, though.

[Demsrule86]

167. The Greens

promote the two parties are the same meme and are spoilers.

[Gothmog]

93. I live in the real world

The Green Party are aiding and assisting Trump

[TwilightZone]

3. "the key task is unifying all progressive voters behind HRC "

"Obviously, the key task is unifying all progressive voters behind HRC in the fall...the only voters in play at this moment are voters to HRC's left. There are no voters at all to the right of HRC that we will ever have any chance to win over, and we don't NEED voters to HRC's right. This isn't 1992. The country won't ever be that far to the right again. "

There is so much wrong with that paragraph that I don't even know where to begin.

[seabeyond]

5. Yes, lots of insult to Clinton. But repeated Ops about leaving Stein alone,

and allowing Sanders all progressive ownership, saving the Democratic party. I am so tired of this shit.

[AgingAmerican]

7. And that's what it comes across as

Revenge for the primaries from the winning side.

[seabeyond]

8. Nope.

[AgingAmerican]

10. See post #5

[Maru Kitteh]

143. What primary was Stein in? The Green party is not an "ally" @ the primaries have NOT to do with it.

Did I mention fuck Ralph Nader? Yeah. Fuck Ralph Nader.

[AgingAmerican]

144. IT's an attempt to bait former Sanders supporters into hides

Propagated by the same folks that did same during the primaries, and obviously in coordination. Most likely this comes from David Brock, is political suicide, and it has failed.

Hatred and anger poison a persons ability to reason.

[Maru Kitteh]

149. You seem to be stuck. The primaries are over. Stein wasn't in them. Over 85% of SBS

supporters are now with Hillary including BERNIE SANDERS.

Other than Stein's pathetic attempt to USE Senator Sanders as a cheap stunt to gain any kind of media coverage, SBS has nothing to do with that incompetent quack. He's smarter than that.

If you don't like people saying bad things about Jill Stein, I think you should take it up with Skinner. Be sure and tell him about this fixation you have with Brock. It's good to get things like that out.

In the discussion thread: Are we allowed to criticize Jill Stein? [View all]

Response to rbrnmw (Original post)

Wed Jul 13, 2016, 11:37 AM

Star Member Skinner (62,247 posts)
1. Of course.

The DU Terms of Service make clear that we support the Democratic nominee. Presidential elections in the United States are a zero-sum game in which other candidates must lose in order for the Democratic candidate to win. We are competing with Jill Stein and Gary Johnson and Donald Trump in our effort to win the presidency. They are our opponents.

[AgingAmerican]

150. I don't expect any acknowlegment

From someone engaging in it.

[Demsrule86]

233. What the dislike of the Greens?

I have despised the Greens since 2000 and 2004 made me double down. The primary had nothing to do with my dislike of Greens...and people who win have no need for revenge... I have no respect for any who vote Green, and the Greens are dead to me for all time.

[Ken Burch]

14. Nobody is claiming that Bernie is the source of all progressive things.

And it doesn't insult HRC or anyone to give the Sanders campaign credit for influencing the platform. In case you've missed it, HRC has increased her lead in most polls since the platform was adopted.

The war is over. You've got no reason to be holding a grudge against Bernie. He HAD to run. There was no alternative.

[seabeyond]

59. Sanders is PART of the reason the platform is so left. Clitnon is part of the reason the platform

is so left.

Clinton is a strong progressive and her policy was as much of a reason ass the platform moving so far left as Sanders especially as she is the winner, and had more influence.

This is what I argue with you. Again in your post, you imply Sanders is the sole reason the platform moved left. He is not the sole reason.

Sanders campaign has painted Clinton and the Democratic party as little better than Republicans. And by these implications that Sanders was the savior of the Democratic party, it is reinforcing his false definition of Clinton and the Democratic Party. You know what you are doing. I know what you are doing. Sanders knows what he is doing, with his language.

[Ken Burch]

66. They both deserve credit. Bernie gives her credit.

All Bernie is doing is reassuring his supporters that what they did made a difference. You can't really object to that, for God's sakes.

What Bernie is doing is to help us win the election. He's not hurting HRC. And she is ok with his approach.

There is no hidden agenda here, no nefariousd plot.

And no one is insulting the nominee.

Why can't you be happy that you got the person you wanted nominated?

[seabeyond]

70. I read your post below stating that we are NOW a progressive party. Insulting to all of us.

I can really object to that redefining and insult, you betcha.

[Ken Burch]

138. It insults no one to say that activism made the party better.

Don't you want this to be a party people can change from below?

In the Sixties, the freedom and antiwar movements changed the party from below and, to some degree from outside(as of 1960, only about 50% of AA voters were registered Dems-a lot of them weren't allowed to be registered anything). So did the farmworkers' movement and Latino and Native American activists...all for the better.

In the Seventies, feminists changed the party from below-a lot of them started out as independent leftists. So did the first generation of LGBTQ activists.

Healthcare activists and Occupy(some of whom were Democrats, some of whom were not) changed the party during the Obama era.

BLM changed it this year, heroically.

Bernie and his supporters(a lot of whom are long-time Dems, others of whom will commit to us long-time if we make them welcome) played a role in putting economic justice(whose achievement is crucial to winning all other justice struggles and protecting those victories from backlash politics)on the party's radar.

HRC and her supporters played a large role, as did long-time Dems who weren't tied to any particular candidate).

There's credit enough to pass around.

I praise all who played a role.

[seabeyond]

141. I have clearly made my point. Obviously you do not care. I am not going round and round.

[Hortensis]

142. With you, Seabeyond. It was an insult and

meant as one. Every day more insults. Patterns of hostile behavior against Democrats and the Democratic Party should be cause for review.

[Ken Burch]

145. And I just proved you had me wrong and that I wasn't attacking HRC or long-time Dems

(btw, I AM a long-time Dem).

It's a good thing for activists from below to have an effect.

True change can only start from below.

OK?

[NCTraveler]

175. Sums it up well. Nt

[Silver_Witch]

179. Interesting take N/T

[Ken Burch]

20. I didn't insult HRC at all.

It's not as though the only to show respect to her and her supporters is to treat the Sanders campaign as a pointless failure.

[seabeyond]

63. Per the post I just posted about your insistence creating Clinton as that far right, yes....

That is all about insults creating and defining Clinton as just so damn far right that anyone more the right won't vote. That paragraph pounding in the fact that Clinton can only reach to the left of her is exactly what I am talking about and why you and Sanders does not get away with owning her and the Democratic progressive policy. You do not get to create a false caricature.

[Demsrule86]

57. I can't stand Stein.

All Greens are are spoilers...they accomplish nothing.

[GreenPartyVoter]

4. Greens who feel like they have to vote against Trump via Clinton are already in the fold. I doubt

you will get many more, especially without Bernie on the ticket.

[AgadorSparticus]

154. Bernie doesn't need to be on the ticket. He will be on the road stumping for her soon.

And with that, they will net all they can get minus the small minority that won't budge. It will all be but a done deal.

[AgingAmerican]

6. The 'negative reinforcement' we have witnessed thus far is akin to political suicide

Calling potential allies, 'Stupid', and 'Loonies', and 'idiots' might make people feel temporary emotional gratification, but it is foolish as a GOTV policy.

And it has been coordinated. Most likely by David Brock, who seems to know nothing else. Or perhaps it's from Karl Rove.

[frazzled]

9. What voters?

The Green candidate got 0.35% of the vote last election. That's one-third of one percent. Let the deluded vote for whomever they want. None but the seriously deluded are buying into Jill Stein's umpteenth candidacy for the umpteenth office she will not win.

So let's just kind of ignore it.

[AgingAmerican]

11. Which makes it all so puzzling

...the pettiness of it all

[Ken Burch]

18. I agree that we should ignore it to some degree, but we can also win by making a positive case

for our ticket and our platform.

It's only Trump we need to do attack politics on.

[larkrake]

113. nothing has been "typical" or normal this cycle. I would watch all comers

[joshcryer]

12. We should continue appealing to the core of the party.

Not wingers who depress the vote in midterms.

[Ken Burch]

16. The vote isn't depressed in the primaries by the left(btw, I thought YOU were on the left).

The vote is depressed when the national party runs terrible campaigns(as it did in 1994, 2002, 2010, and 2014).

It's up to the party to keep voters engaged and motivated to vote.

We can't just expect people to turn out no matter what.

[Gothmog]

34. The Green Party is part of the GOP establishment's plans to hurt Democrats

Rove and company funded the Greens in the past and will be doing so again this cycle

[joshcryer]

40. During midterms "radicals" poo poo the Dems to depress the vote.

Say Dems are no better, etc.

[LexVegas]

17. Like Cornel West? nt

[LexVegas]

22. ....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8011443

[Ken Burch]

23. Hadn't heard that when I posted

On the bright side, that guarantees she won't cut into the black vote this fall.

[Gothmog]

95. West is not a Democrat and I found his participation in platform committee to be a stunt

West's statement on the platform committee when he abstains were all about west

[larkrake]

114. Sorry, I disagree with you. His morals are impeccable

[seabeyond]

123. The was the greatest disappointment him running on integrity and so often I saw the fail. Nt

[Gothmog]

125. I strongly disagree with your analysis

West is not a nice or moral person and West is out for one person which is West

[BobbyDrake]

24. Keep pretending the whole country is left/right and you'll always lose to the center.

The Greens are a useless minority of voters whose influence means nothing.

There's never any appeasing them short of full capitulation to their demands, so they can go enjoy their self-imposed exile in the political wilderness. Packs some Snickers, though, cause they're going to be there a while.

[Ken Burch]

25. We don't need to appease OR attack them.

HRC can't gain any votes anywhere by sounding McCarthyite about them.

We should attack Trump and sell OUR ticket and platform on the merits.

BTW...the way to win whatever "centrists" there might be is to look effective and practical. HRC has a patent on that. She doesn't need to make a show of attacking people on the left.

And nobody thinks Trump is in the center.

[Gothmog]

33. How long before Karl Rove starts running ads for Stein and the Green Party

The ads Rove ran for Sanders helped keep Sanders in the race and Rove will be using the same tactics for Stein http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/02/23/bernie-sanders-s-conservative-fanboys.html

American Crossroads—founded by former Bush adviser Karl Rove—and several other conservative-backed super PACs have spent the last month intentionally fueling the Bern, but their zeal has more to do with an effort to weaken Hillary Clinton, whom they still see as the likely Democratic nominee and harder to defeat in the general election.

In the wake of Clinton’s close Nevada win, Crossroads claimed credit for driving her numbers down in favor of Sanders.
“American Crossroads and Bernie Sanders helped Nevada caucus-goers see right through Hillary Clinton’s manufactured zeal on immigration reform after spewing virulent Trump-like rhetoric—and that one-two punch shaved Clinton’s 50-point lead a year ago to a slim, single digit win,” Steven Law, Crossroads CEO and president, said in a statement.

Crossroads is one of several groups that has released ads that have been aimed at branding Sanders as the only true progressive in the race—a strategy the Vermont senator’s campaign also embraces.

[emulatorloo]

184. Ken, you're claiming HRC is attacking the Green Party?

I have seen nothing of the sort.

[Ken Burch]

187. No. I'm not talking about HRC at all.

She wouldn't go there.

And I'm not saying don't criticize the Greens or Stein...What I'm saying is don't get so aggressive about it that you end up just pissing people off rather than winning them over.

[AgingAmerican]

26. There is no center

Last edited Thu Jul 14, 2016, 11:07 PM - Edit history (2)

The center being areas where Republicans and Democrats agree. There are no areas where Democrats and Republicans agree, so there is no center. Thus, if you 'target the center' you target nothing.

[pnwmom]

43. There certainly IS a center. Middle of the road voters who sometimes vote D

and sometimes vote R, and think the politicos on either end are too extreme.

[AgingAmerican]

160. 'Centrist' means areas where the Democrats and Republicans agree

Please list a few of the issues on which Republicans and Democrats are in agreement.

Thanks in advance

[pnwmom]

161. No,it's about people. Individual PEOPLE can be in the center.

They like some aspects of the Dem agenda and some of the GOP. Which ones vary with the individual voter, and their party choices can vary depending on which issues have priority at that point in time.

For example, a centrist voter might be strongly for Social Security but against abortion, and have other views also split between the parties. That person has to decide in every election which of his views will hold sway over the others.

While the party platforms have gotten more and more extreme, with little shared ground between them, individual voters -- particularly in the center -- remain as complicated and conflicted as ever.

[AgadorSparticus]

111. There is absolutely a center. It is a political gradient.

Democrats and Republican parties may not agree on much, but people who are democrats don't always agree with their party on every single issue. Same goes for the republicans. The world is not black and white. Never was and never will be.

[Vote2016]

27. Why do we want to "hold the Green vote down"? If we lose, it will be to the Republican party; not

the Green or Libertarian or Constitutional parties.

We should recognize the Green party as an ally.

We should worry about the Republican party instead.

[BobbyDrake]

52. If we're "allies" someone should tell the Greens so their nominee stops attacking us.

Jill Stein and her ego-trip aren't acting like any kind of ally I'd want on my side.

[Maru Kitteh]

151. Take it up with Skinner. Greens are most certainly NOT our "allies."

In the discussion thread: Are we allowed to criticize Jill Stein? [View all]

Response to rbrnmw (Original post)

Wed Jul 13, 2016, 11:37 AM

Star Member Skinner (62,247 posts)
1. Of course.

The DU Terms of Service make clear that we support the Democratic nominee. Presidential elections in the United States are a zero-sum game in which other candidates must lose in order for the Democratic candidate to win. We are competing with Jill Stein and Gary Johnson and Donald Trump in our effort to win the presidency. They are our opponents.

emphasis mine

[pnwmom]

162. We don't have a parliament, so the Greens are not allies, they're adversaries.

Every single vote to Jill Stein is a vote that didn't go to Hillary,

[MohRokTah]

28. I don't buy that.

Greens are as much my political enemies as Republicans.

[cosmicone]

29. Seriously? Does one need an alarm clock?

Greens take away votes from Democrats and are our enemy. They are a subsidiary of the Republican party and are funded by the Republicans.

[The Second Stone]

32. Exactly

And most of them are too dumb to know where their funding comes from.

[larkrake]

115. right, any creditable links?

[SunSeeker]

147. See post 30.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12512255418#post30

[Gothmog]

30. Why did Karl Rove fund the Green Party in 2000?

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

[Ken Burch]

60. Because Rove's a cynical dickwad.

It doesn't mean all Greens are conspiring with him.

And its a form of denial for us to indulge the fantasy that there was no reason for the Greens to exist.

It was OUR party's attitude towards the left that caused the rise of the Greens.

Now, we've changed the party for the better.

We can win on the merits of our candidate and our platform.

[Demsrule86]

64. There is no reason for the Greens to exist;they accomplish nothing.

And those that voted Green bear part of the responsibility for the horror of Bush's presidency.

[Ken Burch]

67. In the Nineties, they were this country's only progressive party.

The Democrats were a conservative party then with no truly progressive positions(other than being barely pro-choice)at all.

This has changed for the better now.

[Demsrule86]

71. Really?

And what did they do other than go after President Clinton which pushed him further to the right? You guys act like the 90's were like now...they were not...Bill barely won...and only because of Ross Perot...there were not enough votes to elect a moderate candidate like Bill...a liberal had no shot . Bill never had a majority;think about that... now we saved the courts thanks to Bill with Ginsberg and Breyer...and if the Dems had not done their usual not voting move in 94 and stuck by the president (same as Obama in 2010)...it could have been very different...and the greens played a role in the 94 loss and in demoralizing the base in 2010.

[Ken Burch]

75. You can't just expect people to turn out no matter what.

The party at least needs to make an effort to reach out to the base and get them to vote.

The GOP wins midterms in years like '94, '02, '10 and '14 because the mobilize and fire up their base. In midterms, only the base matters. People who want the party to distance itself from its base never vote for us in midterms...they vote GOP or stay home.

[whatthehey]

130. The Democratic base is safe and will vote D

Nobody gives a crap what the tiny irrelevant base of the Green Party does. They shot their one and done treason wad in 2000 and will never get even that stolen level of credibility again until they actually build a party and not just try to play help-the-fascist every 4 years.

[Gothmog]

96. And the Greens gave us George W Bush, Citizens United and the gutting of the voting rights act

I am living with the effects of the consequences of the Green party in my state. Without the Greens, we would not have Citizens United and the voting rights act would not have been gutted.

[Gothmog]

91. And the Green Party took the money and benefited from this

The same thing happened this cycle with Rove running ads for Sanders and now Rove will be running ads for Stein. The Greens are happy to accept this support.

The premise of the OP is simply wrong in my opinion and ignores the real world. In the real world, the green party is a branch of the GOP and benefits and helps the GOP

[bigwillq]

35. I don't want to hold anyone down

Greens, DEMs, Rs, whatever. Folks should vote for who they want to. That's democracy. And I support democracy above anything else.

[MADem]

36. LOL--if the Greens get two percent of the vote, that'll be a shocker.

Jill Stein keeps hitting herself in the head with her incredibly stupid and vicious remarks.

Keep on keeping on, Jill--your last vestiges of dignity are in the process of being shredded!



I think Jill's craptastic conduct might be the impetus for four Greens to grab her by hands and feet, and toss her from their clubhouse. She really is trashing the brand. She's like Trump on the twitter, only angrier and with less clever snark. It's a low bar, you see.

[Arazi]

38. I don't support the disenfranchisement of anyone

[Expecting Rain]

39. My problem with this Ken...

is that even the leader of the CPUSA sees that the best way of defeating Donald Trump is by supporting Hillary Clinton.

Opposition to the Greens isn't about red-baiting, but about the seeming disingenuous of those elements more driven by Hillary-hate than by "progressive ideals."

Many who professed to practically worship Bernie a week ago are now calling him a traitor and a sell-out. Many of the same loudly proclaim they would rather see Trump win (and it isn't a close call).

Their support for Jill Stein is a conscious way to undermine Democratic victory in November, and installing the least progressive presidential candidate in American history.

This element is not "progressive." They are exploiting what looks like a left-ish positions to advance far right-wing goals.

We know who these folks are.

I get that there are sincere Greens. I don't agree with those people, but respect their right to their own positions. But those who'd intentionally set back 60 year of hard-won progress by deliberately subverting HRC with a vote split by Jill Stein to elect help elect Trump are not people I respect. Those people are not "progressives," and they are my political enemies.

[Ken Burch]

49. We're not going to win any of those people over by aggressively attacking the Greens...

...or by implying that everyone in that party is knowingly conspiring to help Trump.

(that kind of tactic is about as effective as videotaping yourself walking up to Nader campaigners while chanting "dooga dooga dooga" and then posting the footage on You Tube, as someone who used to post here once did).

We won't make those who are wreckers any less effective by using scorched-earth tactics.

And we won't impress anyone anywhere else on the spectrum by doing that, either.

My concern is also that some might be looking for a "Sistah Souljah" moment, and this isn't a year where that kind of politics can work for us.

We just need to go out and make a positive case for what's best about our party and our ticket.

[Demsrule86]

61. I don't agree...those voting for greens need to understand this

By voting Green, they are voting for Trump period end of story. And many of them are fine with that by the way...I don't want to have to kiss their derriere. It won't work. And greens cost us 2000 . I have no tolerance for them.They are not an option for anyone truly progressive. And Stein needs to be called out. She is an enabler of the GOP.

[Ken Burch]

69. Then it's enough to say "a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump" and leave it at that.

And since we have a much better platform than we did in 2000, it is much easier to make a case for voting Democratic beyond just saying "we have to keep the bad guy out". By itself, keeping the bad guy out isn't really much of anything.

We're at our best as a party when we run "for" things, rather than just "against" things.

[seabeyond]

72. Are you really now posting what we are alllowed to say, word for word? Do you not see how silly

and controlling, manipulative this is?

[Maru Kitteh]

97. Another site some people spend their time on tells them what to post, word for word.

While celebrating "freedom to speak their mind" - you know, as long as they hate Democrats. Hating Dems is an old habit for many, a new one for others, but strictly enforced.

Their own personal Jim Jones is a pretty skilled manipulator. Some of his most devoted are rather intent on staining our tablecloth with his Kool-Aid. Looks Green but tastes just like Republican.

[seabeyond]

99. They are in the process of defining Clinton as Republican, conservatives, insisting we go along with

it.

Not gonna happen.

[Demsrule86]

74. Keeping the bad guy out is critical

Pretending like Trump is like any other candidate is not true and is a very bad idea...the Greens always cause problems...off year is even worse...but this year they simply must be hammered if they try to help Trump. So I don't agree. Stein needs to be called out on every single thing that we can. I doubt singing Clinton's praises would move a single green voter; even though she is great and her accomplishments are numerous and impressive. But self-preservation might be a great motivator.

[Ken Burch]

77. And I'm all for attacking Trump...he DESERVES to be attacked.

We can beat him by attacking his hate speech AND mobilizing the country's rainbow majority and showing how much more progressive we've become.

A "you suck if you vote Green" campaign can't stop people from doing so. Voter don't embrace parties who attack them.

A "a vote for Green helps Trump-and we have made OUR party better-grassroots involvement made a difference" campaign, by contrast, can win people over(including people who might sit it out as well as people thinking of voting for minor parties) by showing respect to them and inviting them to be part of a big national project of change. There's nothing not to like.

[Sheepshank]

131. In Utah...the polls are a virtual tie

In your first paragraph you said, "... There are no voters at all to the right of HRC that we will ever have any chance to win over". Surely you must realize that is false on it's face. The media has given us plenty of examples of those that cannot and will not vote for Trump in favor of voting for Hillary.

Utah hasn't voted Dem for about 50 years, now it's a statistical tie.

When it's >this< close, every single vote cast for a Dem may make a historical outcome. Playing with and accommodating and encouraging Greens, takes precious votes away and yes, gives that opportunity to Trump for a win. EVERY person voting Green needs to understand who it is they are helping and the circumstances surrounding that vote for Trump.

Your OP and continued arguments throughout this thread, that Greens don't make a difference to Rep vs Dem outcome, is bunk. And I think you know it.

[Ken Burch]

136. Greens make a difference, but we have more effective ways of reducing the difference they make

than accusing their party of conspiring with Trump.

All we need to do is to say "Trump is a fascist who must be stopped and THIS party is more open to change and activism than in some past years".

I'm calling for smart politics, not appeasement.

[Maru Kitteh]

152. Stop telling people what to say Ken. It's presumptuous and arrogant.

And poorly received.

If you don't like people saying bad things about the Green party and Stein, take it up with Skinner.

In the discussion thread: Are we allowed to criticize Jill Stein? [View all]

Response to rbrnmw (Original post)

Wed Jul 13, 2016, 11:37 AM

Star Member Skinner (62,247 posts)
1. Of course.

The DU Terms of Service make clear that we support the Democratic nominee. Presidential elections in the United States are a zero-sum game in which other candidates must lose in order for the Democratic candidate to win. We are competing with Jill Stein and Gary Johnson and Donald Trump in our effort to win the presidency. They are our opponents.

emphasis mine

[Ken Burch]

153. I'm not ordering people to do anything. Just respectfully arguing against bad tactics.

And you misspoke when you implied upthread that I'm a secret Green supporter. You know perfectly well that I'm not.

[Maru Kitteh]

155. I can only know what you have shown. You have expended tremendous energy

Imploring posters not to criticize the Green party. You attempt to regulate the speech of Democrats who oppose Stein and the Green party.

You opine that posters should instead focus only upon extolling the virtues of HRC; and yet curiously enough, I do not remember such a post from you.

Don't be the last to take your own advice. Lead by example. Get out there and spend this energy as you feel compelled to direct others to do.

[Demsrule86]

171. People should be told the truth about Greens...a vote for a Green

is a vote for Trump.

[pnwmom]

41. There are plenty of women voters to the right of very progressive Hillary

who might vote for her over Trump.

Even political leaders like Susan Collins and Christine Wittman have said they're considering her. And millions of ordinary centrist voters -- white women -- are also considering voting for Hillary.

And there are many more voters in the middle than on the extreme far left who might vote for Stein.

[Ken Burch]

50. Voters in the center will vote for HRC simply because she is competent and a leader.

(or, in a year like this, simply because she seems sane).

They aren't going to be won over by scathing denunciations of a minor party.

And tactics that make us look like a big party trying to crush a small party are MORE likely to drive some of the voters you describe towards that minor party. It would remind them of the reasons they distrust HRC...it would make her supporters look like bullies in the service of the establishment, willing to use any means to gain power.

Our best strategy is to go after Trump hard on his ugliness of spirit and his incompetence, and appeal to the nation's sense of idealism and desire for further, deeper change by emphasizing how much more progressive our platform is and of how grassroots activists were able to improve it from below. The vast majority of people will rally to us(as they have been since the platform was adopted) if we run our fall campaign that way.

[pnwmom]

181. I haven't seen any of these "scathing denunciations" you claim to be worried about.

Just factual criticisms.

[emulatorloo]

186. The Party isn't attacking Greens. So please stop.

HRC is not attacking Greens, the Party is not attacking Greens.

[Maru Kitteh]

42. You are so very concerned about posts opposing the Green party.

It's like an obsession or something.

Don't worry yourself so much Ken. We can walk and chew gum, no problem. There are plenty of good news posts about Hillary, and as the Greens are an opposition party, there will continue to be posts exposing their Republican funding, their crackpot loon of a "nominee" and their general overall incompetence. Just like there will continue to be posts about Trump.

See? No worries.

[Ken Burch]

46. We have a strong enough case that we are now a progressive party.

We can prevent the Greens from throwing the election to Trump without getting into accusations of conspiracy.

We aren't going to gain any votes from any sector by arguing that the Greens aren't a legitimate party.

And you can't implement progressive policy after running a nasty campaign.

Why fight ugly when we don't have to?

We can win progressive votes on the merits.

We don't need Joe McCarthy tactics.

That's all I'm saying.

[seabeyond]

68. " that we are now a progressive party." This bullshit. That we are "now" a progressive party.

That is the garbage I am tired of hearing. We are the progressive party, was the progressive party and will be the progressive party. Sanders got a few of his stuff, because Clinton allowed it. Most of the platform is Democratic and Clinton shit that has nothing to do with Sanders.

How fuckin inslting to every one of us progressives, every one of us that have worked Democrtaic all our life.

[Ken Burch]

73. Bernie is a Democrat and his campaign has had nothing but positive effects.

I give HRC credit for being more progressive than Bill(we were a conservative party in the Nineties and we didn't need to be)but we're better for Bernie having run.

Why is it intolerable for you to admit Bernie's campaign made a difference? That it was worth it? To tell his supporters that their months of hard work mattered?

[seabeyond]

76. Sanders is an Independent and the negative is a constant pounding that the Democratic party is

the lesser of two evil, tweedle dee and tweedle dum, Republican lite, both parties the same.

MOST of the platform is Clinton's so if it is so damn progressive, give Clinton more credit than simple being left of Bill.

Right there, Clinton is within the top 15% of the most liberal in congress, adn your insult is .... she is left of Clinton and we were a conservative (right, republican) party.

Why is it intolerable for me to allow another false caricature created for Clinton to live? It is a lie. Clinton hass spent her life with progressive programs working and putting in the time and the money adn you are dismissing it. That is wrong. Democrats have spent their lives putting in the time and the work and you so casually dismiss it. That is wrong.

[Ken Burch]

79. I gave her credit in my last post.

You can't seriously be arguing that I can only give HRC credit if I deny Bernie and his supporters any credit?

I want us to win in the fall. To do that, people in both primary campaigns must be validated.

Give it a rest already, your candidate was nominated. And Bernie HAD to run.

[seabeyond]

82. You did not give her credit. You further insulted. Called us a conservative party and merely left

of Bill. Clinton is the TOP 15% progressive in congress. Voted 93% with Sanders. Just a tad right of Sanders.

You did not give Clinton shit. What is this Ken, that you think, knowingly insult and people do not hear it.

I won't give it a rest. The unfavorable is two and a half decades of lies about Clinton that we are suppose to accept. This is just more of that creation. No.... no rest here.

[seabeyond]

80. Thru out history, Women have been pushed aside while man owns her accomplishment. This is no

different.

Bernie's campaign made a difference?

A mere difference is not good enough for you and Sanders. It is all, like.... we are NOW a progressive party.

Clinton allowed some of Sanders in the platform. Clinton brought Sanders over while he fought all the way. Clinton created most off our progressive platform. Clinton is the one to bring over Sanders supporters. Clinton thru out the campaign has kept it grounded in policy not attack. Clinton is the one that has nurtured thru out the campaign.

Clinton has take the swing of the left voters and with her can do, is the one that brought the Democratic party more left.

Sanders, rallied the youth voice to allow Clinton to do that. Sanders part was ratcheting the conversation.

Clinton took advantage of that because she is brilliant and saw the opportunity to bring HER party left, which all Democrats have wanted but didnt have the voice of the nation.

That is what Sanders gave us.

Clinton being the superior politician recognized and took full advantage of it.

Clinton gets the credit.

[Ken Burch]

83. This has nothing to do with gender. And it's enough that she get most of the credit.

Nor is it about Bernie as an individual.

It's about the millions who fought for his candidacy.

I give her credit where credit is due.

Those millions who supported Bernie(at least 40% of whom are women)deserve credit too.

Nobody is trying to undermine or insult HRC.

Why are you in a rage when your candidate was nominated?

Why are you still so obsessed with attacking people?

Can't you at least try being happy about the situation?

[seabeyond]

94. "And it's enough that she get most of the credit", No. You and Sanders do not give her most of the

credit, which is exactly what I am arguing. You give her none. She is that far right, the party is conservative, we are JUST NOW a progressive party. And it is what I fought, am fighting, will continue to fight. I have been consistent in my argument. I have been really really clear what I am arguing. I have only gone after this language adn I will continue to go after this language. Simply not good enough.

Now, gender. You can flat out tell me this has nothing to do with gender. I do not look to you for conversation on women's issues adn what and how we experience a lifetime. Yes, it is exactly what from girls until old women we live. We do all the damn work, and then a man steps in, takes credit, and demands we back him up on it, like good little girls. Fuck that.

[Ken Burch]

156. I said the party was conservative in the Nineties. Under Bill, it was.

There were progressives in the party in the Nineties, but all were powerless and disregarded by the party leadership.

I didn't tie HRC to that situation.

I don't need to accept your belief that the Sanders movement had no affect and was a waste of time just to prove I respect HRC. It makes HRC look better to everyone to show her as a person who listens and accepts good ideas from wherever they appear.

[seabeyond]

159. "There are no voters at all to the right of HRC""we don't NEED voters to HRC's right"

You exactly said it.

What I never said was "Sanders movement had no affect and was a waste of time". Quit making shit up and atributing to me, then arguing.

Clinton has continually showed her ability to listen, process, work with, draw people in. That is how she finally got the damn endorsement from Sanders. Spending all that time coddling him.

[Ken Burch]

172. Not coddling him. Just saying he's done nothing wrong.

What do you want me to do, denounce the guy? For what? He's done nothing wrong.

I don't have to call Bernie a failure to show I respect HRC.

I don't have to say that no one OTHER than HRC deserves credit to prove I will work for her in the fall.

I am giving her all the credit and you need to stop treating me like the enemy.

I've proven I'm loyal to this party.


And to clarify...

What I meant by the comment about there being few voters to the right of HRC wasn't to call HER right-wing..she's not...it was to point out that there isn't any large blocs of votes we can gain by having HRC go "Sistah Souljah" on the left. That's all I meant.

There are few people who are half way between the left and the right on the spectrum, and especially not many who are looking.

What there are are people who see themselves as "practical" and "solution-oriented&quot an most of us who get called "far left" are in that category as well...we want solutions and believe our ideas can BE solutions if implemented). These are the people who, in the lyrics to "Revolution" by the Beatles, said "we all want to see the plan". That is an American impulse, and it doesn't require triangulation to appeal to it. It just requires knowing what you want to do and being prepared to do it.

[Ken Burch]

174. I'm not obtuse and you just personally insulted me for no reason.

I give HRC credit for letting more progressive things be added to the platform. That is a great sign for her. That's a great sign for this party.

What you are demanding is that I label the Sanders campaign a failure. Why is that so important to you?

Why is it so important to you that I give no one OTHER than HRC any credit?

Why is it so important to you to see the Sanders campaign as an attack on the Democratic Party when all it was ever about was making this party and this country better?

Bernie had to run, and he didn't run to stop the country from electing a woman as president, OR to fight against feminism, or to push the fights against racism and homophobia off the front-burner.

At this point, you are just harassing me and I've done nothing to deserve it.

[Maru Kitteh]

103. I know you're sensitive about posts attacking the Green party. That's Okay.

We've got this. The Green party is an opposition party. Fuck Ralph Nader and his ugly spawn. Naderites suck ass, and they gave us George W. Bush. We remember that shit so we're just going to go ahead and cover all our bases this time around. Since you are concerned about seeing our nominee succeed, I'm sure you'll come to understand the importance of having more than one strategy for success. Explaining the deficiencies of opposition is of course, part of every single political campaign in history; or at least the ones that win.

Discussion board discusses. Thanks for creating this post so that people can read all about Karl Rove and other Republicans funding of the Green party as well as the lunacy and pitiful inadequacy of Stein.

I'm really looking forward to your posts supporting our nominee! You seem to be very interested in that!

[Ken Burch]

120. It's not about being protective of the Green Party.

It's about having us not look like bullies.

Aggressive attacking the Greens doesn't gain US vote.

And I have already posted in support of the nominee and will continue to do so. I have nothing to prove to you.

[Maru Kitteh]

121. Oh, I think we can see clearly what it is. nt

[seabeyond]

124. +1. Nt

[Ken Burch]

135. It's support for the Democratic ticket and concern for making sure we win big in the fall.

I'm on your side, for God's sakes.

[pnwmom]

44. Stein has said that Obama is "Bush on steroids." It's not McCarthyite to oppose

her nonsense.

[Ken Burch]

47. All we really need to do is post her more absurd statements.

We don't need to accuse her supporters of colluding with the right.

We don't need imply that it's despicable to be a Green. We just need to point out that we're much more progressive than in the past (and not shoot ourselves in the foot with the discredited strategy of moving to the right after the convention).

Demonizing the Greens is what failed in 2000.

[pnwmom]

48. Too many progressives failing to support Gore and being lured to GOP-supported Nader

is what lost us the election in 2000.

[Ken Burch]

51. The party caused that. Gore was better than Bush, but he lost because the differences were blurred.

The advisors who pushed for staying close to the Clinton policies(and got their way), and who stopped him from ever again using his "for the people, not the powerful" line again after it caused a big surge in support to his side in the polls were to blame.

If the party wants progressives to vote for it loyally, it needs to be loyal to them in return. The respect must be mutual.

It would have been better if no one had voted for Nader, but it equally would have been better if the party hadn't, in those years, done everything it could to drive people to him.

This year, the party has learned from that. And it's a good thing.

We'd be weaker in the polls if Bernie had won nothing in the platform.

[pnwmom]

53. Gore ran away from Clinton, which was a huge mistake, because Bill's popularity

was high after the impeachment attempt failed miserably.

The loss of the Naderites might not have mattered if Gore had accepted Clinton's help in campaigning. If Clinton had been allowed to campaign for Gore in some of the swing states where Clinton had favorable ratings, there likely would have been a different election outcome -- for example, in Arkansas and New Hampshire.

http://www.pollingreport.com/beyle.htm

Democratic candidate and Clinton’s Vice President Al Gore wanted to run as his "own man," free of the negatives associated with Clinton’s tenure as president. So he ran a distinctly Clinton-free campaign with Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman at his side.

SNIP

The Clinton Factor
President Clinton was an important factor in the 2000 election. Why? Because of his positive performance as president. He entered the last three months of his eight-year tenure with job approval ratings equal to the other two post-World War II presidents who served two full terms.

In a late October 2000 Gallup Poll, 57% of the respondents approved of the job Clinton was doing as president. By comparison, in a mid-October 1960 Gallup Poll, Dwight Eisenhower received a 58% positive job approval rating, and in a mid-October 1988 Gallup Poll, 51% gave Ronald Reagan a positive job rating. Voter News Service exit polls taken at polling places on Election Day 2000 indicated Clinton’s positive job performance rating nationally among actual voters was also 57%.

SNIP

Another way to view how Clinton’s job approval ratings and the election results interplayed is that every state with Clinton ratings of 60% or more went to Gore. Every state with Clinton job ratings 51% or lower went to Bush. The election was decided in states where Clinton’s job ratings ranged from 52% to 58%. These 18 states split, with 11 going to Bush and seven going to Gore.

Had Gore called upon Clinton to campaign for the Democratic ticket in some of these states, the results might have been different. Remember that it would have taken only one of the Bush states to go for Gore to change the results of the 2000 election. Here are two examples:

SNIP

[Ken Burch]

54. We weren't ever going to win in 2000 on continuing the status quo of the Nineties.

That said, I agree Gore could have let Bill hit the stump for him.

Bill's popularity ratings were due to the voters seeing the impeachment attempt as the hypocritical bullshit it was. They weren't because he'd made the Democratic Party a progressive-free zone.

The thing with the people who voted Nader in 1996 and 2000 is that the party had made them unwelcome after 1988(despite the fact that the left was blameless in the Eighties defeats...in each campaign the party had run the exact campaign the right-wing Dems wanted...increased war spending, low inflation and balanced budgets ahead of full employment and reindustrializing the Rust Belt). They were in despair. It wasn't just the conservative party fighting to crush their dreams, it was the supposedly liberal party crushing them as well. There is no way people on the left deserved that treatment.

You can't make people powerless and irrelevant in a party, score cheap points by attacking them, refuse to support anything they care about and then still retain the right to demand votes from them.

It doesn't work.

This year, the party has learned from that mistake and that's why we are winning. If HRC were running on the kind of platform Bill ran on then, she'd be hopelessly behind in the polls right now...possibly in third place.

Isn't it good that we've chosen a better approach?

[pnwmom]

55. I think Hillary has chosen the better approach for now. However, Bill was the first

Democratic President or candidate in years to do well over two terms. Jimmy Carter didn't get re-elected, and Mondale and McGovern each lost 49 states. So Bill did very well for his era.

[Demsrule86]

205. That is what the Greens do...they blur the difference between the GOP and Dems

In fact, they have much to do with midterm losses as well...they are simply useless for getting a progressive agenda ...they never accomplish anything unless you lay the GOP victories at their feet, and we should because they sure helped.

[Ken Burch]

207. History proves that laying GOP victories at their feet never, ever works, though.

We can't just start with the expectation that, no matter what our platform and our ticket stand for, everyone on the left side of the political spectrum simply OWES our ticket their votes.

That attitude never helps us at the polls.

You simply can't win people over by scolding them.

What the party has done instead, this year-making activists at least somewhat welcome, adding better planks to the platform-has already shown itself to be much more effective than what you advocate.

It was done your way in 2000. THAT is why Nader got those 2.5 million votes-they'd have come over if we had acknowledged that our party had gone way too far to the right in the Nineties and that that had to change...shouting "you HAVE to vote Gore" was never going to work. In taking that tack, the party gave Ralph just what he needed.

[Demsrule86]

62. I agree.

The Greens are not progressive and only help the GOP. Who cares what their platform is...they merely ensure the GOP platform is enacted as in 2000 when they act as spoilers. Stein is the worst of the lot.

[Warren DeMontague]

45. some folks look for answers. Others, look for fights.

Some folks up in treetops



just lookin' for their kites.

[Demsrule86]

56. There is no reasoning with true Greens who hate Democrats more than the GOP. NT

[vi5]

78. Wow. The fact that this post is getting such a negative response....

...just proves how far out of step I am with where my party has ended up.

It speaks against voting Green party.
It speaks of running a positive campaign that includes the left flank of the party.
It speaks of HRC's liberal side.
It speaks of the party's liberal platform.

And people are complaining about it?

I thought the other day when someone's sole response to one of my posts was "Hillary is awesome. She doesn't need the haters" was depressing to me.

The responses in this thread just prove to me that there are a large chunk of people who have a vested interested in keeping the primary fight against "the left" and "liberals" alive to the bitter end so that if HRC loses to a complete incompetent racist asshole like trump that there will be people to blame other than...you know...the candidate whose job it is to win voters.

[George II]

81. Have you expressed this concern to Cornell West or the candidate he pretended to support all spring?

[Ken Burch]

84. Cornel isn't my responsibility or Bernie's.

Nobody knew he'd do this.

[George II]

85. Cornell West was one of Sanders' top surrogates throughout the campaign.

[Ken Burch]

86. Yes. But that doesn't make it Bernie's fault that he has broken with the party.

Last edited Sun Jul 17, 2016, 08:28 AM - Edit history (1)

No one knew he would do THAT.

It's not as though we could assume that all along.

[LongtimeAZDem]

90. That doesn't make it Bernie's fault? Seriously?

Where does the buck stop?

[Demsrule86]

203. He was never with the party and that is fine with me.

I can't stand him after his attacks on President Obama.

[Ken Burch]

204. In any case, no one but Dr. West is to blame for what Dr. West does.

n/t.

[LongtimeAZDem]

215. No, but Sanders is to blame for giving him the forum to do it (nt)

Last edited Sun Jul 17, 2016, 11:09 AM - Edit history (1)

[Demsrule86]

230. West can do anything he wants... he is a green now and is of no further interest. nt

[rjsquirrel]

89. Oh he is Bernie's responsibility to some extent

He was a vocal Sanders supporter (and I believe authorized surrogate) all along, and he and Sarandon and their authoritarian radical chic were major factors in driving early supporters like me away from his campaign. It was Bernie's idea -- which some of us who knew "Brother Cornell" was a self-dealing bigot and huckster shouted about at the time-- to put him on the platform committee, where he was predictably obtuse, ineffective, and embarrassing for the party.

That man called our president the N-word. Bernie really should have kept his distance.

As a philosopher he is a charlatan too.

And now the clown's gone and sold out completely. I won't be surprised if he winds up working for Trump, since Susan Sarandon assured us Trump was better than Clinton.


Sometimes the people you allow to speak for you will define you in their terms.

I suggest none of us would care about West's opinions if he hadn't been such a strong presence during the primary or put on the platform committee.

[Sunlei]

108. I like Cornell West he did some great interviews/talks with Sanders. long but I watched them all.

[George II]

117. And all the while he was trying to influence the DEMOCRATIC platform.....

....his intention was to endorse the Green Party candidate.

He used Sanders to get a foothold in the Democratic Party platform process, and only two days after Sanders endorsed the Democratic Party nominee he chose to support the nominee from another party.

Like him or not, to most observers that would be unethical.

[rjsquirrel]

87. What little sympathy I ever had for the greens

is gone now. Typical ideological hard leftists insisting it's their pure and noble way or the highway and they know the real truth and we're all just super-dumb sheep if we don't support them, backed by conspiracy theory bullshit and peopled by fools like Cornell West and His Clown Show...

These people couldn't run a barbecue auction. They are the John Birch Society of the left.

No more sympathy for the cute naive childish yet authoritarian leftist purity trolls. We have elections in this country. When you break 1 percent people won't laugh at you quite as hard.

[LongtimeAZDem]

88. The Greens are the political equivalent of anti-vaxxers; we're not going to change their minds (nt)

[Sunlei]

92. Jill Stein has an excellent platform & good ideas. Jeb! said he won't vote, he could vote for her.

[zappaman]

104. LOL!

[Sunlei]

107. yup, Jeb! Bush was interviewed last week and said, "I'm not going to vote" . I laughed too.

Then the republican interviewer said, she didn't vote when Palin was running with McCain. probably can find the interview using search, Republican frontrunner made a bush cry and stop voting.

[greatauntoftriplets]

109. Why should any Democrat care what Jeb Bush does?

[Sunlei]

116. because a republican 'leader' said he wasn't going to vote.

[Maru Kitteh]

128. Republicans like Karl Rove have a long history of supporting the Green Party. Wonder why?

So hard to guess.

[Sunlei]

132. To siphon votes of course.

[one_voice]

133. who cares? Fuck Jeb! n/t

[Sunlei]

134. It was 'nice' to see him beaten and depressed.

By his own party

[cosmicone]

118. So does my auto mechanic

Neither greens nor my mechanic have a snow-ball's chance in hell of influencing any policy or enacting any legislation.

The only difference is that my mechanic doesn't help elect republicans like the green party does.

[JustAnotherGen]

157. I'm a Democratic Party Member

Unlike Jeb - I didn't vote for George the 2nd in either 2000 or 2004.

I question his judgment.

Everyone should.

[Chathamization]

98. The Green party is irrelevant. Dems should focus on turnout.

I doubt there are many Green voters who are on the fence between Stein and Clinton. Might have been the case in 2000, but now they're down to a small hardcore base. And 20 years from now, they'll still be attempting their "run in whatever race we can knowing we'll lose" strategy that's gotten them nowhere.

Likewise, it's mostly a waste of time trying to appeal to conservative voters by moving to the right. I think the party is finally starting to realize this.

Dems need to work on getting Dems to get out to vote. And to get those who are voting excited enough to spread the word. My guess is that voter registration efforts pay off better than advertisements.

[Sunlei]

110. yes, out to vote and assist every state with early voting for as many people as possible.

[pnwmom]

163. No. Not just turnout. Turnout TO DEMOCRATS. Votes for Greens by misguided

progressives reduce turnout to Democrats.

Every vote to Jill Stein is a vote that was thrown away. That person might as well have not voted at all.

[JTFrog]

101. mainly because half the people I was with believed this until I explained the situation to them

[Spazito]

105. The Green Party is an opposition party and as such...

can and should be criticized and, when necessary, attacked outright, imo.

[zappaman]

106. Green Party.

[larkrake]

112. The platform is just an ignored document

but it has raised hope in some sanderites. Attacking greens is not wise. People like the underdog . Dont point out the underdog, work on winning the progressives on the fence

[Ken Burch]

137. Fight smart and win on the merits.

Not "dooga dooga dooga".

[Demsrule86]

234. No

I will never say oh we are all on the same side with Greens because they have shown time and time again...that the Green operative party...is GOP all the way. They hate the Democrats and always help the GOP.

[Ken Burch]

236. On the same side as their supporters, I meant.

The vast majority of people who VOTE Green don't want Republican presidents.

And 2000 proved that just attacking their party and doing nothing to try to appeal to their voters can't ever work.

I agree that their shouldn't be a Green presidential ticket.

But it's the massive swing to the right we took as a party in 1992 that caused that to happen though, in very large degree.

It wasn't reasonable to expect all of those people to just keep voting Democratic presidentially no matter how much contempt we showed as a party for what they stood for. Party loyalty must always be two-way.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

119. Now criticizing idiots is McCarthyism?

[Maru Kitteh]

122. x 1000

[Squinch]

140. La Lioness, remind me: when did we stop beating our wives?

Every damn thread from our friend boils down to that question.

There is no McCarthyism, there never was any McCarthyism.

It's clear this is just a big game.

[Starry Messenger]

148. Yup.

The things you read here.

[villager]

126. Some of the initial responses here are telling. Alas. nt

[HassleCat]

129. And this

Our candidates need to remind voters that the Democratic Party is the reason they don't breath Beijing style smog, and their rivers no longer catch on fire. And we need to keep on working, particularly concerning global climate change. If we run away from this issue, as we seem to be doing, we simply let the Republicans define the issue in terms of killing jobs, restricting personal freedom, etc.

[ContinentalOp]

139. Nonsense.

"the only voters in play at this moment are voters to HRC's left."

Anyone on the left who hasn't gotten behind the nominee already is a lost cause.

"There are no voters at all to the right of HRC that we will ever have any chance to win over, and we don't NEED voters to HRC's right"

That's ridiculous. I'm sure there are conservative women who might want to vote Clinton over Trump. There are probably socially conservative hispanic voters who normally lean republican but will shift to Clinton this year. And there are probably a few sane old fashioned conservatives who will be so turned off by Trump that they support Clinton.

Longtime Greens are going to throw their vote away like they always do. It won't make any difference. The only people on the left who would have supported Obama but still won't back Clinton are hardcore misogynists and we definitely don't need or want them.

[book_worm]

146. Most polls show the Green vote not that substantial anyway--Libertarians are more a force

[pnwmom]

164. Doesn't matter. Elections are won state by state, and can turn on a handful of votes.

In 2000, the election turned on Florida and was decided by 500 voters. Thanks to Ralph Nader, who had drawn 95K votes in that state alone, we lost the election.

[Demsrule86]

169. Greens are still in opposition to Democratic candidates.

Thus, should not be lauded on a Democratic site...nor should their "progressive ideas" be debated on this site. It is an encouragement for Democrats to vote for them... which would hurt our candidate, our party and our country if it helped elect Trump.

[quaker bill]

158. This is a waste of time and energy

I know Green Party folks. My experience is that they include a broad range of causes and activists. Virtually none of them were ever going to vote for Hillary, still aren't, and never will. Some probably would have voted for Bernie, but he will not be on the ballot.

There is no point in attempting to "hold their vote down" as it will never be that large.

Here is the conceptual problem. Selecting Hillary as the nominee always was an act that would flush these votes, you could not select Hillary and expect any other result. Whining and worrying about this now is shooting yourself in the foot. Selecting Hillary came with the commitment of working to build an electoral majority without these folks. I suggest that Camp Hillary spend their time on that and just stop worrying about the Greens.

The Greens ran a candidate in 2008 and 2012, nobody noticed and it did not matter, anywhere.

[pnwmom]

165. The Greens are trying to recruit among disaffected Bernie voters, so there IS a point

in trying to hold those numbers down.

They aren't allies. They're adversaries.

[quaker bill]

177. You are correct, they are not allies.

But disaffected Bernie voters are fully disaffected already. The notion that there is much for Hillary to mine there is silly. These people worked as hard as they did and donated as much as they did because they were not taken with Hillary. The notion that they can be converted is nuts and attempts to deny the basic cost of supporting Ms. Clinton.

In picking the Secretary, people chose to deny and call impractical most of what Bernie stood for. A good chunk of these folks ain't coming back, and a fair number will vote Green.

Fighting with the Greens will just make them bigger. It is not just a waste of time, but most likely counter productive. Focus on the women and POC, and Hillary will do fine.

[pnwmom]

180. Polls show there are still many people who haven't made up their minds, and those are the ones

who need to learn that a vote for the Green party is tossing away their one chance to help stop Donald Trump.

And it is absolutely not true that "in picking the Secretary, people chose to deny and call impractical most of what Bernie stood for."

Hillary and Bernie stood for most of the same things, and he had a large impact on the Democratic platform. Anyone who cares about Bernie's position should be voting for Hillary Clinton -- not any other party.

[quaker bill]

182. People who vote Green are making a statement

they are not attempting to elect a President. This is where you might be confused.

People who want to elect a President vote "D" or "R". People who want to make a statement have a range of options to include the Green Party. No one is confused about this.

The real issue here is that we have selected 48% Hillary. Her polls peak at 48% in good political weather and head toward 40 in a storm. Hear me now and believe me later, we are not getting to 51% by kicking the Greens around.

Obama, knowing he could get 51% easy, ignored the Greens completely. This worked just fine.

In short, all this handwringing about the Greens just proves to me that we are re-running the Gore campaign, not the Obama campaign. If we were re-running the Obama campaign, the Greens would simply be an uninteresting sideshow, as opposed to some sort of putative crisis.

[pnwmom]

183. People who think making a statement is more important than stopping Donald Trump

are seriously deluded.

And people who might be attracted to that idea, but are still wondering, need to think again.

Bernie Sanders is strongly supporting Hillary Clinton now. So should all of his supporters.

[Ken Burch]

199. Those voters aren't going to be won over to us

by our campaign wasting time it should be spending attacking Trump on accusing the Greens of conspiring with Trunp.

The last line in your post is a much better approach:

Hillary and Bernie stood for most of the same things, and he had a large impact on the Democratic platform. Anyone who cares about Bernie's position should be voting for Hillary Clinton -- not any other party.

(the only change I'd make to it would be to say it as "and he-AND HIS MILLIONS OF HARD-WORKING AND DEVOTEDLY COMMITTED SUPPORTERS-had a large impact on the Democratic platform, AND HILLARY CLINTON IS ELECTED, THOSE SANDERS SUPPORTERS WHO HELPED ELECT HER WILL PLAY A MAJOR ROLE IN SHAPING A TRANSFORMATIVE FUTURE FOR THIS COUNTRY AND THE WORLD&quot .

That is the best way to reach the kind of people who might consider voting for Stein...that OUR party is willing to welcome and include them and listen to what they have to say.

An approach like that would blow the Green ticket right out of the water.

[Ken Burch]

193. And the LEAST effective way to stop them recruiting former Bernie supporters...

...is to accuse the Greens of deliberately trying to elect Trump and basically equating being Green with being evil.

That kind of tactic just makes us look like heavy-handed verbal thugs.

We can get those votes much more effectively by pointing up the effect Bernie and his supporters had on the platform(an argument that does not diminish or insult HRC in any way, but gives her the credit she deserves for openness, intelligence, and political astuteness). What the platform changes show is that OUR party is open to activist voices and arguments made from below.

Convenying that is going to do much more to get most former Bernie voters(I think we can get pretty much all of them this way)than using the fall campaign to vilify the Greens and to try to get payback for 2000-an election which was sixteen years ago and during which probably half of the Bernie primary voters were in grade school.

The kind of voters I'm talking about here don't take well to being talked to like their either stupid or the enemy. Doing that isn't going to make them switch to us(or make anyone in any other part of the spectrum switch to us). it will just make them dig in on a choice either to vote for the Green ticket or not to vote at all. How does driving them to THAT help us?

We have many effective ways to argue that it doesn't make sense to vote for the Green ticket this fall...wasting time trying to delegitimize the Greens and vilify people drawn to them is the least effective of all. It's what failed in 2000.

[pnwmom]

194. This is not a question of trying to get pay- back for 2000. It's not letting

Jill's CURRENT attacks on the President and Hillary go without a response.

She's calling Hillary a warmonger and Obama "Bush on steroids." Stein is willing to say anything to get more attention for herself.

[Ken Burch]

195. And I was just suggesting a response:

That is, pointing up how much more progressive our party has become(and HRC's role in working with that change), teaching about the actual progressive gains that occurred under Obama(a lot of time, our party's electoral strategists have seemed to work under the assumption that they don't dare DEFEND the Obama record, especially during midterms, and present our party as a party that is now open to activists and movements for change.

The best response to attacks is to refute them with positive evidence, and to do in a strong, confident, unapologetic voice...as our nominee is perfectly capable of doing.

And, while doing that, to focus OUR attacks on the person who actually has a theoretical chance of beating us...The Microfingered Hairball himself.

[Demsrule86]

166. This is a Democratic site.

It not a place for the Green party or their supporters. Greens are spoilers and talking about them only helps Trump.

[hrmjustin]

168. The greens are not our allies but our competition. We will not treat them with kid gloves here.

[Demsrule86]

170. We should not treat Greens with anything but the contempt they deserve...

for foisting Bush on us.

[Ken Burch]

198. This election should not be about payback for 2000.

Spending a single moment on THAT is wasted effort.

This is 2016 and Trump is the enemy.

[Demsrule86]

200. It is about learning from 2000

Greens always attack Democrats. They did it relentlessly in 2000,2004 and now in 2016...they were pretty miserable in 10 and 12 as well...they never accomplish anything and demoralize and depress voters. Another post said they should be called the Greens operational Party...with the initials GOP...because they support the GOP in their actions and their words. They are our opponents as much as the GOP, they do not deserve anything because they are no different than the GOP...and have foisted GOP presidents on us more than once...I lay Kerry's defeat at their door partially as well. And all the carrying on in 10 certainly helped with the Tea Party BS.

[Ken Burch]

206. The key, though, is winning over left voters.

We can win them over on the merits.

We can't ever win them over by trying to browbeat people into supporting us. I don't like what the Greens do in running a presidential ticket, but it simply can't be effective to focus on anathemizing them.

[Demsrule86]

229. It is about not letting the Greens do it again...bastids. nt

[Ken Burch]

231. We agree on that. We disagree on the way to make sure they can't.

n/t.

[Agnosticsherbet]

176. Third parties are spoilers. If it is green, it is a spoiler.

[nolawarlock]

185. The only reason Jill has what tiny bit of traction she has ...

... is because those 3rd party heroes who only invaded our party for the sake of Bernie—as well as those allegedly "longtime Democrats" who suddenly hate Hillary with a passion both need a place to weep and gnash their teeth. They were never going to vote for Hillary. They are never going to vote for Hillary. We should spend this entire election trying to please that crowd but if Bernie's endorsement didn't win them over, nothing will. We should be focussed on the votes we can get. The Green party serves two purposes: helping trump get elected and giving the folks at JPR a reason not to get past the denial stage.

[Ken Burch]

192. Bernie supporters have not been acting as enemies of the Democratic party.

The whole effort was about making the party better.

And it did make the party better.

You're going to have to accept that the Sanders campaign was NOT an anti-Democratic conspiracy. Besides which, nothing would be better if Bernie hadn't run, so what are you really angry about here?

If there are some people who aren't ever going to vote for HRC it's a waste of time and energy to attack them. Attacking them and accusing them of deliberately conspiring to help Trump is just going to give them the chance to play the victim, which will give them sympathy votes.

It's also not going to boost the Democratic vote or swing Republican votes to HRC.

[pnwmom]

196. I think the party is more divided than it was 18 months ago.

Some people think that makes it "better." I don't.

[Ken Burch]

197. It wasn't divisive to have a contested presidential nomination process.

And a coronation doesn't always mean we're better off.

We had a coronation in 2004 and then lost by three million votes.

We essentially had a coronation in 1984 and lost 49 states.

There are divisions, but a significant number of them on this site are cause by supporters of the nominee continuing to attack(and in some cases seeming to try to drive away)supporters of the runner-up.

Just as any attacks on the nominee need to stop, attacks on the runner-up and his supporters need to stop, too.

The primaries are over. The fight for the nomination is over. And we are twelve points ahead in the polls, with no reason to expet that margin to narrow any time soon(it's pretty damn unlikely Trump will get any bump at all after Cleveland, and then Philadelphia will be a show of unity for us. So there's no excuse for anyone here lashing out at anyone else here.

[pnwmom]

202. The polls are much closer than that, aggregated. Every vote counts.

We can't afford to lose any votes to the Greens or anyone else.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5952.html

[Ken Burch]

208. And I just laid out a pitch a couple of posts ago that will get us the votes we need.

We already know that calling the Greens a GOP front CAN'T make votes switch from the Green ticket to ours.

The pitch I laid out(based partly on your own words) can.

Why not try it?

[pnwmom]

211. I haven't called the Greens a GOP front. I've said they are our adversary,

not our ally. We don't operate under a parliamentary system, and no one should vote based on the idea that we do.

If a 3 or 4 way race divides the vote in such a way that no one gets 270 electoral votes, then the decision will go to Congress, and Republicans will make the decision.

[Ken Burch]

212. What do you think about the pitch I suggested, though?

It would work.

Why not try it?

[pnwmom]

214. There's nothing wrong with your pitch. But it doesn't have to be the only response

to the Greens.

[Demsrule86]

201. If Bernie supporters are for Stein than they are not Democrats

and supporting a third party spoiler...not something Bernie advocates actually.

[Ken Burch]

209. Agreed that no one should vote for the Green ticket

(in fact, it's bad politics to use their candidate's name...why give her free publicity?)

I'm just calling for an EFFECTIVE strategy to prevent that.

We can get those votes on the merits...we can't get those votes by scolding people and wagging our fingers in their faces.

[ericson00]

188. Socialism is the idea of Idiocy;

it flopped miserably in Eastern Europe; and its not worthy of an avatar on a Democratic, not Green, forum.

[Ken Burch]

190. That was Stalinism, not socialism. And Stalinism is dead and gone.

The democratic, egalitarian, humane ideals of socialism(ideals no state calling itself "socialist" ever even tried to implement.

They simply represent the values a decent society must adopt at some point if it is to avoid becoming barbaric.

We're only going to survive if we move, to at least some degree, from competition to cooperation.

Martin Luther King, Harvey Milk, and David Ben-Gurion all considered themselves socialists.

Thank you for reminding us how ugly McCarthyism is, though. You provided a great service to this thread in doing that.

[OnDoutside]

216. Trotskyism is alive and well though, in the current disturbed economic climate.

[Ken Burch]

228. Trotskyism(if we can still use that term)has nothing in common with Stalinism.

Its supporters mainly work through electoral politics and are small-d democrats.

They don't(as far as I know)use violence.

Btw, it's not "Trotskyism" simply to be a radical socialist.

That's what I am...a radical democratic socialist.

I believe that political democracy and social-liberal values can only be fully realized in a country with cooperative, egalitarian and sharing-based values.

[George Eliot]

189. Calling Progressives names will alienate. I'm with her now...

but on anther thread one poster already called some of us idiots. I very much considered voting green and it wouldn't be the first time. And I've never considered myself an idiot but someone who does not now nor ever will be bullied into voting conformity. I think for myself.

It was the embrace and authentic commitment to HRC by Bernie that convinced me to vote for her. She has softened and she was genuinely grateful for his endorsement. Wouldn't it be nice if her emotional and accusatory supporters could be as generous of spirit? That was precisely what attracted me to Bernie in the first place: smart, objective and never petty. I genuinely root for Hillary now. And even I'm surprised at that.

[Ken Burch]

191. Exactly.

We are running twelve points ahead of Trump now(and likely to be farther ahead than that after Philadelphia-perhaps even after Cleveland, given the freak show that is likely to be)and doing that with inclusiveness and a positive spirit.

[JustAnotherGen]

210. Skinner said in ATA that Stein and Johnson are also our opponents

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125911354
Skinner:

The DU Terms of Service make clear that we support the Democratic nominee. Presidential elections in the United States are a zero-sum game in which other candidates must lose in order for the Democratic candidate to win. We are competing with Jill Stein and Gary Johnson and Donald Trump in our effort to win the presidency. They are our opponents.

I would hope people at DU aren't taking criticism of the Green Party or their candidate personally.

Their platform is not ours and if it needs to be critiqued or criticized - it should be. We shouldn't have to tiptoe around the feelings of people voting for Stein Candidate Green when at a site dedicated to electing Democratics.

I also think Green Party members and Independent leaning Greens have the courage of their convictions and nothing we write here will sway them to Clinton.

[AgingAmerican]

218. It's the 'Sewage OPs' geared to driving away potential greens from voting Democratic

That raise an eyebrow

[LongtimeAZDem]

219. The only Greens that will potentially vote Democratic are the ones that are just pissed off right now

and will come to their senses later. The others are a write-off.

Regardless, they are a tiny fraction of the electorate, and it is political idiocy to court them in any manner that alienates moderates.

[AgingAmerican]

220. Yes, and we aren't even to the convention yet

And those who later down the road decide to caucus with the Dems to stop Trump will be driven from the party by the tidal wave of intellectual sewage spewed their way by resentful Democrats.

There are no such thing as 'moderates' politically. A political 'moderate' has no ideology and thus no core beliefs.

"In politics and religion, a moderate is an individual who is not extreme, partisan, nor radical. In recent years, the term political moderates has gained traction as a buzzword. The existence of the ideal moderate is disputed because of a lack of a moderate political ideology."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moderate

[LongtimeAZDem]

221. Nonsense; I am a political moderate, like most Americans. Extremists do nothing but obstruct (nt)

[AgingAmerican]

222. So most Americans have no political beliefs?

lol

We owned the majority in congress for almost 50 years by being the party of the left. By offering an alternative to the right wing. Then the Democratic party decided to move right and become 'moderates'. Since that happened, the Republicans have had a stranglehold on congress.

The Democratic party has to start believing in something again if we want the congress back. Not a friendlier version of the GOP.

[LongtimeAZDem]

223. Your premise is faulty, which is what happens when you use Wikipedia as gospel

However, there's a great point in the article:

"Aristotle favoured conciliatory politics dominated by the centre rather than the extremes of great wealth and poverty or the special interests of oligarchs and tyrants"


People hold a variety of political beliefs, ranging from left to right, most rational people (IMO) reject extremism.

[AgingAmerican]

224. You don't get it.

We owned the congress for decades by believing in something and representing the left. Since we decided to move right, or as you call it 'moderate', the GOP has had a stranglehold on congress.

As long as we keep chasing the non existent 'moderates' we will not take the congress back. It's very simple

[JustAnotherGen]

225. I haven't seen these

Stating Jill Stein was an obnoxious jerk when she questioned HRC's mother credentials isn't offensive. The only person in a position to judge her as a mother is her daughter.

If that turns off green party voters who were cheering those remarks - so be it.

[hrmjustin]

227. Sorry but I don't see that. The Green party is not our ally. N/t.

[stevenleser]

213. In keeping with the new civil bent of the site all I will say is your concern is noted. nt

[OnDoutside]

217. As the writer Brendan Behan said about Socialists,

The first item on any Socialists agenda, is the split !

[oberliner]

226. Hold the Green vote down?

You mean lower than the one half of one percent that they usually get?

Not too worried about that.

How about focus on holding the Republican vote down?