2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumStein is a pain in the ass, but lets be honest, she is not a threat.
Over the past few days it has been impossible to open Democratic Underground and not see at least a few threads about Jill Stein. Stein is an obvious Nader-wannabe. A selfish, egotistical, narcissistic, opportunist who doesn't give a shit what consequences a Donald Trump presidency would have on our country as long as she gets her name out there. But lets be real, Stein's numbers have dropped from 4% in the polls to, recently, 2% and I don't think that number is going to change very much. I was a Sanders supporter in the primaries and I will be supporting Hillary Clinton in the General Election and so will the 90% of Sanders' primary supporters who are now claiming they will cast their vote for Clinton this November. Look, you can hate Stein, but don't be too worried about her.
rjsquirrel
(4,762 posts)that could change
onehandle
(51,122 posts)She clearly wants Trump to win like Nader admitted that he wanted Bush to win, but does not have the talent to make it happen.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Must have missed that.
pnwmom
(109,016 posts)In fact, Harry G. Levine, in his Ralph Nader as Mad Bomber, reported a personal incident, when, I was introduced to Tarek Milleron, Ralph Naders nephew, the single person closest to him in the whole campaign. Levine told Milleron, If Gore lost, Nader would have substantial credibility and power within the Democratic party. By holding back in a handful of states now, he could demonstrate his capacity to cause real damage in the future, and gain much in the short and the long run. Tarek did not disagree with that at all. Instead, leaning toward me, with a bit of extra steel in his voice and body, but without changing his cool tone and demeanor, he simply said: We are not going to do that. Why not? I said. With just a flicker of smile, Tarek said: Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them. Levine went on: In Tareks unforgettable phrase, Ralph Nader wanted to hurt, wound and punish the Democrats. This was much more than indifference. Nader was not simply opposed to helping the Democrats, he actually wanted Gore to lose. ... But his supporters were not being told this.
After Naders victory in 2000, however, Nader became bolder about letting the public know his true motivation. On 4 March 2001, Dick Polman headlined in the Philadelphia Inquirer, An Unrepentant Nader Sticks To His Plan He Wants The Green Party To Run Up To 80 Congressional Candidates. That Could Drain Votes From Democrats. Polman described his interview of Nader:
In a long conversation at his office the other day, he said: Im just amazed that people think I should be concerned about this stuff. Its absolutely amazing. Not a minutes sleep do I lose, about something like this - because I feel sorry for them. Its just so foolish, the way they have been behaving. Why should I worry? ... Nader is mapping new mischief with the potential to gladden the hearts of Republicans everywhere. He is working with the Greens to run as many as 80 candidates in the 2002 congressional elections - twice the number that ran in 2000. If he succeeds, Nader could drain liberal votes from Democrats in tight races, and severely impede the Democratic effort to wrest the House of Representatives away from the GOP. He is not coy about his motives. ... As he put it, The Democrats are going to have to lose more elections. They didnt get the message last time.
Nader repeated his strategy (to wound and punish the Democrats, as Tarek had put it, much more clearly) during the 2004 contest. On 9 September 2004, some prominent members of the Green Party went public sharing the conclusion that he was out to damage the Democratic Party and to help the Republican Party, and they issued a group press release, which opened: Greens for Impact, a committee of elected officials and Green Party leaders, is dismayed to see that Ralph Naders campaign schedule for September consists almost completely of battleground states, where his presence could aid in re-electing George W. Bush. They detailed six separate points of Naders Rhetoric on this that were at odds with the clear Reality, and concluded: Taking all of these inconsistencies and hypocrisies together, one can only conclude that Naders commitment to defeating Bush is a ruse. Finally, these suckers recognized the fact.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)[img][/img]
Ralph Nader 2000 Campaign Interview:
Will Ralph Nader become Al Gore's worst nightmare?
Of more immediate interest, at least to Al Gore, are Nader's respectable poll numbers: 7 to 10 percent in California as of June, 6 percent nationally. If California tips Green enough, Bush could win the state and the whole damn election.
Which, Nader confided to Outside in June, wouldn't be so bad. 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."
http://www.outsideonline.com/1837851/ralph-nader-2000-campaign-interview
Nader flew back and forth between California and Florida, finally spending the most of the last few weeks in Florida, and fulfilling his goal of a Bush Presidency.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)progressoid
(50,001 posts)I think we (Democrats) are probably going to lose more to Gary Johnson than Stein. But unless something drastic happens between now an November, it really doesn't matter. Hillary has it sewn up.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)Candidates outside the two major parties are like Alternative Republicans or Democrats.
If we had an electoral map in which the Libertarian and Green Party nominees carried one state each
the Libertarian would win a state which is normally a part of the Republicans base, and the Green nominee would win a state which is normally a part of the Democrats base. (See Elections 1912, 1948, and 1968 for examples.)
Given that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein poll no more than a combined 15 percent of the U.S. Popular Vote, I would guess Johnson and Steinwith their one-state carriagesto win a single-digit electoral-vote state. So, perhaps Johnson would one of Idaho, Montana, Utah, or Wyoming. Lets also suppose Stein would win one of Hawaii, Rhode Island, or Bernie Sanderss home state Vermont. I think that would be the limitthat is, if neither hits 15 percent individually in the U.S. Popular Vote. In a Top 10 populous state, a four-way race would require a Libertarian or Green to hit around 20 percent nationallyand that is at a minimumin order to individually eke out a win in a Top 10 state.
The structure is not there. The money is not. Here in 2016, the candidate outside the two major parties polling best is Gary Johnson. He would not be taking more votes from Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton; he would be taking more votes from Republican nominee Donald Trump.
I think people who feel truly threatened by Jill Steinwhen the polls show a trajectory of a national shift toward Hillary Clinton (and the Democratic Party)are talking themselves into feeling troubled.
Xipe Totec
(43,892 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Period.
pnwmom
(109,016 posts)And Stein is following in his pattern of targeting the swing states. She is a threat.
uponit7771
(90,367 posts)... defined herself in that video as an out of perspective asshole.