Jill Stein Is Killing the Green Party
newrepublic.com
“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”
“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”
Green party has been dead since Nader.
Pretending they had a chance in a voting system that can barely support two parties was kinda pitiable. Until we have RCV for federal elections at a minimum, they will never have a shot.
A-fucking-men.
The Green Party should be the RCV party and that should be their main focus. After that then they and any other party would actually stand a chance. Republicans are actively banning RCV from being implemented and Democrats are slow walking it, but we need to keep pushing.
TBH, I don't see it happening except organically from within the Democratic Party. If enough progressive Democrats get elected, I think it stands a chance to happen in our lifetimes.
Any democrat has a vested interest in first past the post continuing.
This is just not true. Places which are doing RCV are literally state at metro democratic strongholds. Democrats are literally the only ones pushing it.
Also Alaska, for some weird reason.
I disagree, which is why I specified the word "progressive."
Vested interest meaning it benefits them, i doubt you disagree with the current system of only two parties being considered for elections improves the odds of those two parties winning elections
What I disagree with is your implication that they will only ever act in their own interests. I do not know that to be true in the future (and neither do you), as not everyone is motivated by money or power. Enough politicians who see it as vital to the health of US democracy, and change will happen.
I'm not proposing that it will, only that it is far from a precluded possibility. As Boomers die out and retire, I have hope for the Millennials and Gen Zers who replace them.
We can sure make some educated guesses based on a lengthy history of evidence.
I like progressive democrats, but they want to get elected at a minimum.
But that's all they are: guesses. The fundamental flaw in looking to history for future behavior is the assumption that each person elected to office has the same motivations, ideals, and philosophies.
They want to get elected, sure, but wanting to get elected isn't the same as desiring to keep that office. If I had the skills to run for office, I would be willing to sacrifice reelection to ensure good legislation passed, for example.
Actually, an RCV system may help the democrats, at least in the short term.
For the last couple of decades, the "spoiler" candidates generally take from the democrats more than the republicans. Last big spoiler third party that screwed the right was Perot that I remember. With RCV, then the 'fringe' votes can still be cast and democrats can work toward being the second choice of those hardliners. At least in the short term, it alleviates the need to actually compete for votes with candidates that are going to lose anyway.
Longer term, it may cause a viable third party or more to get some steam (attracting practical candidates that no longer see the need to be a D or R to get votes, the parties generally getting left alone by outside forces that find them not worth weaponizing), but I don't think the politicians are too concerned on that long a time frame.
Unless they gain more support from endorsing RCV than they would lose to third parties. They're slowly bending to long term third party pressure.
That would mean actually caring about running campaigns for state goverments. State governments are the ones that can (and in Alaska's case have) implement RCV.
Green Party: challenges Democrats to enact ranked-choice voting
Actually, score voting would be better. IRV (also known as RCV) has been proven to lead to the same 2-party domination and has many disadvantages.
They are. Holy shit.
That's all well and good, but useless in any federal race because the federal government does not dictate how the elections/voting are done.
Brings it back around to if you care so damn much, then focus your resources on state governments.
You should reread the elections clause. Congress has authority to regulate elections
It’s right there in the platform.
This is a little discussed problem with fptp (along with many others) it gives minor parties perverse incentive to play spoiler, which gives foreign actors an opportunity to find spoilers.
They have a shot, by joining the Democratic Party. The same way that progressives join liberals, make their voice heard, and let the voters decide.
Or, just here me out, the Democrats adopt ranked choice voting from the Green Party platform, ditch aid to Israel, and make Jill Stein obsolete. I know, I know, it’s crazy. But, it might just work.
Or just hear me out, the green party stops playing spoiler every 4 years. Proving that their platform is meaningless and empty. And instead focuses on running and recruiting for state and local legislature to actually pass ranked Choice voting. And where it makes sense, such as offices no Democrat is running for. Recruit and endorsed a candidate to run as the combined democrat/green party candidate. Instead of constantly splitting the vote helping conservatives and the bourgeoisie.
I guess we’re never getting ranked choice voting then. And the genocide will continue until morale improves, according to bourgeois liberals.
Whens that?
Depends. How hard are you working on it?
The Green Party is.
Im supporting the leading candidate that has ranked choice voting as part of their platform
And you’re completely aware that won’t work?
Maybe he just needs to work harder on it.
Its the only thing that can. Its not happening until then
So it won’t work. Okay then, we’re on the same page there.
Boy that sure is the opposite of what i said
San Francisco has had ranked choice voting for years, and the fucking Green party didn't get it for us lmao
Progressive Democrats like ranked choice voting.
If you are talking about federal candidates, it is not the only thing that can, and in fact it won't happen even then because a federal candidate gets zero say in how the elections are done.
No federal office is going to give you RCV.
The logistics of federal elections are the purview of the state governments.
That one's interest do not lie with understanding anything. They're either too naive to. Or paid to appear to naive to
They will if we elect them
When Congress votes it into law.
It's not up to Congress, states decide how to run their elections.
Not true when it comes to Congressional races. I did a post a couple days ago about a bill that three Dems just introduced https://lemmy.world/post/19772020
Until they don't. That's not a guaranteed feature. As SCOTUS and Conservatives have taught me over the last several years, historical precedent doesn't mean shit.
We elect congress
Yep. Glad you see the progression.
Step 1:elect people that support ranked choice voting.
I.E. jill stein
How can she be elected?
Votes. Same way as everyone else
If Jill Stein thought she had a chance, she'd join the Democratic Party and actually campaign to win. She's just running for the self-indulgence despite hurting civil rights and climate initiatives.
The democratic party is too conservative and corrupt. Steins platform doesnt align with theirs.
I've never heard a single position of hers that is too liberal. Even Andrew Yang was given his time to make his case. Voters said no.
The problem is that she's not actually popular enough with voters to get elected, let alone popular enough in the liberal half of the country to get nominated. She's saying the game is rigged because she doesn't actually have a chance.
The game actually favors her. RCV would help a moderate like Manchin get elected.
jill stein is running for congress?
Why is the Green party not focused on congressional candidates then?
https://www.gp.org/elections
Maybe they should take some of the money they spend on Stein's vanity run and instead use it on their Congressional races.
When's the last time you saw an ad for a Green Party candidate? Or saw a candidate holding rallies in your state?
There's plenty of local and even state positions where Republicans run unopposed and Democrats don't even put up a candidate. Why aren't Greens investing in those races? Those are literally the perfect opportunity for Greens to start making headway.
Because when i think "spending too much on presidential campaigns", I think Green Party
This is the kind of disconnect that happens when you start from a conclusion (green party bad), and then try to work backwards to figure out why. I havent even seen an ad for Jill, let alone for less prominent green party candidates.
Ive been thinking more and more that the only way forward for the green party may just be to pic a few states and focus on local races. Get control over city councils and some mayoralships. Hell, a green caucus in state houses could actually do some good
The fact that they're not doing that but just going straight for an unwinnable Presidential election tells you a lot.
They do. Council seats, school boards, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Green_politicians_who_have_held_office_in_the_United_States
Four current Mayors are listed, though only one “ran as green”. Seventeen Greens are in city and county councils.
Here's their list, if you're curious.
I post this not to endorse Jill Stein, but rather because I wanted to see the info for myself so that I could understand what they consider an "elected position".
These are the criteria they use to decide who counts.
Thanks
Thats cool, etc
Yeah, to be relevant they need to win some elections in large cities and state legislatures. That would be the base necessary to start winning congressional seats and then work up from there. Because the Jill Stein narcissism tour every four years is clearly doing more harm than good.
And it would be the best thing in the world for the Dems. They need cogent and real opposition and right now they’re just running against crazies - which is important, but doesn’t do much for establishing an agenda. A functional Green Party would actually help pull the Dems back more to the left.
The best part of running for a state legislature or congressional position is that they could team with democrats to block the GOP, so unlike the presidential election you aren't voting against your interest for electing a third party.
Those races are also FPTP so they do risk the same spoiler effect. Maybe it would do for a deep blue area?
I'm searching around and something like CA-12 was 90% Biden. Candidates could split that like five or six ways and still not have any danger of a Repub.
I don't think there are any state level positions that would accommodate that. Even Vermont is only D+16, so the third party is a larger risk.
Seeing the disrepair the Republicans have left the south in, I wonder if there is room to do a grass roots campaign in more red areas with a focus of charity and community service? "We are here to help. No, we are not Dems" might work in Louisiana or Alabama
I actually think that would work. Campaign on: Charity, Community, and Clean Environment.
Probably, but that would require the Greens to be competent.
There are some parts of the US where they are not first-past-the-post.
The Greens could effectively run in those places, as well as races where the Democrats aren't running a candidate.
But when I see them running for local office, they're basically running to be on the ballot, not mounting a serious effort to win.
Says quite a bit that Greens aren't even doing much in California or Washington.
You can also vote the Democratic primaries, too.
That worked out, suprisingly well, for Sanders. Think about how much change you could affect voting for Sanderses at every level.
I remember in the late 90s the Green Party in my district was on a roll, culminating in the election of a member to the California State Assembly (one of the highest posts ever held by the Greens in the US). Then came Nader’s presidential bid and its perceived role in the election of Bush, which permanently crippled the legitimacy of the local party. They’re still doing great work with voter guides, legislative analysis, etc.; but they’ll never escape the shadow of Nader and Stein.
I think the only viable path for a third party now is to start a new one from scratch, and disavow presidential bids from the outset.
Sam Seder has been saying rhis for a decade at this point.
Its how you build a political movement.
Funny, I just heard him bring it up in a clip. Glad I'm not the oblyone thinking this, means I'm not completely crazy. Could a political party operate a community grocery "store" with campaign funds?
If they were a serious political party. But that would require you to believe that they are wildly incompetent and being supported for that incompetence. Rather than they're doing this intentionally. Not seriously running to win or improve anything. But being a divisive spectacle to destroy solidarity on the left.
This is how the Tea Party and MAGA co-opted the Republicans, and it's the model progressives should use to move the needle in the Democratic party (and they have, with some success).
If progressives want to see change, progressives need to vote. In every election. General or primary.
Who needs party membership when you have unlimited money cheat code from daddy Putin?
What makes you think a politically irrelevant person like Stein would capture the attention of putin?
Oh hey wow who put that picture here.
And the republican billionaires who think you will spoil races.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-allies-jill-stein-green-party-democrats-ballots-battleground-states/
They never organize, canvass, campaign.. they never put in the work. It's easy to sit on Twitter all day and disparage the Democratic Party (yes they have many flaws as well) and nothing else.
They're lazy grifters.
What exactly did Jill Stein do with that $7 million for the recount? She was interviewed by Mehdi Hassan and he kept asking her why she won't call out Putin when she has no problem calling out Bibi. Yes two things can be true at once. She just couldn't explain why she refused to call Putin out on his war mongering and genocide.
How does the Green Party suddenly get money around election time when they don’t do shit for the previous four years?
People are asking.
That's - clearly - when they're doing their best work for their supporter. You thought the 'green' wasn't about greenbacks?
Nyet, no one is asking, don't be silly. 🙃
Maybe has something to do with the dinner she had with him.
No but you see she said he was only there for like 10 minutes and she never talked to him so it's fine.
Just in case anyone hasn't seen it yet. Medhi Hasan is the GOAT and Stein is absolutely a dishonest fucking clown.
https://zeteo.com/p/exclusive-mehdi-interviews-jill-stein?utm_campaign=post
For those that don't want to give Elon fucking muskrat a click. Fuck Twitter.
Edit: never mind it's a preview... So fucking important but we need to pay him to see it.
Is there a good article out there with highlights of the interview? I feel like this would merit its own post, it's an amazing watch and very important to see for those still considering Stein a legitimate option.
Jill Stein is both a terrible candidate and possibly a Russian agent. Even if I do align with much of the green parties stances and I live in a solidly blue state, I would never vote for her out of principle
Indeed. I might vote for some Greens down-ballot, but Stein is a stain on the party and its cause
then you are effectively falling right in line with the lies the DNC sold you since the "russian agent" theory is easily debunked after 5 seconds of googling.
I am more concerned with her lack of knowledge on any policy, to be honest with you
I only hear about this candidate a month before the election for the last 50 years, how is this mummy still here?
Because of foreign financing to draw votes away from the Democrats.
Don't forget those shady domestic PACs that drop a dime on her campaign as well. I wonder who those donors could be.... 🤔
And Stein's answer every single time this comes up?
"What about Gaza?"
She is literally an operative for Russia and the Republicans. This isn't even a meme or conspiracy theory, it's simply a plain truth.
I don't understand how a genocide can be taken so lightly. Some people have trouble casting a vote for any political party that sponsors one.
I support the college protestors even when people say they're hurting the cause, but I would say Jill Stein definitely hurts the cause.
I think you're suggesting Trump would be worse than Harris for the cause. But my point is that a lot of people feel that voting for either is sanctioning genocide, and Stein fills that niche by condemning it. It's pretty low-hanging fruit for a politician.
I'm legitimately curious as to how college protestors could be hurting the cause.
Jill Stein can't even call Putin a war criminal: https://youtu.be/h1JUMeWaBVg
A messenger who is inconsistent on genocide is not a good messenger of genocide.
I've given more details elsewhere, but the short version:
We can classify US presidential votes into three categories:
The most effective vote to make on an anti-genocide platform is #1.
Voting for a Republican is voting for a party that appears to be profoundly okay with the genocide in Gaza AND wants to start some genocides of their own (e.g. against trans folks, immigrants and racial minorities). This is the most pro-genocide vote.
Voting for a Democrat is voting for a party that has a fairly significant group that opposes the genocide, and which appears to be movable on the topic.
Any other vote is roughly equivalent to not voting. On the presidental front, there is no chance in this election that anyone other than a candidate from one of the main two parties is elected, and that's also true for most senate or house races. (Possibly all, but I don't want to make that strong claim since I haven't actually researched all the races.) Voting for a candidate who you know won't win is explicitly choosing not to have a say between the tho feasible candidates.
I do have one caveat though...
If you live in West Virginia for example, it's a bit more complex. There your choice is essentially "the Republican or not the Republican," so third-party/independent moves into category 1. However, then I'd argue that voting for the Democrat for president may still be the preferable response because if the Republican wins the electoral college but, (as has happened in every presidential election since 1990 except 2004) the Democrat still wins the popular vote, it further delegitimises the Republican's presidency and the electoral college.
You put it much much better than I ever could. Best comment 10/10
Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent real change. By sidelining those voices, you’re indirectly helping Trump win!
I know, it's like when Jews bring up the Holocaust all the time. So annoying!
Imagine being such a scumbag that you make fun of the Holocaust because you don't like a country that didn't exist in 1944. Or is it maybe the race of people you don't like
Right, making a joke about a past Holocaust is so much worse then implicitly endorsing one your own country is perpetrating right now.
So this is about Jews not Israelis. Got it. Glad the mask is off
No this is about how your righteous indignation about the Jewish Holocaust is complete BS because you refuse to speak out against one your letting happen now. You would have been a coward then as you are now.
Says the American, who has genocided half the world without an apology. Your people genocided mine and called us all sorts of names. Now you've moved on and want to take the moral high ground while there's a line of bodies and blood behind you
I was against those genocides too. The Zionist brain is so diseased that they really believe they can justify genocide by saying "Not fair, you did it too!" Ahahahah
Your brain is so diseased you call people Zionists without any meaning. I guess you may as well throw every person of color you don't like today into the batch right? Throw the baby out with the bath water.
lol you guys give in to propaganda so fucking easily
😂 🤡
The ronald dump supporter thinks other people are the ones vulnerable and susceptible to propaganda.
Pure fucking comedy.
Even if you assume she isn't a bad faith actor, she's still objectively failed to pass the one thing the world needs, the Green New Deal, and environmentalism is in the worst shape it's been in decades.
That's not all her fault, but her protest candidacy weirdness put Trump in office the first time instead of spending that time and effort on actual policy so...
Fuck off already?
Haha oh really. It had nothing to do with Hilary being the worst candidate ever? The authoritarian electoral college founded to preserve slavery? The rampant voter suppression by Republicans that Democrats refuse to stop. It was all her fault huh?
Certainly if she has been trying to effect real change in a realistic way, rather than an egocentric impossible run at the presidency.....
Things would have been different. She was one of many straws, which if subtracted, would have prevented trump
So for that and that alone, she and the rest of the greens can fuck right off.
See the No Labels folks for a more common sense way to be activist on national level politics.
Greens would be great if they would focus on good, winnable races from the bottom up....
What that called again?? Uhh 'grass roots'
She funded an investigations that showed Hilary had won a state that went to Donald Trump. But sure it's her that doesn't care about democracy not the Democrats that rolled over on not one but two elections where they likely won.
I'll agree that Dems have given up way too easily, mostly based on naive "for the good of the country" white knighting.
It probably didn't start with Al Gore and the hanging chads, but that would have been a good time to realize that sometimes these fights are existential
Doesn't change the fact that Stein is currently a russian-funded spoiler and she's a drag on the Greens and does great disservice to all of the non-major parties.
I hope No Labels and other serious 'third paries' spend time focusing on voting reform like RCV or similar. Of course, many nerds will (probably correctly) claim that RCV is flawed in whatever way and we should try to move to some other even more complicated system. And then nothing will happen and we will continue to be stuck in a bi-party system with smaller factions only ever having the opportunity to act as spoilers in national or even state-wide races.
All her fault, no, but if she was a real progressive she would have learned a lesson and made a play for a lower office. But it's very clear that's not what she's being paid to do.
Is she really responsible for the problems of the US Green party?
As near as I can tell the EU Green parties had a different trajectory. They initially started winning seats in parliaments on purely environmental platforms. Those MPs actually started pushing green agendas in various parliaments. That, in turn led to more people voting for them. Eventually that had to adopt policy positions beyond the environment and they tended to be pretty left.
The US never had Green party members in a position where they could actually do anything useful about the environment. That means they could never fulfill their primary goal in the US. So when they tried to branch out the same way the EU Green parties did, they just turned into a vague hodgepodge of leftists ideas.
Is there any suggestion that Jill Stein's replacement would have any chance of saving the US Green party?
The Green party is doing exactly what it was designed to do. It's siphoning off eco-conscious Democratic voters just significantly enough to affect voting margins but not enough to win. To be clear I'm not saying that Even a significant number of people in the green party have that as a goal, but top down, that's all it's about.
We are a two-party system and they are allowing the green party to exist to use it as a wedge.
Then I guess y'all should starting reworking how your system works, because it doesn't sound like a democracy at all if you can't vote for what you actually believe in.
America has what I like to call ‘Monkey’s Paw Democracy’; almost as if someone wished for a representative Government from a cursed object.
Now instead of voting for policies they like, voters are forced to vote against policies they dislike or risk being punished my having their rights slowly chipped away.
We would, but as it stands now it's an authoritarian dictatorship, right wing hellscape, and a marginally awful moderate right wing dystopia in a trench coat and they're not about to cede any distance to allowing us new liberties.
If we don't get at least a 60% margin there's a really good chance the guy that said this will be the last time you ever have to vote, I'm going to be a dictator on day one and I'm going to imprison all of the opponents, legislators and donors that went against me.
Outside of an actual moderate or left-wing coup which is pretty much impossible I don't see there's any way that this country is getting out of this.
Agreed, but while we're working on that in multiple avenues, we still need to vote for the harm reduction choice.
I'll say that I sort of despise Fairvote.
They lie about RCV pretty much all the time.
The system has more problems than First Past the Post, and still doesn't fix the third party problem.
No, a far better system is STAR. It actually fixes the problems that it sets out to fix.
Someone should inform the Whigs
It would be nice but you'd have to go back to 1850 because we eradicated them and made sure it couldn't happen again.
Every vote for Harris is stealing a vote from third-party candidates who represent real change. By sidelining those voices, you’re indirectly helping Trump win!
Hahaha hahahahahahahaha hahahahah. You're hilarious!
Right?!
The issue is she sucks all the oxygen out of the room with her pointless presidential runs and does nothing for the four years in between. There’s an inconsequential number of Greens who run and win elections in small cities and towns or less consequential elections, and none of them have won any federal elections. A real party leader would recruit and foster candidates in large cities and state legislatures— and then get folks to run for the US House, the Senate, state governorships, and then the presidency.
Stein is less a party leader and more a figurehead who basically seems to be in it for the grift. And so US Greens (especially in comparison to those in the EU) are less a party and more just a convenient label for those of a certain bent that want to run as something other than as a Democrat.
My question was more along the lines of the "(not so) the great (wo)man" hypothesis.
Let's imagine that Jill Stein was permanently abducted by aliens. What do we think would happen?
Would the Green Party just collapse?
Would the former member just join the Democrats?
Would they start a new party?
Or maybe someone new would take over who could do a better job?
I think we'd likely just get someone who's functionally equivalent.
Maybe vote count is instructive:
Nader 2000: 2,882,955
Cobb 2004: 119,859
McKinney 2008: 161,797
Stein 2012: 469,501
Stein 2016: 1,457,216
Hawkins 2020: 407,068
I don't think the party would collapse without Stein. They have been around for decades and they have a cadre of oranizers who will continue to show up regardless of results. Stein is just the most famous person they can use for a presidential election, and you can see from the above results what happens when they run someone nobody has heard of.
I think they genuinely believe in their core values, and it's unfortunate that Stein is their only viable candidate. They won't ever be a real political party until they start winning local/state elections, but they're looking to secure more federal funding by getting enough votes. If Stein disappeared then they would keep doing this but they'd never breach half a million votes. Maybe a progressive democrat in the House would smell an opportunity and break ranks to run for president with the Greens. That could maybe get them a million or two votes again.
Or maybe it absolutely does not matter who they run and they just get a lot of votes when the Democrats run particularly shitty candidates for president.
Nader wasn't even the Green candidate in 2004. Nader ran as an independent in 2004.
That year the Green Party ran David Cobb, who got 119,859 votes, putting him behind the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and the independent Ralph Nader.
In 2008, Nader ran again as an independent and beat the Green Party once again, with 739,034 votes, versus McKinney's 162k. In between were the Libertarians in fourth place, and the Constitution Party in fifth place.
The Green Party has never even come in third place, and several times hasn't even come in fifth place, in our two party system.
My mistake, thanks
In terms of her affect on the Green party, those numbers make it look like she's fairly run-of-the-mill. Her first one was low and later on she posted numbers similar to more famous candidates.
I did a quick search on where those candidates are and it seems that many of potential Green party candidates are in swing states. It also looks like many of them are specifically siding with them because of their stance on Gaza.
That suggests that she's just fine for the Greens and is likely even helping them. She's a problem for Democrats because there's an assumption that those voters would switch to the Democratic ticket if they don't vote Green.
Right. If democrats want those votes then Biden needs to make significant progress on ending the genocide now. The threat from third parties exerts an outsize pressure on the Democrats to actually do something. But of course they likely won't, and instead Trump will take advantage of this.
I don't think it would even have to go that far.
It's mostly that Harris needs to be able to present credible red lines. Right now, the perception is that Israel can get away with absolutely anything.
Anything to break that perception it might be enough. A light version might be something like, "Every time X happens, we'll delay weapons shipments by a week while we investigate." That's not much and it might not even change Israel's behavior but I suspect that just articulating some policy and sticking to it would be sufficient.
Ah, I get your question now. Unfortunately I think it’s impossible to say, but I do know it’s impossible to find out while she’s still there.
please, she's such a fucking bobble-headed, putin-slopping dork.
Counterpoint: The Green Party hasn't done much to keep people engaged. They killed themselves.
At least the Tea Party had a decent run and engaged with the people who would vote for them. Though, it let MAGA convert or overtake it, but the point still stands. The Tea Party did more in the 10ish years it existed than the Green Party has done in 20 years.
Counter-counterpoint: the Tea Party was an astroturf movement funded by big oil, big tobacco and the Koch brothers. Given massive amounts of support by media companies (lots and lots of oxygen). With the purpose of taking over the GOP and entrenching their toxic industries and power.
With the perspective we have now it is clear that their plan was to push Republican supporters over into fascism (not to say that it wasn't latent within many of them) and reduce the risks of democracy to the oligarchy.
The US green party is essentially an astroturf movement to prevent people from even going as "left" as the Democrats. The Tea Party is there to move Republicans to fascism. The Greens have been co-opted to lubricate that process for them.
There is a 100% chance that Trump couldn't name how many members there are in the house. I'd be shocked if he could list the branches of government without help.
note I'm not saying that's acceptable. But if that's your test for "is this a serious candidate" I hate to be the bearer of bad news...
That's interesting.
My brain's first answer was 435, then I took 538 and subtracted the 100 senators and got to 438.
But that's including the 3 from DC I think, so back to 435? Gonna look this up.
Edit: 435, must've been DC.
"given that she herself has received tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Google, Lockheed Martin, Amazon, Microsoft, Apple, and McKinsey." I don't see this information on the FEC website. Can anybody actually find this information? I sort this page by Amount, and it doesn't list these companies. It lists people:
https://www.fec.gov/data/receipts/?data_type=processed&committee_id=C00505800&committee_id=C00581199&two_year_transaction_period=2016
Pretty sure they’re referring to individual donations where those companies are the employer.
The writer of the article read it on Facebook. Fake news is the new standard.
I am by inclination Green, but I live in Europe where the Greens have been through their scandals and emerged somewhat presentable. I don't believe that is the case in the US, where the Greens and particularly Jill Stein are basically just useful idiots. They disrupt the candidates most aligned to their own cause. And in Stein's case, she's disrupts her own damned country.
And then the Green Party was a zombie.
Just kidding it always was.
The people have killed the green party in the womb.
It's true. Where the hell does the green party matter? I'm not saying this is how it should be, but it's how it is.
::: spoiler New Republic - News Source Context (Click to view Full Report) Information for New Republic:
::: spoiler Search topics on Ground.News https://newrepublic.com/article/186004/green-jill-stein-2024-election ::: Media Bias Fact Check | bot support
Isn't that like accusing the maggots of killing the corpse?
I’m voting for the party for socialism and liberation and you can too.
You don’t need to vote green to cast a third party ballot.
So basically what you're saying is you're not voting this year.
No, I didn’t say that.
My ballot will be counted for PSL.
That’s the opposite of not voting.
You know… voting.
Yeah, you are voting for literally nobody. If you'd stayed at home, nothing would be different.
No, PSL is running Claudia de la Cruz. That’s who I’m voting for, not nobody.
If you think my vote doesn’t change anything then why do you keep replying about it?
And it will mean nothing to anyone other than yourself.
You’re replying to me about it so it means something to you too! ❤️
Cool. Not sure I’ve seen anyone arguing against that point.
And of course you’ve been working all the time for the past four years in support of socialism and liberation? Because of course, you wouldn’t be one of the people who only jump in every four years with a third party vote because they think it makes them edgy and cool? That would just be sad.
A lot of the tone of these anti green posts seems pointed at pushing people to vote for the democrats instead. I’m as anti Green Party as they come, but I want to make sure people know there are still good third parties to support.
As a member of the lemmy instance for privacy and open source, I’m not gonna dox myself, but yeah, I’m absolutely politically active in the off years lol.
You wouldn’t happen to be trying to badjacket people or gatekeep support for PSL, would you? Because first timers and those newly disillusioned with the democrats are welcome to vote for PSL. No experience required.
I have a question about PSL. My organizational background is in labor mostly, though I have done some door knocking for critical elections.
How is your candidate getting however many votes (feel free to estimate) going to help the working class? Or alternatively, how does your electoral campaign help PSL? Is this ultimately a recruitment drive?
Well, PSL is a socialist party with a platform that explicitly promotes worker control over the means of production, but on a less theoretical level, they show up and provide material support to strikes and worker action.
So if it was just a recruitment drive I think it would be good because a bigger psl means more support for workers.
But I honestly don’t think it is just a recruitment drive. Psl seems to have an actual theory of power that is in opposition to the structures of power that support the democrats and republicans.
In order to build that power psl needs to show people that their government doesn’t have to be trash which doesn’t represent them or help them. Participating in electoralism does that.
Even if psl goes nowhere, a big showing would force other major parties to recognize that there is significant support and, critically now, stability to be gained by adopting the principles of a pro worker party.
So pretty much I think it’s an unalloyed good for workers.
Yeah, I'm just wondering why they're launching a national presidential campaign rather than trying to win locally first. See for example DSA's (the veil falls lol) cadre candidates like Zohran Mamdani.
It seems to me like PSL is skipping this step and going straight to national, with the net result of devoting a lot of energy that could be spent on worker organizing on a campaign that everyone knows is not going to win.
This also bears the risk of helping Trump win by siphoning off votes from Harris, and a Trump victory will have damaging effects on the NLRB, an organization which in its current state is making it a lot easier for workers to unionize.
So I'm just not seeing how any third party presidential run ties into building worker power, but maybe I am missing something.
I think if psl were just running a presidential candidate and nothing else then you’d have a good point, but especially in California (the party started there?) they run a bunch of candidates for different positions.
I think that’s different from dsa because psl purports to have party discipline whereas that was a big problem and point of contention in dsa over the past four years.
I actually think that to the extent it matters, parties like dsa and greens take away more votes from the democrats because they’re basically places for spicy or heady democrats to go respectively.
Of course, the onus falls on the political party plying their platform to pander to the populace and not the reverse, so basically if the democrats want psl, dsa or green votes it’s their responsibility to adopt those positions or enter into some coalition with those parties.
As far as the nlrb goes, the next step is the same if we end up with an extension of the Biden nlrb, a trump nlrb (or the dissolution thereof) or some third party nlrb: build and express worker power that can actually successfully demand concessions from the ruling class as opposed to subsist on crumbs allowed to fall from the table.
I don’t honestly think it would be significantly easier under Biden than trump and the rail strike is evidence. Rather than acquiesce to some pretty milquetoast demands, the Biden administration broke the strike.
If you’re involved in dsa, how’s your local?
My local is great but I don't have any others to compare to so it's a pretty vapid description. There's a PSL here too and they come to a lot of our events. It's always interesting to hear from the more radical formation.
The thing with DSA "party discipline" is that it's not a political party. It's basically a nonprofit with local chapters that all have their own agendas, some of which run candidates. So I'm interested to see what happens with a more centralized (as far as I understand it anyway) structure like PSL.
In terms of labor organizing I do think the political climate matters. The rail strike is an example of national scale union busting, but on more local levels (Starbucks, Amazon, Cemex...) that the NLRB actually matters. Here's an article about it.
https://www.laborpolitics.com/p/how-bidens-nlrb-has-boosted-bottom
I interact with a decent amount of dsa people too. In conversation we tend to disagree about some things but in the moment of a conflict they’re right there. I think the police would get a lot farther with them over a cup of coffee than with the plastic shields lol.
I think the party discipline is important in a moment of movement building because it keeps party candidates honest. It makes sense why dsa doesn’t and kinda can’t have it, but for me it’s something important.
You’re right that a pliable nlrb was important in getting some of the victories lately. I guess I have a pretty pessimistic view of the position organized labor is in now considering it’s experiencing a resurgence and we still have declining union density over that same time frame.
From my perspective an nlrb that will play nice is the least of our worries.
will be voting for the PSL if they're on the ballot in my state, Claudia De la Cruz is great. if they don't make it on the ballot then it'll probably go to Stein as I believe she's confirmed on the ballot in my state, but the PSL is my first choice!
edit: just checked, the PSL is indeed on the ballot in my state, so they've got my vote :3
Trump is gunna win and it will be your fault libs. Just like the first time. You ain't going to be able to spin your way out of this.
Shitlibs love to be parrots for the DNC, eating up whatever shit they spew out their asses to stay in power. Yeah, the green party and Stein are the baddies, not the genocidal, warmongering democrats who don't give a shit about Americans 🙄
Tell me a flagship green policy of hers, if you can find it.
I'd love for this person to highlight even one thing outside of running for president every few years, that Jill Stein has done to forward climate activism or help stop the endless wars.
There’s a reason it’s called the Green New Deal:
So why do I have to read that on wikipedia instead of their website? Where is their green new deal plan, their manifesto? Varoufakis has been pushing one, this has been a thing in Europe for a long, long time.
The Green New Deal is part of their 2024 platform.
The opposition research from the Democratic Party says otherwise
Genocidal Democrats are crashing out this election.
If Harris wants to win over Stein voters, this is definitely not the way to do it.
So no thoughts on perennial sorta kinda candidate Stein making the Green Party a laughingstock then? Or the fact that with her campaign only surviving with the help of GOP operatives and Russian propaganda campaigns, she’s actually making it harder to take third party candidates seriously at any level of government?
No thoughts on the democratic party completely capitulating to a reactionary right wing framework on Israel, immigration, and foreign policy? No thoughts on the Biden/Harris administration actively funding a genocide for the past year? No thoughts on Kamala promising to continue allowing Israel to "defend itself"? Blue maga is literally celebrating the endorsement of the architect of the invasion of Iraq. Did the Democratic establishment forget to at least pretend to be an opposition party?
Oh, you’re one of those. Figures.
this post is about Stein and the Green party, nobody asked for your literal whataboutism. Shows just how effective geekwithsoul's comment is that you couldn't muster a single word in response and instead turned to "b-b-b-but democrats!!!!!!"
That last sentence with 'blue maga' says everything about what you support, no surprise all you have are whatabouts.
how many Ds have eaten with Putin personally btw?
One, at least.
Do you not know what a state dinner is?
Wow, you found one of the millions of photos of The President of the United States dining with another world leader. Congrats.
What was Jill's excuse?
She went to an RT party, was investigated by the Senate Intelligence Committee, and excused. Don’t vote for her if you don’t want to. I won’t, because I’m in a swing state. But the dis/mis information and slandering of third parties should be disconcerting for anyone who wants more choices in this duopoly.
So literally the Kremlin's propaganda arm. Totally normal stuff...
After all, she was a government official at the time, so it's normal for her to dine with the Russian president. Oh wait, she wasn't?
Well at least she was a major presidential candidate right? Oh, never more than ~1.4% you say?
Well I'm sure Putin and his oligarch buddies just wanted to meet her because they're big fans 🙄.
I have a hard time believing any of you Jill Stein shills are actually for real. I really hope you're not.
I’m not voting for Jill Stein. Again, she was investigated. They found no wrongdoing. Russia did support her campaign because it sows division. AIPAC donates to Harris and Trump. Facts, not feelings and speculation, should dictate reasoning.
Do we really have to explain the difference between public officials who work in foreign policy and directly represent the United States, versus private citizens?
She was investigated. They found no Russian money. AIPAC donates to Harris and Trump. Facts aren’t hypocritical.
Care to engage with any of these, then?
Sure,
She appeared on RT as part of her campaign. Per the Intelligence Committee report linked:
Also, from the investigation:
She was investigated and the committee found no wrongdoing. It is not illegal for presidential candidates to meet with world leaders or do interviews with international media outlets.
As for the investments. If she is a hypocrite for having index and mutual fund investments in fossil fuels, then most Americans, as well as Harris, are too.
Vanguard Small Cap Value Index (VBR)
iShares Core MSCI EAFE ETF
Vanguard Small Cap Growth Index (VBK)
iShares Broad USD Investment Grade Corporate Bond ETF
Vanguard Growth Index ETF (VUG)
Vanguard Information Technology Index Fund ETF (VGT)
Vanguard Consumer Staples Index Fund ETF (VDC)
Vanguard Industrials Index Fund ETF (VIS)
Those who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones
Jill Stein could sue Thirdway.org for defamation and libel, this article is grounds for a lawsuit.
Whataboutisms aside, if you're going to claim an article is libelous, you ought to at least be able to refute one of the assertions made by it. You haven't actually done that here. Jill Stein's defense is that she's naive to the point of idiocy. So she's either a witting catspaw of Putin and the GOP, or an imbecile that has no business being president.
Furthermore, I was unable to find any language in the senate intelligence committee's report to indicate that she'd been cleared of wrongdoing— merely the absence of an indictment. Regardless of whether she's committed any crimes, she is objectively a spoiler candidate. She could be as pure as the driven snow, and it wouldn't change the fact that the only thing her campaign stands to accomplish is to elect donald trump.
If she really wanted to further her purported agenda, she would use her candidacy to get concessions from Harris in exchange for dropping out and endorsing her. Stein could actually effect change that way. Instead, she parrots Russian talking points, exclusively attacks Democrats, and consequently is completely counterproductive with regard to her stated goals.
Pretty much the response I expected.
What a twat.
Mentioning that the current admin has been actively funding a genocide for a year and that both major parties promise to continue to do so in 2025, isn't a whataboutism. Sorry to criticize your genocidal queen, I know stopping to consider that brown Muslims are humans too can be very taxing on most Americans.
Jill Stein does not know how many Representatives are in the US House of Representatives.
Anyone care to defend that? That the kind of President you want?
I'm voting for Claudia de la Cruz, not that it matters. neither Claudia, Cornel West, or Jill Stein are actively funding a genocide.
Yeah they are. It's just in Ukraine, which you don't give a shit about for some reason.
Oh I give a shit about the working class of Ukraine, thanks for asking. It's just that Biden/Harris aren't bypassing Congress multiple times to send $60 billion of my tax dollars to Russia to further their imperialism. But yeah you definitely don't care about Palestinians, you've made that clear. I'm willing to bet you don't care for the people of Syria, or Libya, or Afghanistan, or Iraq either. I wonder what the common denominator is there. Maybe you just absolutely despise brown Muslims on the opposite end of US imperial conquest.
You're carrying water for people who say Russia had no choice but to invade and that Russia isn't to blame for starting the war.
These candidates are excusing Russia's actions and not assigning proper culpability to the genocidal, imperial Putin regime. And you're going to vote for them?
I'm voting for Claudia de la Cruz as mentioned previously. But even if the green party secures 5 percent of the vote, they are eligible for federal funding which is a step away from 2 conservative parties that ignore worsening material conditions for working class Americans.
Third parties have gotten over 5% before. How'd that go for them?
It's clear that the current third party strategy of advertising via presidential runs is an abject failure.
We also used to have socialist political figures in power, if you learned American history at all. Abject failure is supporting genocide, ignoring worsening material conditions of the working class, criminalizing homelessness, and blaming immigrants as a scapegoat for everything.
So how come you've got a line in the sand that you won't support any candidate who supports Palestinian genocide, but that doesn't apply to Ukrainian genocide?
By your own logic you should be rejecting the Greens too.
I think I've said this like 3 times now but I'm not voting for green party, I'm voting for Claudia de la Cruz. Again not that it matters. I'm anti imperialist whether it's genocide by Israel, Russia, or the US.
By not voting Democrat, you're enabling imperialism by all of the above. You're actively working against your own professed goals.
By not voting for one of the two outwardly fascist parties, I'm enabling more fascism. Got it. You should put this effort in convincing a Trump supporter to vote for Kamala. You're more closely aligned in policy with that voter.
That's what I'm doing lol
Yes, because none of these people work in the government so no fucking shit.
You're essentially voting for Donald Trump, just remember that. You can try to rationalize it, but you cannot argue with reality.
If you actually gave a single shit about the Palestinian people (that you suddenly started caring about on an election year, despite the conditions in Gaza being this way for literal decades), then you will do anything to make sure that Donald Trump does not get elected.
If you want a viable third party, you don't wait until 8 months before an election every 4 years to steal votes from the Democratic party. Until we do away with first past the post and/or the Electoral College, voting for anyone other than one of the two major parties is akin to not voting at all (or in many cases, an active detriment to the Democratic party, which is why it's always such a no-brainer for Putin. Maximum social discord, minimum cost).
I know that you know this. I just want you to remember it when Trump wins and by February Palestine literally ceases to exist. If you want to see this genocide kicked into high gear all you gotta do is: vote for Donald Trump, vote for a third party, or not vote at all... And then you too can feel like you're part of the action!
I've been heavily anti-Israel since the murder of Rouzan al-Najjar in 2018. I've worked on multiple local campaigns for both independent and Democratic candidates alike. But reading through your rant it definitely sounds like you're projecting a lot of your own personal insecurities. I'm sorry that exercising my freedom to vote for a candidate that aligns with my values of not commiting genocide upsets you. I hope you can look past your own shortcomings as a human being and learn to forgive yourself for being ok with your tax dollars slaughtering an entire indigenous population.
But your proposed course of action clearly doesn't align with your stated goal, for reasons that have already been pointed out to you. I don't see you engaging with that argument. This leads me to believe that you don't actually care about what happens to Palestinians; you just want to feel like you're taking a moral stand. People that actually give a shit tend to care about what the consequences of their actions will be.
My proposed course of action aligns with the Palestinian Americans in my community. We speak out at our city council every month and hold rallies near our house reps office every week. But I guess I just don't care as much as someone voting in favor of the slaughter of their families, someone like you.
Whether that's true or not, it doesn't change the math. The world's full of people advocating against their own interests. You still haven't addressed the argument.
It's a dumb argument. A mental math to justify voting for genocide.
No, it's the logical and inevitable consequence of the action you're advocating for. Just saying it's "dumb" in no way refutes it.
dude she can't unequivocally say Putin is a war criminal. save me the capitulation bullshit.
We're going to have the most lethal military because 70 percent of your tax dollars should go to the department of defense rather than addressing the tens of thousands of Americans dying from lack of access to healthcare, lack of public transit that would provide accessibility to underserved communities, particularly those of color, or funding education so that teachers don't need to live out of their cars or have fundraisers to pay for their curriculum.
We will continue to ensure Israel can defend itself from children throwing rocks and homemade rockets against a brutal apartheid regime that controls every aspect of Palestinian life.
We're going to focus on border security because immigrants are clearly the problem as stated initially by the GOP, rather than counter a racist narrative using a false premise with the fact that undocumented immigrants commit crimes at a substantially lower rate than American citizens and also greatly contribute to our economy.
Yeah that's literally just conservative policy.
i don't know what you're arguing for. stein is not it. she's not genuine. she's done nothing to make the green party even remotely relevant for a decade. she just shows up every four years to collect money. she's a grifter.
I'm voting for Claudia de la Cruz. Reading is hard
when did you mention that? this whole thread was about stein and you kept going on tangents about military and shit.
also wow that brings the total de la Cruz votes to ... i guess 1? there will be a margin of error so it should be somewhere between -99 and 101. congrats on your vote for the republican party.
"I see you, I hear you." And enjoy voting for genocide.
you're doing it too. don't kid yourself.
What convinced you that the Green Party is a laughingstock and that Stein is responsible?
Which GOP donors and Russian operatives are you referring to? Donations are a matter of public record. Which ones are from the GOP and Russia?
Sure, let me just Google that for you…
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/russians-launched-pro-jill-stein-social-media-blitz-help-trump-n951166
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/former-green-party-presidential-candidate-cooperates-in-russia-probe-into-2016-election
https://ballotpedia.org/Jill_Stein_presidential_campaign,_2016/Russia
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/republican-allies-jill-stein-green-party-democrats-ballots-battleground-states/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2024/09/10/metro/jill-stein-new-hampshire-ballot-republican-help/
My man! I just wanted to compliment you on the reserved and good responses. You have a patience not many have. Keep up the good work.
Thanks! I can get a little snarky sometimes but generally assume adding more information to a discussion is more helpful than not. :)
Where are the donations?
You mentioned donations, not me.
This is true, I've already spoken to all 7 of them, they're mad.
However it's all their fault if Harris loses.
Good thing then this is an opinion piece from a publication, and not something from Harris?
If Stein voters are offended by an article that a journalist writes about how ineffectual the Green Party is, and they blame Harris for that, that says more about the voters than it does anything else.
Namely that Greens will blame everyone except themselves for election losses.
They're quoting people from the DNC in the article. Did you even read it?
I see a lot of anti Stein rhetoric lately I understand the push to not let her drag the ticket from Kamala but I wonder how much is true and how much is news trying to sway my opinion
edit; Imagine asking a reasonable question in 2024 lol
Stein has been a known Russian asset and Democratic spoiler candidate for about a decade now, being "Green" has never actually had anything to do with her political goals.
You're seeing anti-Stein rhetoric lately because it's a Presidential election year and that's the only time the Green party tries to be visible.
I'm sure the two or three Green people at the local level believe in the party's stated platform, but at the higher level it absolutely looks like the party exists only to siphon votes away from the Democratic party.
I would suggest you do your own research, but she’s run several times, has no real experience or qualifications, and has been shown multiple times to be benefiting (either knowingly or unknowingly) from both GOP operatives and Russian interference.
Personally I fully support third parties - if they do more than just show up as spoilers every four years. Jill Stein has been doing zilch to push the Green Party forward except in presidential election years. And as a result she’s doing more harm to folks who want more options than not.
How much do you hear about the Green Party OTHER than the presidential election? That should tell you quite a bit.
That’s because corporate media has a vested interest in not covering them. Their membership has stayed the same since about 2011
Could it be because they currently exist only as a spoiler party for the presidential election? The media doesn’t have a vested interest in not covering them, that’s republican “fake news” talk. Media LOVES conflict.
It seems that way because the Greens operate on a local and state level between presidential elections, by design:
The media chooses to not cover the Greens, Libertarians, Constitutionalists, the Working Families Party, or any socialist parties because that would give them credibility and undermine the capitalist controlled two-party message.
I am not defending the Green Party. I will not vote for them. But the narrative that is being pushed to suppress third party support is detrimental to democracy.
You've proved the point then. If Cobb's strategy was followed, the Greens would be in a far better position.
Note that I went to her own platform page and that was enough for me to be a hard pass even if I went worried about Trump and even I never heard anything from anyone about her.
The deal breakers for me were:
There's a bit more I find to be problematic, but those are sufficient.
NATO isn’t giving you ranked choice voting and healthcare
On the ranked choice voting, she wouldn't give you that anyways. Here's a clue, Alaska has RCV already. The president doesn't get to pick how the states run their elections. The place to push for RCV is at the state level.
On healthcare, you'd need congress. There's not even a whiff of that being a possibility, even less than Stein presidency. That's a general issue with her platform that there's very little "how" in how she could actually do anything, and much that isn't even theory under the authority of the federal government, let alone the office of the president.
Also, more directly related to your original point, disbanding NATO and withdrawing support from Ukraine get us exactly 0% closer to either of those goals as well. They just show that Stein is an unserious politician with extremely specific opinions on NATO and Ukraine for reasons I'm sure are unrelated to her funding.
You actually bring up an excellent point here -- the Green Party should be throwing everything they have at places with RCV. Yet, they're not. Those are the perfect races for them to win, and they don't give a shit.
So why are disbanding NATO and stopping aid to Ukraine even policy positions of hers? Shouldn't she be focused on ranked choice voting and healthcare instead?
NATO is the extension of neoliberal imperialism:
It's because she's strong on issues that Harris is weak on...especially the ongoing genocide in Gaza. Stein agrees with the majority of the Democrats: we should quit funding the genocide. Harris wants to continue funding it.