Green Party’s goal is to make Kamala lose

[rodoheel]

I know this could go on a larger thread but just wanted to put it here so anyone considering voting Green Party will see this:



I admire their honesty at least. But make no mistake, if you vote for a leftist third party instead of the left-most major party candidate, all you are doing is helping the right-most major party candidate. Any message you intend to send other than “I want Trump to win” is pointless and will not be received.

Leftists who want anyone to listen to them on Palestine or any other issue have no chance of having that message heard or acted on unless Dems are in power. First you have to get the candidate closest to your positions elected, then you try to use your influence to affect policy. If Trump wins you auarabtee yourself zero percent chance of any policy outcome you find desirable.

 

[CallMeTyler]

She’s been a Russian asset for a long time.

 

[Paine]

I know this could go on a larger thread but just wanted to put it here so anyone considering voting Green Party will see this:



I admire their honesty at least. But make no mistake, if you vote for a leftist third party instead of the left-most major party candidate, all you are doing is helping the right-most major party candidate. Any message you intend to send other than “I want Trump to win” is pointless and will not be received.

Leftists who want anyone to listen to them on Palestine or any other issue have no chance of having that message heard or acted on unless Dems are in power. First you have to get the candidate closest to your positions elected, then you try to use your influence to affect policy. If Trump wins you auarabtee yourself zero percent chance of any policy outcome you find desirable.

I will never understand thinking the Dem losing would make the party suddenly reconsider their position on any number of issues. The party didn’t even really have an autopsy after the 2016 disaster.

 

[nycfan]

Some left-wingers are pretty open that they don't trust Harris because she is a cop who has the support of too many Republicans like Liz and Dick Cheney, among others.



When there is an autopsy of however this election turns out, it will be very interesting to see if we can discern whether the very active anti-Trump Republican embrace of Harris and her campaign's embrace of them is a net positive or net negative (in terms of lost far left votes). But that will probably be a little hard to parse because there will also be Muslim Americans and far left voters who won't vote for Harris because of the conflict in the Middle East.

 

[Jamison2Carter]

Why would the Green Party want to deny Kamala Harris the election, setting aside Jill Stein as comprised? If Dems lose elections, they'll adopt Green party positions to bring them into the tent? Certainly can't be based on the belief that the GOP will enact any part of their agenda.

 

[SnoopRob]

I know this could go on a larger thread but just wanted to put it here so anyone considering voting Green Party will see this:



I admire their honesty at least. But make no mistake, if you vote for a leftist third party instead of the left-most major party candidate, all you are doing is helping the right-most major party candidate. Any message you intend to send other than “I want Trump to win” is pointless and will not be received.

Leftists who want anyone to listen to them on Palestine or any other issue have no chance of having that message heard or acted on unless Dems are in power. First you have to get the candidate closest to your positions elected, then you try to use your influence to affect policy. If Trump wins you auarabtee yourself zero percent chance of any policy outcome you find desirable.

The Green Party are the MAGA of the liberal side of the American political spectrum.

 

[aGDevil2k]

Those insane left folks aren't and never will be winnable

They only want to complain and really don't care about outcomes

 

[CFordUNC]

At this point, as mean spirited as it sounds, all I can hope is that if Donald Trump does win the election, that every person who votes for him- or doesn’t vote against him- bears the most brunt of the horrific policies his second administration will assuredly enact, including and especially the dimwits on the extreme far left or the third-party lunatics. I’m quickly running out of sympathy and goodwill for stupidity, ignorance, and selfishness.

 

[rodoheel]

Some left-wingers are pretty open that they don't trust Harris because she is a cop who has the support of too many Republicans like Liz and Dick Cheney, among others.



When there is an autopsy of however this election turns out, it will be very interesting to see if we can discern whether the very active anti-Trump Republican embrace of Harris and her campaign's embrace of them is a net positive or net negative (in terms of lost far left votes). But that will probably be a little hard to parse because there will also be Muslim Americans and far left voters who won't vote for Harris because of the conflict in the Middle East.

I completely understand and sympathize with that perspective. (I have personally said that I don't think touting Dick Cheney's endorsement, specifically, is a very good idea.) What I don't understand or sympathize with is the idea that far-leftists will accomplish anything, or move closer to any progressive policy goal, by defeating Harris and electing Trump. I have never once heard a leftist make the case that Donald Trump will be better on any issue they distrust Kamala on, and candidly I don't think that case can be made. It always seems to be premised on the idea that "if the Dems lose because of us they will know they need to adopt our positions and court our support next time" but the logic simply doesn't make any sense. The only conclusion that Dems will take, and rightfully so, is that these leftists aren't persuadable and it is a waste of resources and political capital to try to persuade them.

In other words - the reason Dem campaigns generally, and this one specifically, are seeking out moderate Republicans rather than far-left ideologues in their general-election campaigning is because the former have shown themselves to be more persuadable as voters. The leftists who think they are making some grand strategic long-term play by electing a right-wing administration that flirts with fascism rather than a centrist administration that they don't think has moved far enough left are deluding themselves.

 

[JD Heel]

Some left-wingers are pretty open that they don't trust Harris because she is a cop who has the support of too many Republicans like Liz and Dick Cheney, among others.



When there is an autopsy of however this election turns out, it will be very interesting to see if we can discern whether the very active anti-Trump Republican embrace of Harris and her campaign's embrace of them is a net positive or net negative (in terms of lost far left votes). But that will probably be a little hard to parse because there will also be Muslim Americans and far left voters who won't vote for Harris because of the conflict in the Middle East.

It's crazy. Kamala is too tough on crime for some on the left because of her AG background but too soft on crime for some on the right because "San Francisco." She's an extreme commie liberal to some but also has too many Republicans supporting her for others' liking. She wrecked the country as VP but somehow didn't do anything at the same time. Kamala is everyone's bogeyman it seems.

 

[Ddseddse]

Why would the Green Party want to deny Kamala Harris the election, setting aside Jill Stein as comprised? If Dems lose elections, they'll adopt Green party positions to bring them into the tent? Certainly can't be based on the belief that the GOP will enact any part of their agenda.

Oh, my sweet summer child...

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Why would the Green Party want to deny Kamala Harris the election, setting aside Jill Stein as comprised? If Dems lose elections, they'll adopt Green party positions to bring them into the tent? Certainly can't be based on the belief that the GOP will enact any part of their agenda.

One interpretation might be that by showing the Democratic party that they aren't speaking to green party voters and causing them to lose elections, the Democratic party will embrace more green party positions in the future. Making the speech in Dearborn, the biggest issue is probably Kamala not coming down more firmly on the side of Palestinians against Israel.

It should also be noted that this lady isn't Jill Stein and probably wouldn't characterize herself as a member of the green party. She has started her own party and would probably characterize herself as some sort of revolutionary socialist. On the other hand, the Green party did pick her to introduce Stein so I assume that there is some overlap in ideology.

 

[Paine]

OTOH, if Democrats had as much smoke for the Zionists blowing up the Middle East as they do Green Party voters, then I don’t think this would be nearly as big of an issue.

 

[rodoheel]

One interpretation might be that by showing the Democratic party that they aren't speaking to green party voters and causing them to lose elections, the Democratic party will embrace more green party positions in the future. Making the speech in Dearborn, the biggest issue is probably Kamala not coming down more firmly on the side of Palestinians against Israel.

It should also be noted that this lady isn't Jill Stein and probably wouldn't characterize herself as a member of the green party. She has started her own party and would probably characterize herself as some sort of revolutionary socialist. On the other hand, the Green party did pick her to introduce Stein so I assume that there is some overlap in ideology.

As I and others have said, this argument is ultimately illogical. You don't get people to compromise with you by repeatedly communicating that you are unwilling to compromise. The only message these folks send the Democrats is that they are unpersuadable and should be written off as potential voters. Nader helping swing the election to Bush in 2000 didn't convince Dems to adopt Green Party positions, it just ensured that the country would move farther away from Green Party positions.

Even if the only thing at stake was potential Supreme Court seats this logic would be self-defeating. If leftists thought they were accomplishing anything meaningful by not voting for a centrist like Hillary Clinton in 2016, all they ultimately accomplished was helping to ensure a pronounced right tilt in the Supreme Court that ensures for decades that even if progressive legislation is passed, it will likely be wiped out or watered down by a right-leaning court. Did it get them a more liberal candidate in 2020? Of course it didn't. Because that's not how incentives in a two-party, winner-take-all electoral system work.

It's fine to hate the system and wish it were better, but the only two ways to improve the system are (1) to get political power and use it, or (2) revolution. Most progressives consistently act like they have no interest in the former (note that many far-left progressives now consider the likes of Bernie and AOC sell-outs because they actually try to use political power to achieve progressive goals) and the ones who think the latter is a good idea are too far gone to be worth courting anyway.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

As I and others have said, this argument is ultimately illogical. You don't get people to compromise with you by repeatedly communicating that you are unwilling to compromise. The only message these folks send the Democrats is that they are unpersuadable and should be written off as potential voters. Nader helping swing the election to Bush in 2000 didn't convince Dems to adopt Green Party positions, it just ensured that the country would move farther away from Green Party positions.

Even if the only thing at stake was potential Supreme Court seats this logic would be self-defeating. If leftists thought they were accomplishing anything meaningful by not voting for a centrist like Hillary Clinton in 2016, all they ultimately accomplished was helping to ensure a pronounced right tilt in the Supreme Court that ensures for decades that even if progressive legislation is passed, it will likely be wiped out or watered down by a right-leaning court. Did it get them a more liberal candidate in 2020? Of course it didn't. Because that's not how incentives in a two-party, winner-take-all electoral system work.

It's fine to hate the system and wish it were better, but the only two ways to improve the system are (1) to get political power and use it, or (2) revolution. Most progressives consistently act like they have no interest in the former (note that many far-left progressives now consider the likes of Bernie and AOC sell-outs because they actually try to use political power to achieve progressive goals) and the ones who think the latter is a good idea are too far gone to be worth courting anyway.

I don't think its illogical. MAGA and before that Evangelicals have proven its very effective for a certain wing of your party to demand more consideration for their favored positions. Romney and McCain lost in large part because they

As I and others have said, this argument is ultimately illogical. You don't get people to compromise with you by repeatedly communicating that you are unwilling to compromise. The only message these folks send the Democrats is that they are unpersuadable and should be written off as potential voters. Nader helping swing the election to Bush in 2000 didn't convince Dems to adopt Green Party positions, it just ensured that the country would move farther away from Green Party positions.

Even if the only thing at stake was potential Supreme Court seats this logic would be self-defeating. If leftists thought they were accomplishing anything meaningful by not voting for a centrist like Hillary Clinton in 2016, all they ultimately accomplished was helping to ensure a pronounced right tilt in the Supreme Court that ensures for decades that even if progressive legislation is passed, it will likely be wiped out or watered down by a right-leaning court. Did it get them a more liberal candidate in 2020? Of course it didn't. Because that's not how incentives in a two-party, winner-take-all electoral system work.

It's fine to hate the system and wish it were better, but the only two ways to improve the system are (1) to get political power and use it, or (2) revolution. Most progressives consistently act like they have no interest in the former (note that many far-left progressives now consider the likes of Bernie and AOC sell-outs because they actually try to use political power to achieve progressive goals) and the ones who think the latter is a good idea are too far gone to be worth courting anyway.

Refusing to compromise worked for MAGA and before that evangelicals.

 

[Duke Mu]

'Fraid so. Putin says.

 

[finesse]

The party didn't compromise with the Magats or the evangelicals. They took the party away. There's not enough Greens to come close to doing that.

 

[rodoheel]

I don't think its illogical. MAGA and before that Evangelicals have proven its very effective for a certain wing of your party to demand more consideration for their favored positions. Romney and McCain lost in large part because they


Refusing to compromise worked for MAGA and before that evangelicals.

MAGA/Evangelicals (tons of overlap between those groups; pretty close to just being the same thing at this point) is tens of millions of people who Republicans can't possibly win elections without. They dominate Republicans primaries and are not only a part of the party, they're essentially in control of it. The leftist fringe isn't anywhere close to as large, and a large percentage of them also belong to a group with notoriously low voter participation rates (young people - teens and 20s).

If young leftists would start voting at the same rates as other voters, they would become more of a force to be reckoned with and Dems would have to pay attention to them. But because leftists are (1) a much smaller group than MAGA, and (2) tend to vote third party or not vote at a much higher rate than other groups, they make their supposed ostracization from Democratic politics basically a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I can promise you that if Dems lose this election the message they take isn't going to be "we need to move further left." If anything, it's going to be abandoning or retreating from positions that Republicans brand as extreme (trans rights, support for Palestine, etc) in an attempt to further court moderate voters. And leftists will once again primarily have themselves to blame for not only failing to come any closer to having political power but in fact reversing progress on causes they claim to care about.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

MAGA/Evangelicals (tons of overlap between those groups; pretty close to just being the same thing at this point) is tens of millions of people who Republicans can't possibly win elections without. They dominate Republicans primaries and are not only a part of the party, they're essentially in control of it. The leftist fringe isn't anywhere close to as large, and a large percentage of them also belong to a group with notoriously low voter participation rates (young people - teens and 20s).

If young leftists would start voting at the same rates as other voters, they would become more of a force to be reckoned with and Dems would have to pay attention to them. But because leftists are (1) a much smaller group than MAGA, and (2) tend to vote third party or not vote at a much higher rate than other groups, they make their supposed ostracization from Democratic politics basically a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I can promise you that if Dems lose this election the message they take isn't going to be "we need to move further left." If anything, it's going to be abandoning or retreating from positions that Republicans brand as extreme (trans rights, support for Palestine, etc) in an attempt to further court moderate voters. And leftists will once again primarily have themselves to blame for not only failing to come any closer to having political power but in fact reversing progress on causes they claim to care about.

You are probably right but maybe not. If they lose Michigan, support for Palestine will certainly pop up on the exit polls.

 

[heelinhell]

But for Nader and the Stein/ Bernie bros there would not have been a GQPer in the White House for the last 32 years, and I submit that our country would have been far better for it.