Third party candidate poll

[rodoheel]

I support her because I agree with a great deal of her stated policy positions although not all of them. I'd like to see us focus more on fixing climate change and reducing how much we spend on the military while making it easier to form successful unions.

She doesn't seem like a grifter to me. She seems like a liberal that is frustrated with the political positions that Democrats take to get elected. I can certainly sympathize with that while also sympathizing with Democratic politicians that support positions that I, and maybe even they themselves, don't agree with to get elected.

What makes her a grifter with no desire to help anyone in your opinion?

Because she devotes much of her time and energy (and other people's money) to a pointless vanity project ("running" for president) that is a complete waste of time and resources at best and actively harms the interests she claims to support at worst (by serving as a spoiler candidate who gets Republicans who are way worse than Dems on every one of her supposed policy preferences elected). Unlike, say, Bernie Sanders, by working as an opponent to the only major political party remotely close to her positions, she loses any ability to actually influence it in the direction she supports. If you care about the environment, your money is far better spent on organizations that do environmental preservation work and lobbying than on supporting Jill Stein. If you care about reducing the money spent on the military, you should elect representatives and senators who care about those things (or maybe support organizations whose mission is reducing and mediating global conflict). If Jill Stein cared one bit about accomplishing what she says she wants to accomplish, she would (1) drop out and support the Democratic presidential ticket, and (2) stop pointless campaigns for president and run for house, senate, or literally any other elected position as a Dem so she can try to actually influence the party. But because she cares more about her own celebrity and continuing to pull in those donations, she spends her time tilting at windmills instead.

 

[Paine]

If the Green Party was serious about building a viable party, they wouldn’t suddenly appear every four years to run Jill Stein for president. Why don’t they try to build support locally or at the state level first? Run some candidates for state legislature in blue states and build power. Hell, run a candidate for Congress even.

They don’t do this because they aren’t serious.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Because she devotes much of her time and energy (and other people's money) to a pointless vanity project ("running" for president) that is a complete waste of time and resources at best and actively harms the interests she claims to support at worst (by serving as a spoiler candidate who gets Republicans who are way worse than Dems on every one of her supposed policy preferences elected). Unlike, say, Bernie Sanders, by working as an opponent to the only major political party remotely close to her positions, she loses any ability to actually influence it in the direction she supports. If you care about the environment, your money is far better spent on organizations that do environmental preservation work and lobbying than on supporting Jill Stein. If you care about reducing the money spent on the military, you should elect representatives and senators who care about those things (or maybe support organizations whose mission is reducing and mediating global conflict). If Jill Stein cared one bit about accomplishing what she says she wants to accomplish, she would (1) drop out and support the Democratic presidential ticket, and (2) stop pointless campaigns for president and run for house, senate, or literally any other elected position as a Dem so she can try to actually influence the party. But because she cares more about her own celebrity and continuing to pull in those donations, she spends her time tilting at windmills instead.

I just don't see why if she is disillusioned with the current two party system, her only path is to change it internally. Bernie tried it and it didn't work. Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard tried it and it didn't work. On the other side, you have guys like Rand Paul and it didn't work.

The path Stein has chosen is outside the Democratic party. She is hoping to force change by showing Democrats that there is support for those ideas and they ignore them at their peril. I can't see how that makes her a grifter.

 

[Paine]

I just don't see why if she is disillusioned with the current two party system, her only path is to change it internally. Bernie tried it and it didn't work. Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard tried it and it didn't work. On the other side, you have guys like Rand Paul and it didn't work.

The path Stein has chosen is outside the Democratic party. She is hoping to force change by showing Democrats that there is support for those ideas and they ignore them at their peril. I can't see how that makes her a grifter.

Bernie and Warren have done more to push the Democratic Party left in the last eight years than Stein has done in her entire life.

 

[CallMeTyler]

She’s always surrounded herself with the very best people.

 

[Paine]

She’s always surrounded herself with the very best people.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

If the Green Party was serious about building a viable party, they wouldn’t suddenly appear every four years to run Jill Stein for president. Why don’t they try to build support locally or at the state level first? Run some candidates for state legislature in blue states and build power. Hell, run a candidate for Congress even.

They don’t do this because they aren’t serious.

They are serious but the deck is stacked against them by the two parties that make the rules. In surveys, about 2/3rds of Americans say they want a third party. Europe is full of them, yet somehow they never break through in the States. That seems more structural than a lack of some very passionate people willing to build a party and some people that would like other options being unwilling to vote for them.

And there are about 150 Green office holders in state and local government.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

She’s always surrounded herself with the very best people.

That was a huge mistake and she should never have done it.

 

[Paine]

They are serious but the deck is stacked against them by the two parties that make the rules. In surveys, about 2/3rds of Americans say they want a third party. Europe is full of them, yet somehow they never break through in the States. That seems more structural than a lack of some very passionate people willing to build a party and some people that would like other options being unwilling to vote for them.

And there are about 150 Green office holders in state and local government.

Yeah, it’s structural. There will always be two major parties under our system. That hasn’t stopped new parties from emerging in the past, but it takes organization.

I work for a nonprofit related to elections. Most of the current local and state Green Party candidates are jokes and get no support from the national party (because there is none). What issue groups are they organizing around? Who is their constituency? There has been no organization.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Bernie and Warren have done more to push the Democratic Party left in the last eight years than Stein has done in her entire life.

What lasting change was accomplished? Warren is my favorite Democrat but she hasn't gotten much of her agenda passed. Banks are still too big, corporations still rip us off with very little recourse, and rich folks still aren't paying their fair share.

Bernie couldn't get Universal health care or paid family leave passed.

And you can say well that was the Republicans fighting against it but Trump got his tax cuts for rich people and his defense spending agenda passed. That tells me that there are some Democrats who aren't that far away from Republicans on certain issues.

 

[Paine]

What lasting change was accomplished? Warren is my favorite Democrat but she hasn't gotten much of her agenda passed. Banks are still too big, corporations still rip us off with very little recourse, and rich folks still aren't paying their fair share.

Bernie couldn't get Universal health care or paid family leave passed.

And you can say well that was the Republicans fighting against it but Trump got his tax cuts for rich people and his defense spending agenda passed. That tells me that there are some Democrats who aren't that far away from Republicans on certain issues.

I mean, I agree that there are some, even many, Democrats who aren’t far from Republicans on certain issues, especially when it comes to economics.

When I say Bernie and Warren have pushed the party left, just analyze Biden’s presidency to see what I mean.

Somehow, Biden has emerged with a more liberal record than Obama? How is that possible? Well, he succumbed to massive amounts of pressure from the left to include a slew of Bernie’s proposals within the IRA. Did Joe Manchin water it down? Yes. Was it the largest investment in green energy the country has ever seen? Also yes.

Not only did Warren mastermind the CFPB years ago, which has been a massive boon for the American consumer/worker, she worked tirelessly to install her acolytes within the Justice Department’s anti trust division and the FTC. We are seeing the fruits of that labor pay off.

Now…remind me what the hell the Green Party has done to improve the lives of working people?

 

[rodoheel]

I just don't see why if she is disillusioned with the current two party system, her only path is to change it internally. Bernie tried it and it didn't work. Elizabeth Warren and Tulsi Gabbard tried it and it didn't work. On the other side, you have guys like Rand Paul and it didn't work.

The path Stein has chosen is outside the Democratic party. She is hoping to force change by showing Democrats that there is support for those ideas and they ignore them at their peril. I can't see how that makes her a grifter.

There is no realistic way to change the two-party system externally, and even if there was, running a national presidential candidate is self-evidently the worst way to do it. There is literally no - zero - chance for an outsider candidate not affiliated with the two major parties to win the presidential race. If the Green Party were serious, they would focus on getting local, state, and national representatives elected in legislative bodies, where they can actually do something. Running a pointless campaign for president to win 1 or 2 percent of the vote is doing nothing. it is influencing no one. No one with a brain could think that it's influencing anyone. When people vote for the Green Party the message isn't "there's 2% of voters we could get if we adopted its policies" it's "there's 2% of voters who likely are never going to vote for us no matter what, because they're willing to throw their vote away for no reason." This relates to the fact that the concept of a "protest vote" is incredibly dumb because whatever the voter meant by making a "protest" vote, their message is unlikely to be received in that fashion.

Contrast that with someone like Bernie. You say he tried to change the system internally and it didn't work, but that isn't right. He is constantly working to influence the Democratic Party internally. He and his compatriots have been successful in moving Democrats left on several issues. When you're in the tent you can use persuasion and influence. When you're outside of the tent you get ignored, and rightly so. You don't have to get elected president to influence the party. Someone like AOC has done 10x more to influence policy and debate on environmental issues, US military use, etc than Jill Stein ever will. And that's just fine with Jill Stein, because her goal clearly isn't to influence or help anyone.

 

[heelinhell]

I support her because I agree with a great deal of her stated policy positions although not all of them. I'd like to see us focus more on fixing climate change and reducing how much we spend on the military while making it easier to form successful unions.

She doesn't seem like a grifter to me. She seems like a liberal that is frustrated with the political positions that Democrats take to get elected. I can certainly sympathize with that while also sympathizing with Democratic politicians that support positions that I, and maybe even they themselves, don't agree with to get elected.

What makes her a grifter with no desire to help anyone in your opinion?

She may not be a grifter, but she is a Russian asset...

 

[gtyellowjacket]

She may not be a grifter, but she is a Russian asset...

This is a ridiculous way to dismiss someone who they disagree with. The FBI can see who these folks are talking to. Prove it or you're Alex Jones.

 

[gregh1]

They are serious but the deck is stacked against them by the two parties that make the rules. In surveys, about 2/3rds of Americans say they want a third party. Europe is full of them, yet somehow they never break through in the States. That seems more structural than a lack of some very passionate people willing to build a party and some people that would like other options being unwilling to vote for them.

And there are about 150 Green office holders in state and local government.

Right. Same reason we rarely see a legit Libertarian party candidate.
Ranked Choice Voting please.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

There is no realistic way to change the two-party system externally, and even if there was, running a national presidential candidate is self-evidently the worst way to do it. There is literally no - zero - chance for an outsider candidate not affiliated with the two major parties to win the presidential race. If the Green Party were serious, they would focus on getting local, state, and national representatives elected in legislative bodies, where they can actually do something. Running a pointless campaign for president to win 1 or 2 percent of the vote is doing nothing. it is influencing no one. No one with a brain could think that it's influencing anyone. When people vote for the Green Party the message isn't "there's 2% of voters we could get if we adopted its policies" it's "there's 2% of voters who likely are never going to vote for us no matter what, because they're willing to throw their vote away for no reason." This relates to the fact that the concept of a "protest vote" is incredibly dumb because whatever the voter meant by making a "protest" vote, their message is unlikely to be received in that fashion.

Contrast that with someone like Bernie. You say he tried to change the system internally and it didn't work, but that isn't right. He is constantly working to influence the Democratic Party internally. He and his compatriots have been successful in moving Democrats left on several issues. When you're in the tent you can use persuasion and influence. When you're outside of the tent you get ignored, and rightly so. You don't have to get elected president to influence the party. Someone like AOC has done 10x more to influence policy and debate on environmental issues, US military use, etc than Jill Stein ever will. And that's just fine with Jill Stein, because her goal clearly isn't to influence or help anyone.

There is no realistic way to change the two-party system externally, and even if there was, running a national presidential candidate is self-evidently the worst way to do it. There is literally no - zero - chance for an outsider candidate not affiliated with the two major parties to win the presidential race. If the Green Party were serious, they would focus on getting local, state, and national representatives elected in legislative bodies, where they can actually do something. Running a pointless campaign for president to win 1 or 2 percent of the vote is doing nothing. it is influencing no one. No one with a brain could think that it's influencing anyone. When people vote for the Green Party the message isn't "there's 2% of voters we could get if we adopted its policies" it's "there's 2% of voters who likely are never going to vote for us no matter what, because they're willing to throw their vote away for no reason." This relates to the fact that the concept of a "protest vote" is incredibly dumb because whatever the voter meant by making a "protest" vote, their message is unlikely to be received in that fashion.

Contrast that with someone like Bernie. You say he tried to change the system internally and it didn't work, but that isn't right. He is constantly working to influence the Democratic Party internally. He and his compatriots have been successful in moving Democrats left on several issues. When you're in the tent you can use persuasion and influence. When you're outside of the tent you get ignored, and rightly so. You don't have to get elected president to influence the party. Someone like AOC has done 10x more to influence policy and debate on environmental issues, US military use, etc than Jill Stein ever will. And that's just fine with Jill Stein, because her goal clearly isn't to influence or help anyone.

AOC might have influenced the debate but we're still spending plenty on the military with Democratic support and we still haven't fixed our climate change issues. She's inside the tent and she's getting her TV appearances but nothing seems to changing.

 

[SnoopRob]

She may not be a grifter, but she is a Russian asset...

I wouldn't go so far as to say she's a Russian asset, but she certainly could be considered a useful idiot for them.

 

[superrific]

Bernie and Warren have done more to push the Democratic Party left in the last eight years than Stein has done in her entire life.

Yeah, seriously. The idea that Bernie tried "it" and "it" didn't work is preposterous. No, he didn't become president, but he came surprisingly close for a guy who was talking up Cuba in the 1980s. His specific ideas haven't generally been embraced and many have been rejected, but he (and Warren) shifted the mood and tone of the political discourse.

 

[superrific]

AOC might have influenced the debate but we're still spending plenty on the military with Democratic support and we still haven't fixed our climate change issues. She's inside the tent and she's getting her TV appearances but nothing seems to changing.

Hmm. It's almost as if the government has a huge amount of inertia, and that one member of Congress or 10 or 20 can't change it by themselves, especially when the other party is holding the majority.

Since Jill Stein's only contribution to American politics is helping to elect Trump in 2016, I'd say she bears a considerable amount of the blame for the MAGA movement's ascendence. If Trump had lost in 2016, MAGA would have been aborted. But Jill Stein birthed it, and now look.

 

[gtyellowjacket]

Interesting. Surprised Cornell West is getting so many votes. Anyone want to make their case?