Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

The Pathetic Failure of Green Party Candidate Jill Stein


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,496 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 27 November 2012 - 08:52 PM



http://www.slate.com...jill_stein.html

For the first time since 1992—seriously, it had been that long!—Ralph Nader opted out of the presidential campaign. The anti-Obama left-wing vote would be sought by Jill Stein, a sometime Green Party candidate in Massachusetts, who got some free press attention for 1) having previously run against Mitt Romney and 2) getting arrested when protesting her noninclusion in debates. Democrats didn't worry about her too much, but she polled as high as 2 percent in some surveys, and it wasn't hard to find the occasional Salon or TruthOut jeremiad demanding that the left punish Obama for his drone warfare ways.


How'd Stein do? Terribly! There's a hefty vote left to count in the West and in provisional ballots in states where Republicans played Parcheesi with polling places, but right now, Stein's won fewer than 400,000 votes nationwide. That's barely more than one-third as much as Gary Johnson, the former governor of New Mexico who left the GOP in a huff and ran an anti-war, pro-drug legalization Libertarian campaign. Roseanne Barr (yes, her), who ran a failed primary campaign against Stein (I should probably stop with the eyebrow-raise parentheticals) is pulling fewer than 50,000 votes. In Massachusetts, Stein ran fourth, with fewer than 20,000 votes, even though every Democrat in the state realized he could cast a spoiler vote if he wanted to. She's running behind Nader's smallest vote total in 2004 (463,655), when he left the Greens and their also-ran got 119,859 votes.



Why'd she fail? Pretty obvious. Media coverage of the race suggested that it would be close. Stein, like Nader, collapsed when protest voters got skittish about throwing the election away from Obama. You can see this best in Florida, where Stein currently has 8,757 votes. In 2008, Nader got 28,128 votes in Florida. (He ran on the Ecology Party ticket.)



So, add this to the pile of Much-Hyped Stuff That Didn't Matter. Perhaps there was an anti-Obama vote on the left. It largely didn't show up or shifted to Obama. You could blame Stein for running on an idiotic "Green New Deal" (as if the president had failed to fund enough green energy) when activists left energy to focus on Bradley Manning and drones. Or you could shrug, because in the Post-Nader era, left-wing third-party energy is limited to dilettante white leftists with no real interest in or ability to organize beyond their affinity group.


#2 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,496 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:18 PM

The Jill Stein Presidential Campaign Was Both a Dismal Failure and a Remarkable Win


http://www.treehugge...rkable-win.html


After encouraging everyone to not be afraid of voting their green conscience in the past election, I really should've been on this sooner, but you know, a giant hurricane drove me from my home for two weeks...

So how did the Jill Stein campaign for president actually do? There are really two ways to view it, and both are correct from a certain point of view.

David Weigel over at Slate called it a "pathetic failure" and called her Green New Deal program "idiotic"—though I'm not sure if that's because of its contents or its branding. The latter probably could've been finessed a bit, the former was entirely solid.

However, the spin being placed on the voting results by Hot Indie News actually has more insight, seen in the light of the Stein campaign never actually thought it could win, and it will be a long uphill battle to make the Green Party nationally relevant, or even locally relevant.

Stein may have gotten just under 400,000 votes (0.3% of all votes), with her name on 85% of ballots, but that figure is actually over double those received by the Green Party presidential candidates in 2008, and over three times those received in the 2004 elections.

It's obviously still millions and millions of votes away from what's needed, but I don't think it's mere enthusiasm to see the increase in votes over the past eight years as a wholly positive thing.
I have to admit, while I wholeheartedly believe that the US desperately needs most robust outsider parties, on all sides of the political spectrum, I have no concrete plan for how the Green Party, or any other party sharing similar values, can improve its appeal to voters.

What I do know, however, is that Colin Beavan, who ran for Congress in Brooklyn on the Green Party ticket (losing to Democrat Hakeem Jeffries, who got something like 90% of the vote), is on to something.

When I interviewed him before the election he said:

The Green Party itself has to make itself more relevant... I spoke at the Green Party national convention this summer. No one there was paid to be there. There were no lobbyists having fancy dinners. There was a bunch of people who really care about politics, our country, and the constituencies where they are activists, people who paid their own travel, paid their own hotel rooms—amazing people. But because of the level of sacrifice they put in personally they cling pretty strongly to their activist rhetoric.
There was a point at which a Green Party activist got up at the Green Party convention and his speech pretty much comprised of getting the whole room to chant "No more war! No more war! No more war!" I agree we don't want anymore war, but the problem is that that kind of rhetoric and that kind of presentation is frightening to the American public. It's a fact of life.

The Green Party ultimately has to decide if wants to be a party that just appeals to the activists, or if wants to make itself relevant in the national scene, in which case it has to find a path where it remains true to its values but finds a way to communicate them—because the values, I think most Americans agree with the values of the Green Party—that doesn't frighten Americans.

#3 Joker

Joker
  • VibeTribe
  • 11,520 posts

Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:23 PM

The funny part is that if she had the (D) next to her name there would have been millions of fucking idiots voting for her strictly because she was a member of their TEAM.

Posted Image

#4 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,496 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 27 November 2012 - 09:35 PM

The funny part is that if she had the (D) next to her name there would have been millions of fucking idiots voting for her strictly because she was a member of their TEAM.


While I AGREE, I doubt she would have won the primary's to be even nominated as a D. Much easier to get nominated to a third party than to the establishment.

Ask Newt, santorum, etc...

#5 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 27 November 2012 - 11:10 PM

The funny part is that if she had the (D) next to her name there would have been millions of fucking idiots voting for her strictly because she was a member of their TEAM.

Posted Image


and you know this, how?

but yeah, party endorsements do matter... and there's a reason for that. It isn't just dumb luck.

#6 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 27 November 2012 - 11:17 PM

The thing is, if she had a (D) next to her name... we'd be in an alternate universe or something because that's just not how it played out.

People don't just randomly pick letters to put in front of their name. You have to win a primary, and all that. It's much more difficult to win a Democratic primary than Green, or Libertarian solely because of higher numbers.

I think your faith in the intelligence of others is practically nonexistent... and that's understandable because we usually judge others using our selves as the standard.

#7 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:02 AM

I would say that every election year is unique, but in recent years past it seems that Libertarians are just Republicans who aren't popular enough to get the nomination, and Greens are just Democrats that weren't popular enough to get the Democratic nomination. They are usually radical extremists in both cases.

I voted for Nader in 2000, and though my vote didn't really make a difference because I'm in NY, and NY easily went Gore... I still feel like I betrayed Al somehow and I will never make that mistake again. I really did want Al to win, and NOT George Bush. Nader is kind of a crackpot, and my vote was one of rebellion. I was younger and more naive at the time.

edit: I believe there were "vote-swaps" online at the time and you would trade your vote in a solid state with someone in a swing state who wanted to vote Nader... so I guess I did the "right" thing... however I have no way of verifying that the person I swapped with lived up to their promise... as it turns out it didn't work so well anyway.

#8 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 18,422 posts

Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:07 AM



#9 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,496 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:45 AM

and you know this, how?

but yeah, party endorsements do matter... and there's a reason for that. It isn't just dumb luck.


I do not, I assume as much because it is a long road the primaries. They go on forever it seems.


But ... Exactly.

#10 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 28 November 2012 - 01:56 AM

I was talking to joker actually, but thanks for answering.

and while I'm talking about joker... why do you keep calling me "kid?"

I'm 39 years old. I'm a skilled tradesman in my field for 20 years.

Have you done anything, Joke, besides bitch and complain for 20 years? Have some respect.

#11 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 28 November 2012 - 02:02 AM

I lost respect for Jill Stein after her stunt at the debates and getting arrested. That's OK if you're an activist, but not someone who is running for President in 2 weeks. Presidential candidates need to act Presidential... not like college age hippies.

Actually, I take that back slightly... I would excuse her if she was arrested for giving an illegal abortion to save a woman's life... but that's different. Every situation is unique. Hers was just a publicity stunt.

That's why we have the ability to reason and feel emotion. We're not stupid, unfeeling computers. We're a combination of both logic and emotion, and the only way to progress in life is to embrace this duality and work with it the best we can. Not every situation is cookie cutter.

#12 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,496 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 28 November 2012 - 02:12 AM

I did not know she existed until I took the presidential candidate quiz.

I have always felt the Green party was too far to the left. But I have not given them a second look since 2004 so I may be wrong.

#13 PeaceFrog

PeaceFrog
  • VibeTribe
  • 8,284 posts
  • LocationWhisky a Go Go

Posted 28 November 2012 - 02:38 AM

no... you pretty much are correct in my opinion.

They are pro-consumer, and pro-union, also pro-environment, and anti-war... but almost to a fault. Their ideas (so conservatives will tell you) would cripple the economy.

I agree with their ideals, but I also live in the real world where people compromise. I don't believe everything conservatives say, but I'm afraid they may be right about Greens crippling the economy.

I think that in the future, if Democrats keep getting elected, Republicans will either adopt some of these ideals (sort of like Teddy Roosevelt did) or Greens will take their place as the other predominant party.

As far as Bourbon Democrats... TASB mentioned them in the other thread. They were the worst Democrats ever. They were racist and stubborn. They refused to allow our currency to be backed by silver (and gold) and insisted on gold only... morans. Look where their stubborn ideas got us. History might be entirely different if they were a little more progressive in their ideas and didn't obstruct the process the same way Republicans do now.

"Bourbon" was actually used pejoratively to describe them. It wasn't a compliment... it meant "old fashioned" like the Bourbons of France who opposed the French Revolution. They're known as reactionary, and anti-progressive. They were basically the tea party of their day -- racist and unreasonable.

http://www.thirdworl...icParty_IE.html


Woven by law into the fabric of daily life, kept alive and perpetually incited, however, racism has been used by the Bourbons as their chief instrument of political control. It has enabled them to attack dangerous anti-Bourbons as threats to "white supremacy" and the "Southern way of life"; it has enabled them to pretend that the only issue in state politics was whites versus blacks rather than Bourbons versus everybody else.

#14 Julius

Julius
  • VibeTribe
  • 10,788 posts

Posted 28 November 2012 - 04:09 AM

What, you guys haven't gotten enough election stuff yet? :lol:

PS: tl;dr