babble-intro-img
babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.

Green Party campaign for U.S. President, 2012

87 replies [Last post]

Comments

wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

wage zombie wrote:

Didn't you just coin the phrase Neo Dipperal (you really need the double p on dipperal imo) in another thread?

Freedom 55 wrote:

I believe it was Slumberjack.

Well props to Slumberjack then as that termg is gold.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

wage zombie wrote:

M. Spector wrote:

On the contrary, Jill Stein or Roseanne Barr's campaign will reach thousands of people who are looking for alternatives to the Republicrats and expose them to political ideas that could be the seeds of far-reaching political change in the future.

wage zombie wrote:

Wow, so Jill Stein and the Green Party will reach thousands (thousands!) of people in a country of 330 million, and therefore, 60 years from now the USA Green Party will be sufficiently co-opted and endorsed by Wall Street, and they'll enact green austerity with lower taxes.

Right?  I mean, if we're gonna be honest

M. Spector wrote:

If you were honest you'd recognize that voting for the Democrats is a dead end for US social democrats, just as voting for the Liberals and Conservatives was a dead end for Canadian social democrats 60 years ago. That's why the NDP was needed, to break out of that political duopoly.

People laughed at the CCF/NDP back then just as you laugh at the US Green Party today. Your "so what?" comment is typical of that political myopia.

A journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. I have no time for those who aren't even willing to take that first step.

If you are honest you'd recognize that in one thread over you're telling us that voting for NDP is a dead end for Canadian social democrats too.  And yet here you are hyping up the USGP in the hopes that they might one day become another NDP.

While you're hyping the Democratic Party? LOL! Which one of us is the bigger fool?


josh
Offline
Joined: Aug 5 2002

Lord Palmerston wrote:

Expect to see more of these types of articles from the Nation and the left-liberal media in the US, and how this is the MOST IMPORTANT ELECTION IN HISTORY etc. 

Why the Supreme Court matters 

 

If Democrats controlled congress, a Romney election would not be a great concern.  Especially considering that the real Romney far more moderate than the far right nutjobs that make up the majority of his party.  But Romney and a Republican congress would be a cause for great concern.  You could see at least partial privatization of Medicare and Social Security.  A new round of income tax rate cuts for the wealthy and the end of the inheritance tax.  Anti-union legislation and decisions of the NLRB that would make Scott Walker look like a moderate.  And that's just for starters.

Is that worth voting for Obama despite his drawbacks?  For those who would have to live with the consequences of such far right legislation, it is certainly a rationale choice.

 


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

It's not a rational choice at all for anyone who has been paying attention for the last 3½ years to how Obomba has been out-Bushing George W. Those who have to live with the consequences of another term of Obomba's assault on their freedoms and standard of living would much more rationally vote for a social-democratic or socialist alternative. Otherwise they are wasting their votes.


Bec.De.Corbin
Offline
Joined: Mar 17 2010

M. Spector wrote:

Otherwise they are wasting their votes.

 

I disagree. Unless the Greens can suddenly produce a serious presidential candidate in the next 9 months (that in its self is almost impossible) that can stir up 10s of millions of voters leave the Democratic party and get enough votes to win in an electoral vote system we have here I'm afraid voting for them would be a waste of a vote... especially if it allows Romney to win. I guess what I'm getting at is most that would switch and vote Green would come from the Democratic Party; very few would be Republicans so the real winner in this would be the Republicans.

The Greens should shoot for 2016 maybe?  


Bec.De.Corbin
Offline
Joined: Mar 17 2010

Opps double post...

 


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

wage zombie wrote:

If you are honest you'd recognize that in one thread over you're telling us that voting for NDP is a dead end for Canadian social democrats too.  And yet here you are hyping up the USGP in the hopes that they might one day become another NDP.

M. Spector wrote:

While you're hyping the Democratic Party? LOL! Which one of us is the bigger fool?

Excuse me?  Where do you see me hyping the Democratic Party?


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Oh, my bad! Remind me again, which third party are you supporting over Obama?


wage zombie
Offline
Joined: Dec 8 2004

I'm not USian.  I don't get a vote and I don't live there.  I have already said in this thread that if I were USian, I would be joining the Green Party right now to vote for Roseanne Barr.

Again, please quote a statement that I have made which hypes the Democratic party.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

wage zombie wrote:

Wow, so Jill Stein and the Green Party will reach thousands (thousands!) of people in a country of 330 million, and therefore, 60 years from now the USA Green Party will be sufficiently co-opted and endorsed by Wall Street, and they'll enact green austerity with lower taxes.

Right?  I mean, if we're gonna be honest

Do these sound like the words of a supporter of the Green Party (led by Roseanne Barr or otherwise)?

To me, they sound more like the words of someone who has consistently over the years raised disparaging objections to every attempt to create a political force outside the orbit of the Democratic-Republican duopoly.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

If I was an American involved in the Green Party I would be pressing to try to get House Representatives elected.  If they managed to elect two or three they could have a far greater impact over the election cycle than putting the same energy into a Presidential campaign that is doomed to failure. Even one House seat would get them more momentum for the mid-terms with a lame duck President. Is there nowhere Jill could find where she had a chance at getting elected? Maybe the losers in the Presidential primaries should commit to running for other positions either in Congress or the Senate.


Pogo
Offline
Joined: Aug 19 2002

Elections are about ideas and it is important for parties to get their ideas into the mix.  If the Green party has the resources to run a presidential candidate they should.  Not to get elected, but rather to get their ideas into the mix.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

I agree with Pogo.

Running a candidate in one Congressional District is just as much work and expense, for a small third party, as running a candidate for President. In fact, probably more, because the base of members and supporters is not likely to be concentrated in a handful of Districts, but rather spread thinly across the country.  The big difference, however, is that if you run a Green candidate for Representative, nobody is going to know about it - or about the party's program - outside of the few hundred people in the district who actually pay attention to third parties' election campaigns.

Nobody at babble, for example, would know about - let alone be discussing - the US Green Party's election campaign if they were only running candidates for Congress.

In addition, running for President gives the party an opportunity to respond directly to the policies of the Obama White House and present a clear alternative vision for the country on the major issues. This approach would be considered irrelevant or inappropriate if a candidate were running for a seat in the House, because electing that candidate would have no direct effect on the White House at all, and all of the other opposing candidates would be concentrating on local concerns and issues in their campaigns.

Also, small third parties have to find ways to involve all their members and resources right across the country. Why run a campaign in a geographical area where most of your members don't even live? You end up reducing the bulk of your members and supporters to the role of spectators who have nothing to do but send money across the country to support someone's Congressional campaign.

ETA: I left out the most important reason. Running for Congress but not for President effectively sends out a message that the party does not contest or oppose the stranglehold of the twin capitalist parties on the highest office of the land. It is a strategy completely inconsistent with the message that the government must be replaced with people committed to a radically different program.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

All the problems you highlighted will be true until the Greens start to build a real grassroots party at the district level.  Isn't sustainability and community all about thinking locally? 

I for one don't think that Obama, Leader of the Free World, Guardian of the Republic will pay any attention to the Green Presidential candidate.  Whoever is carrying the banner will not be invited to any debates and the networks will ignore their campaign.  I still think that running a dozen credible candidates in selected districts where there are progressive voters and right wing Democratic representatives is a more effective strategy.  It might even get some real media attention if the polls show that any of them are capable of doing a Galloway to a Democratic incumbent.

But its not my country and not my party just idle musings on my part.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

kropotkin1951 wrote:

I for one don't think that Obama, Leader of the Free World, Guardian of the Republic will pay any attention to the Green Presidential candidate.

Well of course not. Why would he?

But do you think the purpose of the campaign is to get the ear of Obama? Or is it rather to show the voters that there are alternatives to the Democratic Party?

Quote:
Whoever is carrying the banner will not be invited to any debates and the networks will ignore their campaign.  I still think that running a dozen credible candidates in selected districts where there are progressive voters and right wing Democratic representatives is a more effective strategy.  It might even get some real media attention if the polls show that any of them are capable of doing a Galloway to a Democratic incumbent.

You seem to have this quaint parliamentarist idea that there's no point in an election campaign unless you can actually win. But third parties aren't yet in a position to win anything. Their purpose at present is propagandistic: to use whatever opportunities are available to expose their message to new people. That may not involve the mass media, but it may involve leafleting and canvassing and tweeting and other kinds of populist methods of communication, at an election time when people are paying more than usual attention to politics.

Dismissing left campaigns out of hand because they have no hope of winning is the kind of rhetoric we are used to hearing from the Liberals and Conservatives in Canada, and forms the basis of the whole destructive idea of "strategic voting" for one capitalist party in order to temporarily thwart the other capitalist party - thereby ensuring that the capitalist parties rule in perpetuity.

I prefer to see the US left use the opportunity of an election campaign to put ideas out there that aren't available in the mass media and break the right-wing monopoly on political discourse.


kropotkin1951
Offline
Joined: Jun 6 2002

Thanks for thinking I am quaint and that I am dismissing their campaign out of hand.

Undecided

With that kind of great analysis I admit you are absolutely right and my viewpoint it irrelevant in comparison to your mastery of the issues.

Kiss

Carry on I'll try not to disturb your pontificating on this subject.


addictedtomyipod
Online
Joined: Jan 18 2012

Politics in Canada is in desperate need of change.  Opinions are great but rank up there with facial hair on a woman.  If the Greens care so damn much, why do they not join an existing party and create pressure from below and demand change?  Hmmmmm?  

 

I simply cannot stand GP voters who want to skip this step.  Grassroots democracy works this way and to dismiss the existing parties simply puts you on the fringe.  Mainstream parties all over the world seem to evolve into right/left and inbetween.  The Greens in BC seem so want to stay separate for ego purposes only.


Slumberjack
Offline
Joined: Aug 8 2005

wage zombie wrote:
The Republicans are toxic and Romney is a terrible candidate.  Not only is he Mr. 1%, but he has a tendency to say ridiculous things.  And let's see who he picks for a running mate.  Could be worse than Palin.

Mr. 1% is polling in the 40's.  That 40% or so hasn't had enough war yet either, which permits Candidate Romney to announce his intent to run a more unilateralist foreign policy than Obama, especially where it concerns Iran.  The 9 to 11 percent swing vote hinges merely on jobs and the economy, certainly not on their nation's baleful influence in the world.  At this juncture we can only hope to witness at some point in the near future if the Greens are capable of siphoning off from the Democrats as much of their existing support as possible, in order allow the Repubs to benefit in the short term, while their utter corruption at every level accelerates the decomposition processes already well underway.  I see no point in nursing that homicidal monster, the USA, back to health.  I agree here with M. Spector but for different reasons.  He's wagering on reform of the Capitalist system from somewhere beneath it's heel, whereas I would look to another opportunity of sorts altogether.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

addictedtomyipod wrote:

Politics in Canada is in desperate need of change.  Opinions are great but rank up there with facial hair on a woman.  If the Greens care so damn much, why do they not join an existing party and create pressure from below and demand change?  Hmmmmm?

There are already far more Canadians pursuing your suggested political "strategy" than there are members of the GP. And it's not working.

They also manage to do so without making sexist remarks about women's appearance.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Slumberjack wrote:

I agree here with M. Spector but for different reasons.  He's wagering on reform of the Capitalist system from somewhere beneath it's heel...

I don't put any hope in reforming the Capitalist system in the USA or elsewhere, although I never oppose reforms that actually benefit the working class.

I started this thread as a way of demonstrating that there are actually grassroots forces in the USA who are prepared to take political action independent of - and against - the Republicrats. Whether there will ever be a Green Party president in the USA is not the point. The point is that people are working to spread political consciousness in the best way they can, albeit through the crushingly restrictive existing political system. If and when success ever comes, it will likely be through means far beyond the strictures of what is permitted by that system. But USians have to start somewhere.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005
autoworker
Offline
Joined: Dec 21 2008

addictedtomyipod wrote:

Politics in Canada is in desperate need of change.  Opinions are great but rank up there with facial hair on a woman.  If the Greens care so damn much, why do they not join an existing party and create pressure from below and demand change?  Hmmmmm?  

 

I simply cannot stand GP voters who want to skip this step.  Grassroots democracy works this way and to dismiss the existing parties simply puts you on the fringe.  Mainstream parties all over the world seem to evolve into right/left and inbetween.  The Greens in BC seem so want to stay separate for ego purposes only.

Greens oppose nuclear power, along with other policy differences.


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Stein clinches the nomination

Quote:
Jill Stein is now sixteen for sixteen in the Green Party presidential primaries. This past weekend, Greens in Arkansas, Maine, and Rhode Island elected delegates to the Green National Convention. Dr. Stein won 10 of 10 delegates in Arkansas, 7 of 13 in Maine, and 2 of 4 in Rhode Island. 

Dr. Stein has so far won 96.5 delegates of 129 allocated, or 75% of all delegates, in the Green Party's presidential primaries.


Doug
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2001

M. Spector wrote:

I agree with Pogo.

Running a candidate in one Congressional District is just as much work and expense, for a small third party, as running a candidate for President.  

 

But the same work and expense represent entirely different levels of effect. If the Greens raise $2 million for a Presidential campaign, they raise less than 1/500th of the cost of the big party campaigns - they can fly their candidate around to make appearances and send out some literature, but that's about it. If they raise it for a single House district campaign, they are fully competitive with the other parties. 

Quote:
The big difference, however, is that if you run a Green candidate for Representative, nobody is going to know about it - or about the party's program - outside of the few hundred people in the district who actually pay attention to third parties' election campaigns.

This is likely to be a problem anyway. How many Americans really pay much attention to the third party (Green, Libertarian, etc.) campaigns? These campaigns don't even have the benefit this year of being possible spoilers in a tight race. It doesn't - at least at this time - look like it's going to be incredibly close. Interesting or different local campaigns, on the other hand, can become national news.

Quote:

In addition, running for President gives the party an opportunity to respond directly to the policies of the Obama White House and present a clear alternative vision for the country on the major issues. This approach would be considered irrelevant or inappropriate if a candidate were running for a seat in the House, because electing that candidate would have no direct effect on the White House at all, and all of the other opposing candidates would be concentrating on local concerns and issues in their campaigns.

 

Why not? Local campaigns run for or against the White House all the time. 

Quote:
Also, small third parties have to find ways to involve all their members and resources right across the country.

There are ways to do that. A campaign can use volunteers anywhere in the country to do their voter contact thanks to the internet. 

Quote:

ETA: I left out the most important reason. Running for Congress but not for President effectively sends out a message that the party does not contest or oppose the stranglehold of the twin capitalist parties on the highest office of the land. It is a strategy completely inconsistent with the message that the government must be replaced with people committed to a radically different program.

 

The US Greens aren't exactly anti-capitalist to the extent they can be pinned down to a particular program at all. It doesn't make sense to contest for an office without the means to substantially effect the debate or the outcome.


Sean in Ottawa
Offline
Joined: Jun 3 2003

I don't know where the Greens are (how left they are) but running an alternative on the left can take votes from a candidate like Obama but it can also force him to lean more to the left in response. As well presidents like other politicians learn and can be inspired by campaigns. This voice could influence Obama throughout his term if he hears it through the campaign.

Politicians like Obama tend to feel that they cannot go very left for fear of losing an election and it becomes a terriitory they are afraid of even when they find agreement with it. A voice coming from there can balance and get more from a president like Obama who I think is to the left of his own policies but lacks the courage or belief that he can do them.

Ultimately the US does have a problme and they ought to consider runoff elections like France because their system is restricting choice.

 


M. Spector
Offline
Joined: Feb 19 2005

Too bad the US Green Party doesn't have armchair social democrats in Canada managing their campaign strategy. Those fools don't even know what's the best way to get their political message out! Why don't they just ask us?


Doug
Offline
Joined: Apr 17 2001

There are more social democrats elected in Canada than there are Greens in the US. It couldn't hurt.


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or register to post comments