Jill Stein For President

I Know its only one state but 14% is outstanding.  The link did not work as I hoped.  The state in question is Florida

Hillary 26%

Trump 31%

Johnson 17%

Stein 14%

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

 

 

I Know its only one state but 14% is outstanding.  The link did not work as I hoped.  The state in question is Florida

 

Hillary 26%

Trump 31%

Johnson 17%

Stein 14%

It isn't the link that's broken. I have not seen any poll in Florida with numbers resembling those.

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

josh wrote:

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

 

 

I Know its only one state but 14% is outstanding.  The link did not work as I hoped.  The state in question is Florida

 

Hillary 26%

Trump 31%

Johnson 17%

Stein 14%

It isn't the link that's broken. I have not seen any poll in Florida with numbers resembling those.

 

https://twitter.com/hey_itsdusty/status/755621993081430016

 

 

There you go. I found it again.Link seems to be working.

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

josh wrote:

SeekingAPoliticalHome wrote:

 

 

I Know its only one state but 14% is outstanding.  The link did not work as I hoped.  The state in question is Florida

 

Hillary 26%

Trump 31%

Johnson 17%

Stein 14%

It isn't the link that's broken. I have not seen any poll in Florida with numbers resembling those.

 

https://twitter.com/hey_itsdusty/status/755621993081430016

 

 

 

There you go. I found it again.Link seems to be working.

That's probably among independents.  Here's the most recent polling:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton_vs_johnson_vs_stein-5963.html 

The US President has substantive executive powers with regards to foreign affairs and the military, and of course the power of veto over legislation.

His/her power to "govern" domestically is largely exercised through the naming of a cabinet, the members of which exercise executive authority over key federal agencies.  So in this fantasy scenario, one could conceivably have a "Green Gov't" of sorts. Though all cabinet nominees, departmental budgets and related legislation would of course have to be approved by Congress.  

The last US President to come from a 3rd party of sorts was Andrew Johnson who ran as Lincoln's VP for the National Union Party in 1864, and then succeeded him as president after Lincoln's assassination. These were the post-civil war ("reconstruction") years, the politics were complex and nasty, and Johnson was not particularly adept. He  ended up getting impeached by the House and narrowly surviving the ensuing trial in the Senate. So not an easy row to hoe.  (ETA - FWIW, most historians seem to agree that Johnson was a major a**hole, so that probably did not help.)

Jill Stein's chances of becoming president of the United States are about as good as her chances of becoming president of Turkey or Russia.

Ralph Nader helped George Bush get elected in 2000; Stein would likley do the same for Trump, assuming she got enough votes to have any impact, at all.

The US is an electoral duopoly, reinforced by their media. Americans would have to change the rules of the game to enable someone other than a Democrat or Republican to win.

I fully agree with the sentiment, however. Having to choose between Trump and Clinton is like a vegan having to choose from the menu at a steakhouse. (Heard that at a Just for Laughs show in Montreal on the weekend.)

Jill Stein will probably hurt Clinton less than Johnson will hurt Trump in the polls. On the other hand, in the actual election Trump has a greater ceiling as he will have an easier time swaying Johnson voters than Clinton will reaching out to Stein voters.

If Trump successfully brands the election as a referendum on the establishment, he wins.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Cody87 wrote:

Jill Stein will probably hurt Clinton less than Johnson will hurt Trump in the polls. On the other hand, in the actual election Trump has a greater ceiling as he will have an easier time swaying Johnson voters than Clinton will reaching out to Stein voters.

If Trump successfully brands the election as a referendum on the establishment, he wins.

I think it's actually the other way around and that Stein will hurt Clinton more. The Republican Party is slightly more maleable, so if they see large numbers of their supporters going elsewhere, they will make adjustments to gain back that support. Also, Republicans very strongly dislike Clinton, so they may very well hold their noses to vote for Trump just to stop her. On the other end of the spectrum, left-wing voters are motivated more by policy, so if they don't see Clinton offering the policies they want, they won't support her.

It's perhaps a bit biased to essentially say that the Republicans vote due to partisanship while the Democrats vote due to principles. Doesn't make for accurate political analysis.

Quote:

The Democrats have also made no effort to win over Sander's voters, in fact they have been trying to brow-beat them because Trump is so bad, and yet they keep insulting Sanders' voters. This may even become a vicious cycle with the attacks increasing in intensity and knocking more people off Clinton's bandwagon.

This has nothing to do with whether Johnson hurts Trump more than Stein hurts Clinton and vice versa. This just points out a possible reason why Trump may win - Clinton's hubris. Trump continues to reach out to Sanders supporters, so hopefully Clinton's tream smartens up.

I find it laughable that the Democrats are already picking out scapegoats to blame for the inevitable Clinton loss. Many voters in the states view her the way that I see her. She is not the solution she is the problem. She's a lying imperialist sycophant for the American oligarchy. What's not to like about her, eh?

I suspect that many of Bernie's youth brigade, who he enticed into taking politics seriously, will either not vote or they will vote for Stein. Let's face it when Bernie's campaign for the nomination began he was polling in the same range as Stein is currently polling for President and Clinton still had to cheat to beat him.

Quote:

At least 100 Green candidates competed throughout the U.S. in the November 3, 2015 general election.

So basically, two per state.

Do you figure that Savage is saying that the Greens need to run a few candidates here and there -- two per state, maybe -- and then once they do they're ready for the top job?

Or could he be thinking that when the Greens have actually acheived a certain level of actual support then perhaps it's time to "level up"?

To put it another way, if your team is placing fourth and fifth in local, tri-county track meets, what would make you think that this is your year to bring home Gold at the Olympics??

From article above:

Quote:

Hillary and neoliberalism/neoconservativism in general are the cause of the Trump-style authoritarian populism that now haunts the US.

Really?

In my opinion, their conclusion is a fool’s bargain: “by dismissing a “lesser evil” electoral logic and thereby increasing the potential for Clinton’s defeat the left will undermine what should be at the core of what it claims to be attempting to achieve......

No...the conclusion to me is obvious...the system is rigged...the left must abandon the system and now!! put into place the organization of movement for alternative politics, and pressure tactics for whatever wins? the so called farce of a democratic system...we must be looking for th e alternatives with the failure of the system...which to me also is obvious, what with the collapsing finances and deteriorating economics...but where will the discussions begin for such movement to be put in place?

Stein 2016.

I admire her courageous stance on Israel. The US (and Canada) need more Jill Steins.

..from the same piece. it's video as well if your interested.

quote:

KSHAMA SAWANT: Well, those of us who are talking about building an independent party for the 99 percent, we take the question of the presidential elections absolutely seriously. I don’t—I am not saying that it is meaningless. But here’s the question I would like to ask: If the Democratic Party establishment, the Democratic National Committee, was—had as its first priority to defeat Trump—I have no doubt that they want to defeat Trump, but if that was their topmost priority, then why did they not do everything in their power to promote the one candidate who, through many, many polls, was indicated to have been a really prominent, a very powerful voice against Trump and having the real possibility of winning against Trump? And, obviously, I’m talking about Bernie Sanders. Instead, what the Democratic National Committee has done is use every dirty trick in the book to stymie his campaign.

And the reason Bernie did not succeed the Democratic—in winning the Democratic nomination is not because the Democratic base didn’t support him. I mean, he has electrified an entire base of tens of millions of people. The reason he didn’t win the nomination is not because of recalcitrant Congress, it’s because of a recalcitrant Democratic Party establishment, for whom, although defeating Trump is the priority, a bigger priority for the Democratic Party establishment is to defeat the agenda of working people to really fight for the massive social change, because the interests of ordinary working people and the interests of Wall Street are diametrically opposite. The interests of Wall Street are completely antagonistic to the interests of ordinary working people. So as long as we tie ourselves—forget about individuals. As long as we tie ourselves to a party that is tied to Wall Street, our movements will reach a graveyard in the Democratic Party.

..i don't agree with the military analysis. it was no accident these folks came out to this event.

Bernie’s Army of Idealists Finds a New General in Jill Stein

For three days the wounded and defeated soldiers of Bernie Sanders’ army, tired and disappointed but still idealistic and hopeful, marched and picketed around the convention center in Philadelphia, while inside many of Sanders’ delegates booed Hillary Clinton’s name every time it was mentioned. Though they had lost a battle in the struggle for the political revolution Sanders’ soldiers thought, hoped, dreamed that they might still somehow continue and ultimately win the war.

quote:

A Leader Appears

Then suddenly last night at the Socialist Convergence things changed. The hall began to fill with 700 veterans of the Sanders army, among them more than two dozen Sanders delegates to the Democratic Party Convention. There were some illustrious speakers such as journalist Chris Hedges, editor of Jacobin Bhaskar Sunkara and activist Steve Williams of LeftRoots. (Kshama Sawant, who supported Sanders and then urged him to continue his campaign as an independent or a Green, would have been there had she not had a city council meeting back in Seattle.)

Much of the crowd was unhappy when Hedges in a typically moralistic and off-target talk focused his fire on Sanders instead of Hillary, and they let him know it. When Lev Hirschhorn, a Philadelphia labor and community organizer and Bernie backer, argued for supporting Hillary as the lesser-evil and making a protracted fight inside the Democratic Party he was booed. The crowd wasn’t looking for critics, it was looking for a leader to continue the political revolution—and they found one.

Presidential candidate Jill Stein of the Green Party stood to talk, stating that, “I find Hillary Clinton’s record every bit as terrifying as Donald Trump’s [proposals],” the crowd roared. “I agree with many of you, with most of you, that we should not be intimidated out of our power. We can change our voting system. Why are we locked into a voting system that tries to compel us to vote against what we fear, rather than for what we believe?”

In one of the strongest speeches I have heard her give, she encouraged the audience to build an independent political movement and to do so through her campaign, as she laid out her Green Party platform, not so different from Sanders. The 700 people in the hall stood and shouted throughout her speech, giving her multiple standing ovations.

I appreciate the frustration of many over the choices offered to American voters by the Democrats and the Republicans, and the temptation to say a pox on both your houses. However, when I contemplate the possibility of Donald Trump having his finger on the nuclear button, I find myself thinking, "Hold your noses, my American neighbours, and Vote for (Ugh!) Clinton. Then, start building a campaign for the 2020 election, and begin the search for a credible candidate who can challenge Clinton for the Democratic nomination.

Obviously this is not an ideal option, but in an electoral duopoly the options are limited. In my classes (I teach in the PSE sector), whenever the the US election comes up for discussion, I always remind students that the US has two political parties, which is only one more than they have in China and North Korea. 

Jill Stein wrote:

US Foreign Policy is a Marketing Strategy for Selling Weapons

Jill Stein

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

In my classes (I teach in the PSE sector), whenever the the US election comes up for discussion, I always remind students that the US has two political parties, which is only one more than they have in China and North Korea.

Presumably that means you can't mention Stein or Johnson, or at least not without walking that back.

I get that there independents, Greens and Liberatrains out there. However, that doesn't alter the reality of the electoral duopoly that exists in the US right now.

After the election, perhaps we'll see some changes. If Trump wins there could be a split in the Republican Party. Hard to say if the Democrats won't split, as well, but perhaps the Sanders supporters will try to make a go of it as a new party. (For God's sake, don't call it the New Democratic Party)

The transformation of American electoral politics to a multi-party system would be most welcome. Then, Jill Stein and all the other good people who want to run would have a fighting chance against the "Republicrat" machines.

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:

The transformation of American electoral politics to a multi-party system would be most welcome. Then, Jill Stein and all the other good people who want to run would have a fighting chance against the "Republicrat" machines.

This seems like circular logic.

The U.S. already has more than two parties, but those other parties -- the Greens and the Libertarians, for example -- will only start to prosper once some sort of change happens that results in them prospering... or something?  In other words, is this change you're talking about pretty much "more people start to support parties other than the Republicans and Democrats"?

You're right, Americans have to start supporting different parties, but I don't see this happening unless there's a split in one or both of the "duopolist" (not even sure if that's a word) parties.

What's needed is a change in the political culture, but it's not going to happen in the midst of the current campaign.  It's too late for 2016, but once this campaign is done, Americans will have the opportunity to set the wheels in motion to build the base of a real alternative.

For now, the question is, are Americans okay with Trump as president of the US; if not, splitting the anti-Trump vote won't keep him out of office. On the other hand, if the verdict is that Trump is no different from Clinton, then I guess it doesn't matter what Americans do.

However, I have a feeling that American Muslims, Latino-Americans and African Americans can see a difference. And you can bet the farm that David Duke and his KKK supporters see a difference, too.

The more I read about Jill Stein the more I'd prefer to support <shudder> Ms. Clinton.  Stein is a physician who cannot seem to understand the difference between ionizing and non-ionizing radiation:

http://gizmodo.com/now-jill-stein-thinks-wi-fi-might-be-hurting-kids-178...

By that logic we should also ban AM & FM radios.  There seems to be some question on her stance on vaccinations as well (the whole "vaccinations cause Autism" idiocy).  She comes across as a little more "Alex Jones" than intellectual.  

Stein is presumed to be an asset for Trump but I am not sure this is the case.

In a normal year any split to the left would help the Democrats who are the more left of the major parties (relative so no need for a debate about the fact that they are not actually left).

In a year where the motivations are perhaps more than ever negative votes, Stein gives an option for a person who cannot vote for Clinton not to vote for Trump, essentially halving the electoral impact. Her votes woudl be offset presumably by the Libertarian canddiate getting votes from right wing people who cannot support Trump.

I don't really think there is much viability for third party candidates in the US without a sustained movement towards amending the process to a run-off. ironically, Trump/Clinton might in fact help that process along. The Trump experience might encourage Americans to desire a run-off system given how many voters do not like either candidate and would prefer to be able to caste a vote for a third party without helping elect their least desired major choice.

If Stein were smart she would recognize that she has no hope and use this campaign and what comes after to push for the change to allow run-off. Such a change would allow no-hope candidates to rise and potentially catch the bottom of the two main parties to be on a final ballot. This is likely the biggest change Stein could possibly achieve from her current position. A run for the Presidency pretending that it is realistic is certainly not worth the effort.

Geoff wrote:

I appreciate the frustration of many over the choices offered to American voters by the Democrats and the Republicans, and the temptation to say a pox on both your houses. However, when I contemplate the possibility of Donald Trump having his finger on the nuclear button,

You mean the new nuclear button that Obama is spending a trillion dollars on. He is a Man of Peace building a new generation of weapons that his Generals want so they can use them.  The idea that Trump is going to start a nuclear war when his military doesn't want one is a naive view of the US power structure.

I frankly do not know how bad Trump will be on foreign policy but I do know the Killary will see herself as the undisputed ruler of the world and willing to fight wars to prove her point. 

I remember telling people on this board that Obama was a warmonger and he has since become the President that has delivered the most death and destruction of any of his predecessors. Killary thinks he is too soft and is always urging a tougher stance.  Voting for her is a guarantee that you are voting for perpetual war. Of course if you live in Canada you have the luxury of knowing that the odds of us getting bombed by the US are really low but that is the case whether Trump or Clinton get elected.

Quote:

No country can equal this systemic record of violence. Most of America’s wars (almost all of them against defenceless countries) have been launched not by Republican presidents but by liberal Democrats: Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Clinton, Obama.

In 1947, a series of National Security Council directives described the paramount aim of American foreign policy as “a world substantially made over in [America’s] own image”. The ideology was messianic Americanism. We were all Americans. Or else. Heretics would be converted, subverted, bribed, smeared or crushed.

Donald Trump is a symptom of this, but he is also a maverick. He says the invasion of Iraq was a crime; he doesn’t want to go to war with Russia and China. The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton. She is no maverick. She embodies the resilience and violence of a system whose vaunted “exceptionalism” is totalitarian with an occasional liberal face.

As presidential election day draws near, Clinton will be hailed as the first female president, regardless of her crimes and lies – just as Barack Obama was lauded as the first black president and liberals swallowed his nonsense about “hope”. And the drool goes on.

Described by theGuardian columnist Owen Jones as “funny, charming, with a coolness that eludes practically every other politician”, Obama the other day sent drones to slaughter 150 people in Somalia. He kills people usually on Tuesdays, according to the New York Times, when he is handed a list of candidates for death by drone. So cool.

In the 2008 presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton threatened to “totally obliterate” Iran with nuclear weapons. As Secretary of State under Obama, she participated in the overthrow of the democratic government of Honduras. Her contribution to the destruction of Libya in 2011 was almost gleeful. When the Libyan leader, Colonel Gaddafi, was publicly sodomised with a knife – a murder made possible by American logistics – Clinton gloated over his death: “We came, we saw, he died.”

One of Clinton’s closest allies is Madeleine Albright, the former Secretary of State, who has attacked young women for not supporting “Hillary”. This is the same Madeleine Albright who infamously celebrated on TV the death of half a million Iraqi children as “worth it”.

https://newmatilda.com/2016/03/23/john-pilger-why-hillary-clinton-is-mor...

Rev Pesky]</p> <p>From the Green Party USA web site, Jill Stein's response to Sander's endorsement of Clinton.</p> <p><a href="http://www.jill2016.com/sanders_endorsement_clinton" target="_blank">Stein on Sanders and the Democrats</a></p> <p>[quote]Sanders, a life-long independent who has advocated for building an independent democratic socialist party similar to Canada's New Democratic Party...[quote wrote:

Obviously someone who is not familiar with the NDP.

Normally you model on something more successful.

Still it is understandable why Sanders would not at this point in a campaign decide to leave the Democratic party even though his treatment by them offers some justification.

Sanders has made it clear that there is a constituency in the US for a socialist party. More so than either a Libertarian or Green party.

To make that work the issue of run-off would still have to be addressed.