Home Main Forums General Discussion The Democrats’ Undemocratic Strategy Of Smearing The Green Party

  • UnicornOnTheCob (1570 posts)
    Profile photo of UnicornOnTheCob

    The Democrats’ Undemocratic Strategy Of Smearing The Green Party

    The Democrats’ Undemocratic Strategy Of Smearing The Green Party
    Nat Perry
    Green Papers

    Four months since the upset election of Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton, one of the primary scapegoats of the Democrats for their stunning electoral failure remains the Green Party and its 2016 presidential nominee, Jill Stein. Pointing to final vote tallies in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan that showed Trump’s margin of victory as being below the total vote count for Stein, Democrats have coalesced around the conventional wisdom that Stein voters flipped the election by failing to unite behind the Democratic nominee.

    The problem with this analysis is its flawed logic that anyone’s votes actually “belong” to anyone else, and further, it rests on the false assumption that all of Stein’s voters would have naturally voted for Clinton had the Green Party not been competing in the election. The fact is, many of these voters were turned off by Clinton’s hawkishness, perceived ethical lapses and close Wall Street ties, and would have never voted for her regardless of whether there was a third party alternative or not. Some would have stayed home, and others might have actually voted for Trump.

    Democratic Party operatives have spread salacious rumors suggesting that Stein is under Putin’s control, using a photo taken in late 2015 of Stein sitting at a table with the Russian leader as proof of possible disloyalty or perhaps even treason. Viewed within the current context of the “new Cold War” and as part and parcel of the Russian election-meddling allegations, the photo of Stein is all the evidence needed by many Democrats predisposed to assume the worst about the Green Party and its nominee.

    As an added bonus, this undemocratic strategy does not appear to be helping the Democrats, and indeed, ever since the party decided some time last fall to zero in on the “Russian hacking” story as their primary line of attack, their poll numbers have plummeted. Their favorability rating has dropped from about 50 percent just before the election to a current low of about 39 percent. Their unfavorability rating is now 49 percent, the highest it’s been for three years.


    I’ve been a Green since 2000, though I did briefly register as a Democrat in 2015 so I could caucus for Bernie Sanders and act as a state delegate. I’ve come around to the thinking that the rationale that people who voted Green were likely to stay home anyway is a bit self-defeating. I recall this defense deployed in 2000 to defend Nader.

    My take is simply this – every candidate needs to compete for votes. If people voted for Stein over Clinton because of her policy positions, then it’s on Democrats to compete for those voters by actually offering them something.

    Furthermore, it’s the truth that first past the post winner take all elections make splitting the vote on the “left” a reality. If this really bothers anyone, the Democratic Party included, get off your ass and work for instant runoff voting or some other solution. It’s not like we’re stuck with the system we have. We have a system like this, including rigged debates where third parties aren’t allowed on stage, because Democrats and Republicans like it.

    Betty Karlson, bbgrunt, frylock and 15 othersPam, mmonk, NikolaC, OzoneTom, WillyT, Marooned, jwirr, Rozinante, A little weird, Grateful Curd, relgire, area woman, PADemD, ChefEric, 99Forever like this

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

▼ Hide Reply Index
6 replies
  • 99Forever (3524 posts)
    Profile photo of 99Forever Moderator

    1. This is exactly the kind of shit that made absolutely certain…

    …I would NEVER vote for Clinton or any other DINO. Keep insulting us, Democraps, it hastens your demise.

  • HassleCat (1547 posts)
    Profile photo of HassleCat

    2. Second time around for this "logic."

    They did the same thing when Nader “cost Gore the election.” They believed those Nader votes belonged to them, and every Nader voter was somehow obligated to vote for Gore if Nader were not in the race. They still refuse to deal with the fact that a huge number of registered Democrats voted for Bush.  They can’t command the loyalty of their own voters, but feel entitled to own someone else’s voters.

  • pinduck (1109 posts)
    Profile photo of pinduck Donor

    3. A vote for Jill Stein was a vote for Jill Stein. Just like a vote for Nader

    was a vote for Nader & a vote for Perot was a vote for Perot. 1st grade democracy.

    Nader has actually accomplished many positive things in his life beginning always with the ordinary citizen in mind against the entrenched corporate elite. Clinton has been a well paid agent for global capital and has been rewarded with $5000 per minute speeches. Frankly, compared with Mr Nader, she is worthless, a net negative.

    "Sometimes I feel like Fletcher Christian..."
  • vanflower (534 posts)
    Profile photo of vanflower

    4. The obtuseness is mindboggleing

    Tell me I am racist and misogynist, tell me you don’t need my vote anyway because all the moderate Rs will vote for you, try to keep others like me from voting in the primary, tell me you are going to win in a landslide anyway, abandon any real progressive policies in favor of republican ones, call me a moocher snowflake for wanting economic justice, then when I vote for the who I believe the best candidate is blame me for your loss.

    Another winning strategy brought to you by the DNC.  Who thought this up Donna Braziele.

  • Tierra y Libertad (1945 posts)
    Profile photo of Tierra y Libertad Donor

    5. The Democrats have a math problem. 0-0 does not add up to +/- !.

    Hillary didn’t “lose” my vote and Trump didn’t gain my vote when I voted for Jill Stein,


    But such is the irresistible nature of truth, that all it asks, and all it wants is the liberty of appearing. Thomas Paine

    • mmonk (1872 posts)
      Profile photo of mmonk Donor

      6. +1