A Jill Stein / Bernie Sanders ticket?

[Axiom_Blade]

Green Party Intrigue: Jill Stein's Tweet To Bernie Sanders Adds Yet Another Wild Card For Superdelegates

After delivering an Earth Day message to Bernie Sander’s supporters and penning an open letter to the Vermont Senator, the Green Party’s Dr. Jill Stein tweeted an intriguing message about the fiercely popular Democratic nominee. Jill Stein is the Green Party’s presumed candidate for president. On her website, Stein asked Senator Sanders to consider ditching his affiliation with the Democratic Party if the party doesn’t choose him as their candidate, considering “this wildly unpredictable election where the old rules are giving way one by one.”

Personally, I don't think that Sanders would ever do it, but he's certainly surprised me before. And a lot of his fans are going to be disappointed if he endorses Clinton. Things are already pretty crazy, but a Stein-Sanders ticket would really throw a wrench into the works. Sanders is pretty old, so it's unlikely he'll ever get a chance to affect change on this level ever again.

 

[Loss Leader]

Sanders best chance to influence the agenda is to get Clinton to adopt some of his goals in exchange for delivering his supporters. As an independent candidate, all he does is steal votes from the people who (while not with him) are a lot closer to him than anybody else.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

So let's see, Dr Stein sent Sanders a letter and this is a 'gee it might happen' news story?:

And this is supposed to sway the hard-party core superdelegates?


Because Stein has so many more supporters than Clinton?:rolleyes

More fantasy.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Sanders best chance to influence the agenda is to get Clinton to adopt some of his goals in exchange for delivering his supporters. As an independent candidate, all he does is steal votes from the people who (while not with him) are a lot closer to him than anybody else.

Are you sure about that? Consider this: assuming a Trump / Clinton / Jill + Bernie, we have

Hillary Democrats voting for Hillary (a minority)

Trump Republicans voting for Trump (also a minority)

That means that there are a lot of votes to be picked up there.

In any case, while the White House may not be attainable for us this year, there are some other important milestones that are much more feasible:

At 5% of the vote, we qualify for an FEC grant worth several million dollars. (The amount fluctuates, but it was $240 million in 2000, and almost $38 million in 2012.)

At 15% of the vote, we can have candidates in the debates.

Of course, if you're happy with the Democrats and Republicans the way they are, then you wouldn't have any interest in that. (But then you wouldn't vote for a Green platform in any case.)

 

[Maya22]

The Green Party still has less presence than the Libertarian Party. I think that their presence will grow stronger over the next few years.
http://www.jill2016.com/ballotaccess?utm_campaign=ballot_vol&utm_medium=email&utm_source=jillstein

 

[Tony Stark]

The absolute only change he might affect by doing this is help to elect Donald Trump as the President of the United States.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Sanders with Stein? That's like pairing the sun with a candle, or Beyonce with Justin Bieber, or cocaine with cottage cheese. The radiant glory of the former would outshine the latter like an atomic blast beside a baby's fart, a lion beside a flea, or TragicMonkey beside TragicMonkey's loser ex-roommate who still owes him $650 which I haven't forgotten about, Kevin, even if you have.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

The absolute only change he might affect by doing this is help to elect Donald Trump as the President of the United States.

Sanders with Stein? That's like pairing the sun with a candle, or Beyonce with Justin Bieber, or cocaine with cottage cheese. The radiant glory of the former would outshine the latter like an atomic blast beside a baby's fart, a lion beside a flea, or TragicMonkey beside TragicMonkey's loser ex-roommate who still owes him $650 which I haven't forgotten about, Kevin, even if you have.

Sure, but the way the US system is set up, it's the only way he can run if he doesn't get nominated. I could be wrong about that, but it sure seems that way.

 

[Foolmewunz]

Appropriate smiley. Fiddling while Rome burns and all that. A left/moderate split of votes is a GOP victory. A really exciting election would have Cruz running as a fourth party. Then we'd see where the split in ideology really lies. Trump on the crazy right, Cruz on the bible-thumping right, Hillary on the corporatist Dem middle/right, and Bernie on the wannabe left.

Without a conservative third/fourth party run, Sanders heading up the Green ticket is going to remove zero (0) votes from the conservatives and 25 to 35 million from the Democrats and hand the White House to the GOP. And hand the Supreme Court to the conservatives for another generation.

And Sanders will go down in history as the fuzzy-headed dreamer who brought it all on us. Does the term carpetbagger not resonate? How about mercenary? Socialist who turned Democrat so he could run for that party's presidential nomination. Democrat who'll turn Green to run on that party's line?

Sure, but the way the US system is set up, it's the only way he can run if he doesn't get nominated. I could be wrong about that, but it sure seems that way.

Do we have any Greenies on the forum? How many (and which) states does the Green Party have a line on election day? At some point last year they were crowing about being set to be on the ballot in 25 states. (Getting that line on the ballot differs from state to state; it is sometimes dependent upon having received a certain percentage of votes in the last state-wide election, IIRC.)

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Without a conservative third/fourth party run, Sanders heading up the Green ticket is going to remove zero (0) votes from the conservatives and 25 to 35 million from the Democrats and hand the White House to the GOP. And hand the Supreme Court to the conservatives for another generation.

Exit polls after Nader 2000 revealed that about 1/3 would've voted for Bush if Nader wasn't on the ballot, another 1/3 said they would've voted for Gore, and the final 1/3 said they wouldn't have voted at all. Populists get votes all over the place. I suspect that if Sanders isn't running, a decent number of them will vote for Trump. Additionally, there are a number of Sanders supporters (I remember reading ~33% somewhere) who wouldn't vote for Hillary regardless. Some of them want to just write in Bernie Sanders in protest.

And Sanders will go down in history as the fuzzy-headed dreamer who brought it all on us. Does the term carpetbagger not resonate? How about mercenary? Socialist who turned Democrat so he could run for that party's presidential nomination. Democrat who'll turn Green to run on that party's line?

something something breaking eggs something omelette

I think you can relax. I don't think that Sanders would ever really do it. If he did, he'd be in for the fight of his life, though. The Democrats would do everything could (legal and less-than-legal) to stop him.

Do we have any Greenies on the forum? How many (and which) states does the Green Party have a line on election day? At some point last year they were crowing about being set to be on the ballot in 25 states. (Getting that line on the ballot differs from state to state; it is sometimes dependent upon having received a certain percentage of votes in the last state-wide election, IIRC.)

It's stuck to the top of Stein's Twitter. We are currently on the ballot in 21 states:

AR, AZ, CA, CO, DC, FL, HI, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MS, NM, NY, OH, OR, SC, TX, WI, WV

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Exit polls after Nader 2000 revealed that about 1/3 would've voted for Bush if Nader wasn't on the ballot, another 1/3 said they would've voted for Gore, and the final 1/3 said they wouldn't have voted at all. Populists get votes all over the place. I suspect that if Sanders isn't running, a decent number of them will vote for Trump. Additionally, there are a number of Sanders supporters (I remember reading ~33% somewhere) who wouldn't vote for Hillary regardless. Some of them want to just write in Bernie Sanders in protest.



something something breaking eggs something omelette

I think you can relax. I don't think that Sanders would ever really do it. If he did, he'd be in for the fight of his life, though. The Democrats would do everything could (legal and less-than-legal) to stop him.



It's stuck to the top of Stein's Twitter. We are currently on the ballot in 21 states:

Really? You're going to double down on Nader wasn't a spoiler?

Just think, anything that would have kept Bush out of office would have prevented the Iraq war. Anyone that contributed is to blame. Anyone that didn't vote or threw their vote away, anyone that didn't think it mattered like Nader picking the stupidest year to make his futile push for a third party, they're all to blame. I also blame Gore for not recognizing all he needed to do was call for a FL state-wide recount. It wasn't the recount that made the ruling, it was trying to confine it to Dade County. That was SCOTUS' excuse for their ruling. And I blame Scalia, and the conservative SCOTUS.

And no, we didn't know at the time Bush would start a war. But he did. And so could Trump if some foreign leader like Putin insults Trump's ego.

Anyone that ignores the risk Trump poses will be to blame if their vote contributes to Trump winning.

By the way, I'm sorry but Stein isn't qualified to be POTUS or VEEP. She's just fringe, not a serious candidate. Sanders is at least a qualified candidate. Maybe not as qualified as Clinton but well out of Stein's league.

 

[Wayward son]

Exit polls after Nader 2000 revealed that about 1/3 would've voted for Bush if Nader wasn't on the ballot

25%

another 1/3 said they would've voted for Gore

38%

That difference was more then enough to swing Florida and the election comfortably to Gore.

 

[Foolmewunz]

25%



38%

That difference was more then enough to swing Florida and the election comfortably to Gore.

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but where are these figures from? This assumes 37% would've not voted (100 - 25 - 38) or voted for the myriad other 3rd Party candidates?

The key, though, is Florida. Bernie could've won the White House for Gore if he'd gotten the Socialist Party and Socialist Workers Party in FL to all vote Dem. It was that close!

I can't find it, but there's a university study (I think UCLA?) that didn't use exit polls but actual ballot info to analyze the claim of a third of the Nader supporters would've not voted. It doesn't ring true, as Nader voters had a very heavy interest in down-ticket races, certainly not the actions of a single-item/single-candidate voter. (I think it was about 80% of Floridian Nader voters who voted in the down-ticket elections.) That article also came to the conclusion that Gore support among Nader voters was probably more likely to be 60%. Exit polls are not necessarily accurate. Having just waited in line for five hours to vote for your White Knight with no results in, many people will still respond in partisan/electioneering mode.... "No way! I voted for the best candidate and if he wasn't in the election, I would've stayed home!" Their down-ticket activity would seem to put a lie to this.

 

[Axiom_Blade]

Really? You're going to double down on Nader wasn't a spoiler?

Sure. Triple down, quadruple down, whatever. The whole spoiler debate is just a distraction. That's why the Democrats keep bringing it up. The real problem was not enough people voted for Nader. THAT is the salient point. How do we get more people to vote for us?

Just think, anything that would have kept Bush out of office would have prevented the Iraq war.

Evidence?

Anyone that didn't vote or threw their vote away, anyone that didn't think it mattered like Nader picking the stupidest year to make his futile push for a third party, they're all to blame.

The people who voted for Bush are to blame for anything that happened afterwards: Iraq War, recession, and so on. The left should've united behind Nader and gotten him elected. If not in 2000, then in 2004, or in 2008 (!) We had our chances, and we failed, and it looks like we're going to fail again with Bernie. We have to stop voting for both of the corrupt two parties. If you keep doing the same thing over and over again, and keep getting the same results...what does that tell you?

And no, we didn't know at the time Bush would start a war. But he did.

And you know this because...?

And so could Trump if some foreign leader like Putin insults Trump's ego.

I'm about 95% sure that Hillary would start a war. For Trump, it's much, much less. He just doesn't seem like he's interested in wars. I could be wrong. I can't read minds. But Hillary has quite a bit of military conflict in her past.

Anyone that ignores the risk Trump poses will be to blame if their vote contributes to Trump winning.

Anyone who votes for Trump will be to blame for Trump. Doesn't that make more sense? You have to take responsibility for your own vote.

I have decided that I will not vote for Hillary, because she is a warmonger and neoliberal. Many others have made the same decision. Don't we have a right to a candidate who represents us?

By the way, I'm sorry but Stein isn't qualified to be POTUS or VEEP. She's just fringe, not a serious candidate.

Oh, yes. Not a "serious candidate". Like W. Bush, or Bill Clinton, or Obama, or Hillary. Save us from serious candidates!

 

[Wayward son]

I don't disagree with your conclusion, but where are these figures from? This assumes 37% would've not voted (100 - 25 - 38) or voted for the myriad other 3rd Party candidates?

Those numbers are the numbers that Nader claims were from the exit polls of Nader voters in 2000: "In the year 2000, exit polls reported that 25% of my voters would have voted for Bush, 38% would have voted for Gore and the rest would not have voted at all."

That article also came to the conclusion that Gore support among Nader voters was probably more likely to be 60%. Exit polls are not necessarily accurate.

You are probably referring to this study. I agree that exit polls are not necessarily accurate, I just used exit polls because the numbers according to Nader are significantly different then the numbers according to AB.

However, the 60/40 split in the study above is essentially the same as the 38/25 (which is 60/40 among voters who would have chosen one or the other) split in the exit polls. Of course, either way would have delivered the Presidency to Gore.

I blame Nader for Dubya - although admittedly I have a strong bias against Nader and feel that his uncompromising, non-pragmatic crusading have caused little but harm.

"it was the public interest movements of the 1960s that marked the beginning of the end of America's mid-century heyday of high growth, low inequality, and improving environmental quality. Prior to the 1960s, American liberalism accepted that “public policy emerged from negotiations among economic interests groups, rather than from all-wise, altruistic progressive experts.” Labor unions, corporations, and consumer groups sought regulations aimed at protecting the public while helping industries flourish. All of that changed with the rise of the environmental and other public interest movements"

"The older regulatory era enshrined political compromise and government-industry collaboration, which public interest progressivism treats as appeasement and corruption. Turning a blind eye to blatant corruption is not necessary. What is necessary is defining politics not in terms of crusades that ignore costs, but in terms of approaches that balance different but equally legitimate social and economic interests and weigh trade-offs among competing goods."