The All Purpose Jill Stein Thread

[Childlike Empress]

The Green Party town hall is on CNN tomorrow evening.

Thanks. Here is the recording:

 

[Travis]

I was watching it. Jill lost me when she went on a rant about Hillary being a monster. I rolled my eyes and was like "if you think she's a monster I cannot respect your opinions on other things!"

 

[Childlike Empress]

Watched it now as well. First, with all my rants about corporate media, I think CNN really did a service to US democracy here, giving a voice way above their usual punching distance to third parties, in a very fair manner with hard questions asked (for example explicitly about what Ajamu Baraka said in that old counterpunch article the shillaries unearthed and spread far and wide even to this very thread), but everybody allowed to finish the sentence. Kudos for that.

Second, or as an addition as nobody here believed it anyway: The word "monster" was maybe spoken in some misanthropic fever dream, but not in that broadcast.

I hope there will be a way to give this team and the Libertarians access to nationally broadcasted debates - Stein apparently lost a lawsuit against that "debate organizer"; is it really a private corporation run by the political duopol?

 

[Childlike Empress]

I hope there will be a way to give this team and the Libertarians access to nationally broadcasted debates - Stein apparently lost a lawsuit against that "debate organizer"; is it really a private corporation run by the political duopol?

Interesting read on that: Why Not Expand the Presidential Debates?

If ten major TV networks got together and decided to nationally televise a presidential debate restricted to Republican nominee Donald Trump and right-leaning Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, while barring other candidates including Democrat Hillary Clinton, it would be recognized as an act of media bias or exclusion.

But what if the televised debates this fall are restricted to just Trump and Clinton? That, too, needs to be recognized as an intentional act of media exclusion.

In the coming weeks, we need to generate a debate about the debates — who controls them and which candidates are included. That’s the goal of a new petition launched by RootsAction.org, a group I co-founded.

Beginning in 1988, major TV networks granted journalistic control over the debates to a private organization with no official status: the Commission on Presidential Debates. The CPD is often called “nonpartisan.” That’s absurdly inaccurate. “Bipartisan” is the right adjective, as it has always carried out the joint will of the Republican and Democratic parties. (See George Farah’s meticulously reported book, “No Debate.”) [...]

Here’s a brief history of how the CPD took over: [...]

As I write, the petition was signed by 13,131 people with a goal of 15,000, three of them in the last 10 minutes. If I were American I'd certainly sign it immediately.

 

[Trakar]

Interesting read on that: Why Not Expand the Presidential Debates?

As I write, the petition was signed by 13,131 people with a goal of 15,000, three of them in the last 10 minutes. If I were American I'd certainly sign it immediately.

well,...that's my only real consideration regarding voting the top of the ticket, especially since I'm in a part of the country that isn't likely to poll more than 20% GOP (in a good Republican year),

(even with Hillary heading the ticket).​

I'd like to see relentless leftward pressure on the Democratic establishment, and the increase of progressive alternatives (to maintain persistent progressive pressure) for the future of the party, the nation, and the planet.


Go 'Hawks!

 

[Childlike Empress]

well,...that's my only real consideration regarding voting the top of the ticket, especially since I'm in a part of the country that isn't likely to poll more than 20% GOP (in a good Republican year),

(even with Hillary heading the ticket).​

I'd like to see relentless leftward pressure on the Democratic establishment, and the increase of progressive alternatives (to maintain persistent progressive pressure) for the future of the party, the nation, and the planet.


Go 'Hawks!

The most ridiculous thing about the US election circus is this state-by-state winner-takes-it-all nonsense with "swing states" where your vote could count and others, like yours, where it wont. One Yankistani, one vote I say.

As to the petition, while Cohen writes that the current rule (that can be changed if the crooks decide to in a New York minute from now) that a candidate needs 15% in some polls is arbitrary, his petition says it should be lowered to 5%, which is also arbitrary. I'd propose that the criterium should be the percentage of voters that have the candidate on their ballot - as this already requires certain amounts of public support, being far more accurate than some polling maybe rigged by the same characters. Let's say 90%, which Stein and Johnson both fulfill (I think).

 

[Trakar]

The most ridiculous thing about the US election circus is this state-by-state winner-takes-it-all nonsense with "swing states" where your vote could count and others, like yours, where it wont. One Yankistani, one vote I say.

As to the petition, while Cohen writes that the current rule (that can be changed if the crooks decide to in a New York minute from now) that a candidate needs 15% in some polls is arbitrary, his petition says it should be lowered to 5%, which is also arbitrary. I'd propose that the criterium should be the percentage of voters that have the candidate on their ballot - as this already requires certain amounts of public support, being far more accurate than some polling maybe rigged by the same characters. Let's say 90%, which Stein and Johnson both fulfill (I think).

I think both Stein and Johnson could pull 15% this time around.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think both Stein and Johnson could pull 15% this time around.

On what evidence do you base Stein getting more than 5%? Wishful thinking on your part?

 

[Trakar]

On what evidence do you base Stein getting more than 5%? Wishful thinking on your part?

My wishes have nothing to do with it, and if they did, I assure you that my wishes wouldn't be wasted on giving any or these main party or third party wastes of oxygen 15% of the polled electorate.

That said, it should also be noted that there is a significant difference between "...could pull 15%..." and "...will pull 15%..."

I would generally agree that Stein's native Green draw in a typical campaign year would probably max-out at around 5-8% when there's a strong, well-liked (at least by their own party) set of main party candidates. Even a relatively minor shift of behavior among Independents and Millennials could easily push both the Libertarian party and the Green party over the 15% bar. Could, not will.

It's not likely to change electoral results, though it would be nice to be able to keep both main party candidates somewhat honest, at the least through the debates, I think it would benefit the nation to see the explanation and discussion of contrasting, alternative, public policy goals and methods through exposure of their debate on a national stage.

Personally, I'd love to see a handful of Libertarian and Green freshman representatives and senators, but that's probably not likely before the 2018 mid-terms (at the earliest).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My wishes have nothing to do with it, and if they did, I assure you that my wishes wouldn't be wasted on giving any or these main party or third party wastes of oxygen 15% of the polled electorate.

That said, it should also be noted that there is a significant difference between "...could pull 15%..." and "...will pull 15%..."

I would generally agree that Stein's native Green draw in a typical campaign year would probably max-out at around 5-8% when there's a strong, well-liked (at least by their own party) set of main party candidates. Even a relatively minor shift of behavior among Independents and Millennials could easily push both the Libertarian party and the Green party over the 15% bar. Could, not will.

It's not likely to change electoral results, though it would be nice to be able to keep both main party candidates somewhat honest, at the least through the debates, I think it would benefit the nation to see the explanation and discussion of contrasting, alternative, public policy goals and methods through exposure of their debate on a national stage.

Personally, I'd love to see a handful of Libertarian and Green freshman representatives and senators, but that's probably not likely before the 2018 mid-terms (at the earliest).

While you say, "My wishes have nothing to do with it," there isn't anything in your post resembling an answer to my question, "what evidence do you base Stein getting more than 5%?" other than wishful thinking.

Care to try again? This time focus on the word, 'evidence'.

 

[Trakar]

Milking Bernie Bros, of course.

Better that they are milked by Stein than that one cent of their donations end up in the coffers of Clinton or Trump.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You lost Trakar. Bernie and the bulk of his supporters are supporting Clinton. Stein is a joke and no, she's not going to get 15% in the polls or in the vote.

What's the point of still posting about how bad Clinton is?

But besides all that, you never supported your assertion: "Independents and Millennials could easily push both the Libertarian party and the Green party over the 15% bar. Could, not will."

Hedging your bet with 'could' doesn't support the assertion either.

 

[Trakar]

While you say, "My wishes have nothing to do with it," there isn't anything in your post resembling an answer to my question, "what evidence do you base Stein getting more than 5%?" other than wishful thinking.

Care to try again? This time focus on the word, 'evidence'.

Big difference, as indicated previously between saying she will get more than 5%, which I never said, and that she could get 15%, care to try again?

Supporting evidences that both Stein and Johnson could pull 15%:

"Clinton And Trump Are Losing A Lot Of Young Voters" - http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-and-trump-are-losing-a-lot-of-young-voters/

"Young voters could decide election by rejecting both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton" - http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/08/young_voters_could_decide_elec.html

Add these to a fraction of the disaffected from both main parties along with even a minor significant fraction of the leading group of voters in our nation (Independents, ~40% of the electorate who are not thrilled with either major party candidate) and both Stein and Johnson could pull 15% support in polls this fall.

 

[wareyin]

Big difference, as indicated previously between saying she will get more than 5%, which I never said, and that she could get 15%, care to try again?

Supporting evidences that both Stein and Johnson could pull 15%:

"Clinton And Trump Are Losing A Lot Of Young Voters" - http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-and-trump-are-losing-a-lot-of-young-voters/

"Young voters could decide election by rejecting both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton" - http://www.oregonlive.com/today/index.ssf/2016/08/young_voters_could_decide_elec.html

Add these to a fraction of the disaffected from both main parties along with even a minor significant fraction of the leading group of voters in our nation (Independents, ~40% of the electorate who are not thrilled with either major party candidate) and both Stein and Johnson could pull 15% support in polls this fall.

Your second link says that Stein is at 4%, and Johnson with 10%. This does not appear to support your assertion that Stein could pull 15%. In fact, your second link draws its numbers from your first link. Even among the 18-29 year olds that they discuss, Stein is only at 9%. In other words, in her best demographic, Stein still polls at only 9%, a far cry from 15% from the general population.

 

[Childlike Empress]

Nice and very justified rant: Liberal Hate for the Green Party

Liberals have joined Hillary Clinton’s “big nasty tent” in a very big way. They have moved far beyond the usual rationales for sticking with the Democrats and are now carrying on a full-fledged hate fest. Their targets are Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and her running mate Ajamu Baraka, who is also a Black Agenda Report editor and columnist. [...]

There is no longer any pretense of claiming a desire for systemic change or even calling themselves progressives. They are “with her” — as the slogan goes — and her illegal activities and record of mass killing don’t dissuade them from supporting her.

Liberals don’t want the Democrats to change. They cling to a bizarre hope for reform, nibbling around the edges while keeping the criminals in charge. They prefer to look down their noses at Trump supporters or consider themselves the cool kids in the high school clique. When they have an opportunity to make history and begin the process of dismantling the hold of the Democratic Party they instead become quite vicious on their behalf.

Donald Trump is the perfect foil for their con game. His open appeals to racism and unpredictable statements and behavior give them an excuse to do nothing except make excuses for the very crooked Mrs. Clinton.

They don’t even feign concern when Republicans who contributed to Chris Christie and John Kasich start doling out dollars to Hillary. They long ago gave up on fighting for peace and just as the name Trump is a one-word attack ad, questions about foreign policy turn into harangues directed against Vladimir Putin. [...]

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Trakar, your imagination is the only place you can find these masses of disaffected youth. You were wrong about Sanders and you are even more wrong to continue to cling to that fantasy.

Poll after poll shows no significant change over time in Stein's numbers. She an unqualified lala land resident with a small unchanging following.

 

[Trakar]

Trakar, your imagination is the only place you can find these masses of disaffected youth. You were wrong about Sanders and you are even more wrong to continue to cling to that fantasy.

Poll after poll shows no significant change over time in Stein's numbers. She an unqualified lala land resident with a small unchanging following.

I'm sure that this is your opinion, and that nothing anyone could say or present would ever alter your perceptions in the slightest. Given this, I see little reason to engage in such an effort with you.

 

[Mader Levap]

I'm sure that this is your opinion, and that nothing anyone could say or present would ever alter your perceptions in the slightest. Given this, I see little reason to engage in such an effort with you.

Oh the irony.

 

[Trakar]

Oh the irony.

Considering my abandonment of both Sanders and Stein's candidacies when it was demonstrated that they did not adhere to my requirements about candidates following scientific-based public policy, I'm not sure what you are referring to with this remark, please explain your response.

 

[Trebuchet]

I realized this morning that in my little Stuck-In-The-Sixties town, I've seen more Stein signs (two or three) than Trump signs (none). But this is a place where you still see Kucinich bumper stickers.