Hey it's green party celebration day! They got their wish

[FSogol]

Burn it all down, that'll show everyone..



Take a bow green party shitheads.

[MFM008]

1. Stein

Is green only if she was decomposing.

[NCTraveler]

2. Today's Green Party is dangerous.

Some work relentlessly to provide cover for Stein and the fact she personally turned the Green Party into a surrogate for Republicans.

They have nothing left. The Democratic Party Platform has gone far enough left that the Greens only option is dishonesty and deception. It wasn't that way twenty years ago.

[jrthin]

3. All those fuckers should burn in hell. nt

[bhusar]

4. Will Oliver Stone address this?

Or will he still continue to tweet about how Putin is a great guy, while he is trying to promote his 4 hour Putin documentary, and how Hillary democrats are itching to go to war with Russia. Stone, and West are trying to justify the vote for Stein.

[LisaM]

5. They need a name change.

Since 2000, at least, the name "Green" is nothing more than a legacy. They don't run in a lot of local races, they bring in candidates that don't necessarily belong to the Green Party (I know Nader didn't, don't know about Stein), and they belie their supposed goal of placing environmental concerns above all others.

It's too bad, because I think they could have become a decent sized party (particularly if they allowed people to be both Democrats and Greens) with a lot of sway by offering alliances. But no, they chose to bring in megalomaniacs like Nader who clearly don't seem to care about the climate at all (I mean, the guy ran against GORE, for Chrissakes).

[R B Garr]

35. +1, rename to the Red Party, as a tribute to their true benefactors.

[LisaM]

42. Love it.

And I think I'll ruthlessly steal that from you!

[R B Garr]

93. Cool! We've been calling it the Red House instead of the White House, too.

That recent Time Magazine Cover with the White House morphing into the red Kremlin said it all.

[shenmue]

76. Yep

[Cha]

73. ERFs Elitist

*** *******.

[4now]

6. The far outs should be so proud

[The_Casual_Observer]

7. They campaigned on some sort of pro trotsky anti vax platform that appealed to disaffected

millennials.

[Scurrilous]

8. K&R

[leftstreet]

9. Has the average American even heard of the Green Party?

[L. Coyote]

10. Republicans get more for their money donating to Greens.

[delisen]

11. with a special congratulations to authoritarian Sarandon.

[NurseJackie]

12. Amazingly, she still has her vehement defenders that pop-in here. It's disgusting.

[OKNancy]

13. yes, they come from beyond

[NurseJackie]

14. At first, I thought the same thing. But I'm now noticing some high-count/long-term members...

... who REALLY take offense whenever someone criticizes Sarandon or Stein-voters or "third-party" voters.

It's truly bizarre. I mean, seriously, what the fuck is going on? Who ARE these people and why are they here? It's not "Green Party Underground" or "Third-Party Underground", right?

[tiredtoo]

29. NurseJackie

... Throw em all out and sit back and watch the Democratic party continue to disintegrate.

[stevenleser]

34. Catering to BOB/JPR types would make it worse, not better. nt

[tiredtoo]

36. not all members are BOB or JPR types.

IMHO Bernie woulda won but, he did not win the primary and Hillary was the Democratic candidate. I worked as hard for her as I had for Bernie in the primary, probably harder.
Hillary never had the green party vote from day one. She could have picked up many more Bernie supporters had she tried rather than going to Arizona and trying to get some dissatisfied republicans.

[stevenleser]

48. Nope, Bernie would not have won and it's easy to lay out why nt

[tiredtoo]

49. and it would be easy to lay out why he would have but

this is a waste of time.

[NurseJackie]

71. Yes. Thank you!

[NurseJackie]

68. LOL

Ha!

[delisen]

101. It is so much easier to take over and tear down what others have built than

to do the hard work of thinking things through and building up your own structure.

The art of building takes more than words and accusations.

[Marengo]

100. Curious as to why you refer to her as an authoritarian.

[jimlup]

15. I think we should proceed with caution here

this isn't why we lost. We never had these people in the first place. Believe me, I know, I'm married to one of them.

Ultimately, they are a part of the resistance coalition.

[wildeyed]

17. How are they helpful?

They complain and demand and then won't support the coalition's choice in elections. That is not being part of the team. The Veruca Salt of the left coalition, IMO.

[stevenleser]

32. Sanders would have done worse than Hillary and it is easy to show how

I have laid it out many times here. Let me know if I need to do it yet again.

[Jim Lane]

88. Yes, it's very easy to show a counterfactual hypothetical that no one can disprove

To any fair-minded person, it's clear that Clinton got some votes Bernie would not have gotten, but that Bernie would have gotten some votes that Clinton did not get.

After that it gets murkier. The question of which "some" would have been larger is subject to a huge number of variables, some of them known, some of them imperfectly known, and some of them completely unknowable. The one principle that one can state with confidence is that opinions on the subject are strongly correlated with preferences.

Given that you possess such infallible wisdom, what was your opinion after the conventions? Did you find it "easy to show" that Trump would win a majority of the electoral votes?

[JudyM]

89. Agree completely.

[stevenleser]

92. Except you are wrong. Its actually very easy to see as I just outlined. nt

[stevenleser]

91. Nope, it's easy to see just how each did in the primary vs states in which Trump is or is not strong

The only states that Sanders potentially does better that are potentially in play are Michigan (which is doubtful since the margin between Sanders and Hillary there was paper thin) and Wisconsin. Hillary crushed Bernie in Pennsylvania, so he logically does worse than she did against Trump there, and she crushed him in every state south of Pennsylvania on the eastern seaboard.

The problem that creates for Sanders is twofold.

1 - He has no path to 270 electoral votes, and
2 - He has way too many states that are completely out of reach. Virginia, the Carolinas, Georgia and Florida are states he couldnt even have competed in. Trump wins those states against Bernie with zero effort. That means that he could reallocate time of his campaign staff, expenses and his own personal appearances to those states that are contested.

So at most, against Trump, Sanders outperforms Hillary in Michigan and Wisconsin, but their 26 electoral votes is not enough electoral votes by itself to have made a difference. Plus, Sanders would have lost Virginias 13 electoral votes, so his maximum outperform is now 13 Electoral Votes. Sanders still loses vs Trump under the best circumstances.

But I think it's pretty obvious that with five major fewer states in play and easily won by Trump that were either won or tightly contested by Hillary, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida, Trump reallocates all the money, time and resources from those states to Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. He wins Pennsylvania easily because Hillary Crushed Sanders in Pennsylvania and narrowly lost it to Trump so Bernie has no chance there, Trump's additional resources allocated to the state almost certainly wins Michigan where it was close to a tie between Bernie and Hillary. That leaves Wisconsin. Bernie probably pulls out Wisconsin. But since he loses Virginia which has more electoral votes than Wisconsin, he ends up winning fewer electoral votes than Hillary. Even worse than that, because of all the additional non-competitive states, Trump also wins the popular vote against Bernie.

This is very easy to see. It doesn't require any divining.

[Jim Lane]

94. Right, because the Democratic primary electorate is all that matters.

The majority of the Democratic primary voters, when it came to the general election, voted for Clinton and would have voted for Bernie. That includes those who voted for Clinton in the primary. So in real life they were grinning as they voted for Clinton but would have been scowling as they voted for Bernie -- big deal. A vote is a vote. My extremely unenthusiastic vote for Clinton in November counted every bit as much as that of someone who thought she was the most qualified candidate ever.

So let's add in a couple of "minor" factors that you don't deem worthy of mention. First, Bernie probably would have done better among people who didn't vote in the Democratic primary, especially in states with closed primaries. (For example, Clinton's long identification with the Democratic Party establishment was a big plus to some people -- note the frequent DU posts denouncing Bernie as an interloper -- but it was a minus to others.) Second, the whole campaign would have been completely different. There would have been no "Lock her up" and no Comey letter (the letter that Clinton loyalists say swung the election). Instead, there would have been ads centering on the word "socialist" ad nauseam.

Those are examples of why the outcome of the hypothetical Sanders versus Trump race cannot be known with any confidence. Hell, even the actual Clinton versus Trump race wasn't known with any confidence as we went into the election, knowing everything that had happened in the campaign. (Unless, of course, it was known by you, but I note that in response to my question you did not post a link confirming your status as infallible seer.)

Memo to jurors: Please note that I did vote for Clinton. I was unenthusiastic about voting for a candidate who disagreed with me on several major issues, but it's not a ToS violation for stevenleser and me to exchange our honest opinions about what happened in 2016.

[stevenleser]

95. Nope, all of those supposed advantages you think he would get are cancelled out by other factors

A significant percentage of Democrats would not have voted for Bernie. The Socialism tag doesnt disqualify someone with as many Democrats as it does with Republicans, but about 40% of Democrats say they are not willing to vote for a Socialist. http://www.gallup.com/poll/191354/americans-views-socialism-capitalism-little-changed.aspx and that number has been steady for a number of years.

Even if Sanders cut into that by half, it's still a lot more folks than he could have hoped to pull from independents/non-party voters. I know a lot of Democrats who weren't Hillary fans but who said they could not vote for Bernie under any circumstances because he was a Socialist.

All of which is besides the point. He's not close enough in enough states for a bulk of additional voters to matter. You can try to invent additional votes all day and all night, they're not there.

[Jim Lane]

98. Your absolute certainty is certainly impressive.

I guess I can assume that, in mid-2015, you also knew (and, indeed, found it easy to show) that Bernie would draw more than 40% of the primary vote against the party establishment's overwhelming favorite, and that you knew that Donald Trump would win the Republican nomination. There were some commentators of lesser stature who found the 2016 cycle to be surprising in many respects, but they lacked your ability to derive definitive conclusions from limited data.

Do you do horse racing, too? The Belmont Stakes is being run next weekend, and I could use a little extra cash.

[GulfCoast66]

75. You forgot to mention

Several million more actual voters.

[shenmue]

77. Your guy didn't even win the primary. Hillary won the popular vote by over three million.

[wildeyed]

83. Your post perfectly proves my point.

I rest my case.

[hrmjustin]

86. Super delegates we're overrated. we had a primary and Democrats made a choice.

[louis c]

20. Anyone who can't understand a "binary choice" should accept the hell they've help to cause.

The other side gets it.

Cruz supported Trump in the general election after Trump accused Ted's father of being part of the JFK assassination conspiracy in the primaries.

How could Ted Cruz possibly do that? He understands a "binary choice".

We have too many dopes who claim to be on the "right side". I'm afraid your spouse is one of them.

[Lithos]

39. Personally

My issue is how ignorant they are as they gave some very strong shade to some very "shady" people with agendas obviously contrary to their own stated positions. Frustration is fine, blindly shutting off the brain is stupid.

Jill Stein is a Russian stooge, it was obvious early on she had outside support and was here to spoil things. Support of her was just stupid.

[RhodeIslandOne]

16. I can't wait until Jill tweets "Hillary would have done the same thing!"

Fuck Jill Stein

[Cha]

72. Yeah, stein and sarandon sure sucked in those

voters with their LIES.

If they're so fucking great why do they have to Lie their fucking heads off?

[Dawson Leery]

18. Euro Greens are serious about governing,

and more moderate than many EU Social Democrats on fiscal matters.

The US Greens are subversive little thugs working for Russia.

[grantcart]

45. So are European conservatives, all of whom endorse universal health coverage

[Dawson Leery]

81. Certainly.

Back to the EU Greens, they have been highly effective at realizing alternative energy and giving food proper labeling.
What have the US Greens done???

[grantcart]

82. They have nice coloring books. For the children they have puppet shows

[Dawson Leery]

84. LOL!

[tiredtoo]

24. yep

[stevenleser]

30. Nope, not if simple Democratic principles of majority vote winning matters to you. nt

[Cha]

74. "yep"?

[deurbano]

25. Rammed down whose throat?! My whole voting age family (mom, dad, two adult children)

started out supporting Sanders. I had voted for him for governor of Vermont when I lived there in 1976. We met him and had a nice chat when his book tour brought him to to our area in the late 1990s. But he lost us over time in the primary, and we voted for Clinton. We CHOSE her. The 2008 primary was a lot closer than the last one, and Clinton was a hell of a lot more gracious in defeat. (With none of her delegates acting like asses during Obama's historic moment at the Democratic convention.)

[stevenleser]

31. For the BOB/JPR type of Sanders supporter, losing by 3-4 million votes equals being robbed.

And it equals having that person shoved down their throats. That's how they have partly justified voting Stein or in some cases for Trump. The other part of their justification is manufacturing a false version of Hillary in their minds that is some sort of monster.

[JHan]

59. ++++

it's insane.

[musette_sf]

44. I started out supporting Sen Sanders too

having listened to him for years on Thom Hartmann's weekly "Brunch With Bernie" segment. But just like you, he lost me over time in the primary, and I too CHOSE Sec'y Clinton.

[stevenleser]

26. Hillary was Democratically nominated with millions of more votes than Sanders

She then got millions more votes than Trump.

Nobody was rammed down anyone's throat, at least not if you respect Democracy.

[JHan]

57. lol speak for yourself. I also supported Sanders at first

and shifted my support to HRC , and I did so ENTHUSIASTICALLY.

[Tarheel_Dem]

69. The American people didn't elect Donald Trump, the electoral college did. And Sanders would have...

performed far worse. He might have gotten a few of the Trumpistas, but it wouldn't have made up for the loss and lack of enthusiasm in the African American community. Sanders would have been trounced.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

21. The Green Party completely knew & understood tRump's position on climate change & promises. . nt

[tenderfoot]

22. I refer to the US Green Party as Latte Libertarians

eom

[Generic Brad]

38. I refer to them as Russian tools

They are a weaponized party that exists solely to peel off Democratic votes.

[tiredtoo]

23. all this ranting and raving makes me laugh

But then u gotta blame someone.

[stevenleser]

28. Only chance I would laugh is if I had another planet to live on.

Otherwise, if you know what this means, and you are still laughing, well, let's say that for me to accurately describe anyone like that would get me a hide.

Doubly for anyone who helped enable it.

[SHRED]

33. Here she is...

[SunSeeker]

37. K & R

[workinclasszero]

40. Its all part of the Green party plan it seems...

[NastyRiffraff]

43. Stein looks right at home there, doesn't she?

She can't hide in Russia; it's on the same planet as the U.S. and we're all equally fucked.

[workinclasszero]

46. Yup

Putin, Flynn and Stein having a good ole laugh.

I wonder what the conversation was about?

[DefenseLawyer]

41. We should definitely be condescending douchebags. That's the key to victory.

Just keep telling everyone how smart we are and how stupid they are. It makes everyone love us.

[stevenleser]

47. If they enabled Trump, the narrative pretty much writes itself. Don't blame us. nt

[GulfCoast66]

79. I will happily tell anyone who did not vote

For the Democratic Party candidate they are a stupid dumbass. And anyone who did not vote for the Democratic Party candidate and is unhappy with the way Trump is governing is a dumbass dick. He is doing just what he said he would do.

[DefenseLawyer]

85. What is your goal? To be right or to win elections?

Calling voters stupid isn't the way to win the next election and I know it doesn't seem to be for some of you, but the last election is actually over. Calling people stupid now is not going to change to outcome of the last election.

[stevenleser]

87. Your question is better asked of the folks who refused to vote for Hillary. nt

[GulfCoast66]

90. My goal is pretty clear

To elect more Democratic Party members to office.

The real question is your goal?

I am posting on DU. Everyone here voted for Hillary, correct? If not they are here under a dishonest guise. So what does it matter if on a Democratic Party exclusive site I denigrate those who voted against her?

For some reason that seem to bother you.

I certainly do not speak this way to my co-worker and friends who did not vote for Clinton. And yes, most of the people a know are not members of the Democratic party.

So I am curious? Why does my castigating those who did not vote for Hillary on DU, and site exclusively for supporters of the Democratic Party upset you?

I am certain you voted for Hillary, right?

[Cha]

70. 3rd party green voters are sucked in by the lying assholes

stein and ssarandon. If they told the truth the voters might have been bright enough to vote for someone who wouldn't be a fucking Climate Change Denier.. that did away with President Obama's and other Countries' Paris Agreement.

[uppityperson]

52. so you gave us Trump because Hillary had "way too much baggage"? Welcome to du

[bigtree]

58. ironic

...you coming here with your first post insisting the loser of the primary could have done better that the woman who earned 3 million more votes than ANY other candidate in history other than Barack Obama in 2008.

Not divisive, at all.

[uppityperson]

61. Covfefe indeed

[uppityperson]

67. Make Covfefe Great Again!

Never forget Bowling Green

[Hekate]

63. Welcome to DU

Enjoy your stay.

[JHan]

65. Speak for yourself please..

I know it is ingratiating for the haters, but many people supported HRC. I had to deal with idiots telling me to "STFU" about my support for her during the election, HRC supporters had to create secret fucking groups, no one profiled us, and I say this as someone who supported Sanders at first and got turned off of him.

So no, I do not want her to "Go away" . You deal with your issues and your obsession with personalities. Anyone who understands that the GOP and Trump are the real enemies here and speaks out against them should not "shut up". And anyone who takes issue with those pointing out the cravenness of Trump and his Thugs, are transparent as fuck.... even if they call themselves a "democrat".

[bigtree]

55. Sanders couldn't beat Hillary

...jumping from that loss to assuming he could beat Trump is delusional.

[bigtree]

64. you're posting on a board which has exceptional unanimity

...in support of Democrats.

[Cha]

56. Infighting? stein fucking LIES and we tell the truth..

deal with it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

60. yeah, he totally would have, just like heath mello, quist, teachout

and feingold have.

complete blowouts those guys are.

[bigtree]

53. old enough to remember

Malcolm Nance? @MalcolmNance 1h1 hour ago

I'm old enough to remember when Russia's Green Party begged the American Greens to support Hillary to stop Trump/Putin.

[Cha]

78. "Susan Sarandon compares Debra Messing to President Trump"

snip//

The two actresses have been battling on Twitter since March 2016 when Sarandon said she wasn’t “convinced” that she should vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump.

snip//

She’s not very well informed and so sometimes she gets in areas that she really hasn’t thought through, maybe? She’s Trumpian a little bit like that,” Sarandon told Cohen.

“So, I don’t have anything against her personally. I just sometimes I have to say, ‘But you don’t have the information.’”

http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/susan-sarandon-compares-debra-messing-president-trump-article-1.3131328

Just another example of her fucking idiocy.

[hrmjustin]

80. The Green party are not our allies.

They are our opponents. I know someone the left have good feelings for them but we have to admit we are not on the same team.

[Scurrilous]

96. Boink

[BainsBane]

97. Evil shit stains

and Stein took money from Putin. She's in that photo sitting at the same table with Putin and Flynn. Follow the money.

[NurseJackie]

99. I wonder if other candidates also received money from Putin. We'll eventually learn more...

... as the facts continue to dribble out. Personally, I believe we're in for some big surprises in the future.