2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumI am pissed
Just went to the store and had XM (127 Left) radio on while driving. The host Mike Feder was on saying that Obama and Romney were the same so he is voting for Jill Stein. Didn't we learn anything from 2000 when Gore and Bush were the same?
http://prn.fm/hosts/political-hosts/mike-feder/
mercymechap
(579 posts)Either that or he has been kidnapped and replaced with a robot! I hate it when lefties make that observation, Romney and Obama are not even close to being the same. I've heard independents make that comparison, and it makes me wonder if they even know what Obama stands for. Geez, what he may not realize is that people who are uninformed and even though they may be Democrat, will hear this and think, "yeah, that's a good idea"!
Proud liberal 80
(4,167 posts)And he was really fired up about it. I can understand independents and uniformed people thinking that, But for someone to be a host of a liberal radio program pissed me off!
julian09
(1,435 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)Plus, Gore won the election and the Supreme Court selected Bush. Not anything the same.
Proud liberal 80
(4,167 posts)Siwsan
(26,177 posts)I am going to tell her all about the 2000 election and see if she understand why I cringe when she mentions voting for Jill Stein. I'm sure Ms Stein is a wonderful candidate, but it is a throw away vote. I keep telling Green party members that the only way to get anywhere, as a 3rd party, is to build from the grassroots up. I wish them luck.
Heather MC
(8,084 posts)I will vote green party for my county election this year. but nationally voting for the Green Party in a way helps Romney
Proud liberal 80
(4,167 posts)I think Jill Stein would probably be a better president than President Obama, and her views are more aligned with mine, But she has no chance of winning and President Obama is a way better choice than Romney or any other Republican.
magical thyme
(14,881 posts)does not make one a better president.
What makes you think she'd be able to move the rightwing better than President Obama? What makes you think they wouldn't run rings around her? What makes you think she'd be better at foreign policy? Not just having ideas about it, but implementing them?
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)corkhead
(6,119 posts)I like some of her positions, but her and her party need to start from the bottom up instead of trying to muck up the Presidential election. When they start winning some state races and some congressional seats, give me a call. Otherwise, sit the fuck down.
http://majority.fm/2012/08/27/green-party-presidential-candidate-jill-stein-the-green-new-deal/
patrice
(47,992 posts)even if it does achieve office.
The real revolution must come from the bottom up.
patrice
(47,992 posts)ARE different financially. Obama has a much much higher proportion of small donors. SuperPAC money is there for him too but I'd be willing to bet that the proportion of SuperPAC money to campaign donations is less than it is on the Republican side.
Foreign money in the Romney SuperPACs is likely because of all of his foreign banking ties. We really must consider that if he were President he would have serious conflict of interests in addressing the financial issues, current and future ones, i.e. the 2nd wave that is still headed our way as a result of the Derivative Crash of '08.
And, obviously, there's no comparison policy-wise between the 2 candidates.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)Didn't her him say that, but did hear Dr. Stein with her usual mumbo jumbo. Clueless. Fucking clueless. What is it with Sirius Left....either you get PUMAs or far far far left people who think Obama is really Bush.
SheilaT
(23,156 posts)friends who were enthusiastic members of the Green Party. While I very much respect their beliefs and principles, they were cluelessly naive when it came to the reality of electoral politics at any level.
The problem is that the vast majority of people out there simply have no clue exactly how running for office and getting elected really works. They'll talk about "dream teams" and "ideal candidates". I've seen it here on DU. Back in 2004 there was a lot of gushing over the possibility of John McCain as the VP pick, because those who swooned over that, had no clue number 1, exactly how conservative John McCain really was, and number 2, how ingrained the political parties are in those who run for office.
I'm willing to go out on a limb and say that we will never see a ticket that has the top from one party, and the vp choice from the other. Never.
It's nice to think about how wonderful the various third party candidates might be, but anyone supporting them should look at some hard truths. First of all, if one of them were to win the election, how would he or she actually govern? He'd (she'd) have no members of Congress in his party to support him. Where would he go to select the cabinet? Ambassadors? Judges? The heads of various agencies? There's an awful lot more to running the country than simply winning an election.
The real thing people who support the third party candidates should do is to get seriously involved themselves. Run for office. Work in the campaigns of candidates they can honestly support. Do what they can to see that candidates who represent their point of view are running for office. Don't just go off on the daydream of some other political party. Deal with the reality of what's actually out there.