2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumGreen Party presidential candidate Jill Stein offers ‘collaboration’ with Bernie Sanders
Well well well 
https://www.rt.com/usa/336047-jill-stein-bernie-sanders/
“The Democratic Party is democratic in name only – superdelegates anyone?” Stein tweeted earlier in the day.
Therein lies the rub for many progressives enthusiastically supporting Sanders. The self-described democratic-socialist lost to Clinton in four out of five state primaries on Tuesday, and although Sanders expects to do better in upcoming contests, the delegate count – and more consequentially, the superdelegate count – is piling up in Clinton’s favor. The delegate count will be finalized at the Democratic Party national convention in July, but at the moment, Clinton has 1,139 to Sanders’ 825. With superdelegates included, it’s 1,606 to 851, and according to the Boston Globe, Sanders must win 65 percent of the rest of the delegates up for grabs in the next 25 primaries or caucuses just to tie Clinton’s count.
Superdelegates are made up of prominent party members and elected officials who are not bound by any primary election results when they vote for the nominee in July. They represent about a third of the 2,383 delegates needed for the nomination.
This process is just part and parcel of a Democratic Party that Stein finds too conservative, telling Grist magazine the party has a “very clear track record of sabotaging rebels.”
“The party does this fake go-left thing by allowing genuine reformers to be seen and heard, but they never allow them to go all the way,” Stein told the magazine. “You can’t really have a revolutionary campaign inside a counter-revolutionary party.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
H2O Man
(73,524 posts)Thank you for this.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)if Bernie fails?
What would be laudable about Democrats doing anything to help ensure a President Trump or Cruz?
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Sorry but this argument is insane. There are more than 2 political parties in this country and people who would vote as you say for a Green ticket wouldn't have supported a corporate Dempublican anyhow.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)that under our Constitution 270 electoral votes are required to be elected President.
Three or four or more Presidential candidates reduces the chances that any of them could obtain enough electoral votes.
And if no one does, the decision of naming a President goes to the state delegations to the House -- 1 vote per state -- of which 33/50 are controlled by Rethugs.
Under this system anyone who votes for a small party is just throwing his vote away; or, worse, assisting the GOP in preventing the Democrat from reaching 270.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)You don't seem to quite get it.
Look at the replies in the thread here and see what people are saying. People don't see Hillary as someone who represents them. Would you vote for a Republican? No. There is no difference.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)women and minorities.
There were idiots who agreed with Nader when he said that there was "no difference" between Al Gore and George Bush, that they were Tweedledum and Tweedledee -- and 95,000 of them voted in Florida, an election determined by only 500 votes.
Anyone who thinks there is no difference between Hillary and the Rethugs is also an idiot.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Bernie does well with women and if you care to look at it,. indy voters are now 50% of the electorate, the largest age group is now millennials. Want to take a guess who has those two largest age groups?
Bernie.
Secondly. I find it hilarious that you Hillary supporters jump on something which happened 16 years ago. Nader didn't cost you Gore's election (who was a shitty candidate anyhow). It was Kathleen Harris and a conservative SCOTUS. Despite Gore not even be able to win his home state, he did win the election.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)He does better with men, but fewer men vote. So the advantage goes to Hillary.
http://www.newsweek.com/2016-gender-gap-436633
Response to pinebox (Reply #2)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)would be damn interesting.
Talk about hope & change!
corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)Brilliant suggestion!
Talk about a political revolution. It would give the environmental community all of the fire power it needed for radical action on climate change and instantaneously make a future Green Party bid for the White House a viable option.
I'm in! I'm in! Well done!
Betty Karlson
(7,231 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 20, 2016, 06:42 AM - Edit history (1)
Because in doing so, she would give recognition to the hope and enthousiasm Sanders has identified and bolstered.
brooklynite
(94,461 posts)Vote2016
(1,198 posts)
NastyRiffraff
(12,448 posts)Not sure about the hope part. HopeLESS, more like.
LA Green
(34 posts)I love everything about her platform.
mike_c
(36,279 posts)Stein would have been my first choice if Sanders hadn't run.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Will your vote "cancel out" a vote for the Green candidate?
NWCorona
(8,541 posts)So I would welcome the collaboration
Vote2016
(1,198 posts)NWCorona
(8,541 posts)
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)and electoral cheating is fine by me.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)
blackspade
(10,056 posts)REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Bashing the Democratic Party. Advocating for third party spoilers. TOS violation
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sun Mar 20, 2016, 12:06 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Not that goddam GD-P again.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I can't understand it, so I can't hide it.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Bashing the Democratic Party when it is wrong is constructive criticism. It's possible to talk about Jill Stein and her prospects without advocating for a third party.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)
SamKnause
(13,091 posts)1. Write in Bernie.
2. Vote Jill Stein.
TheProgressive
(1,656 posts)pnwmom
(108,973 posts)because progressives split their votes between the Dems and another party.
LA Green
(34 posts)a world where people could vote for a candidate that actually represents their values...A world where instead of choosing between the lesser of two evils, there were actually good choices...A world where corporations don't select their puppet of choice as our leader...These things are possible...In a true republic. 
Would it change your mind if the GOP establishment runs a third party candidate to unseat Drumpf?
That would even the odds and give us possibly 4 viable choices.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Do you know what happens if none of the 3 or 4 candidates reaches that number?
Then, according to our Constitution, the decision of appointing the new President goes to the House of Representatives. Each state delegation gets one vote. And currently 33 of the state delegations are controlled by the GOP.
In a separate election, the Senators would choose the VP. And the Senate is also controlled by the GOP.
So, no, it wouldn't change my mind at all. Not under the current Constitution.
Let me know if it gets amended between now and then.
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html
What happens if no presidential candidate gets 270 Electoral votes?
If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/114th_United_States_Congress
List of Representatives by state and party
LA Green
(34 posts)speculation on your part to assume that of 3 or 4 candidates, none would achieve the 270.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)by the Greens, the less likelihood that the Dems will obtain 270.
And Bernie, having first run as a Democrat, and spent a year raising his profile across the country, probably would get more Democratic votes than if he had just run 3rd party in the General. Not enough to get 270 -- not with the gender and racial gaps he faces. But enough to harm the chances of Hillary to reach that number.
And if neither of them did, the decision would get tossed to the GOP.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Enjoy President Drumpf! 
dragonfly301
(399 posts)and am toying with the idea of voting for Stein to help the Green party reach the FEC threshold for matching campaign funds. I'm sick of the games the DNC is playing and think we need to get rid of the two party system.
sabbat hunter
(6,828 posts)1) write in bernie, means a wasted/spoiled ballot. You don't vote for the candidate in November, you vote for electors for the candidate. If the candidate has no electors because they are not on the ballot, the ballot is tossed.
2) voting for Jill Stein will more likely lead to a GOP victory, just like in 2000. Bernie >Hillary > any GOP candidate out there.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Is she talking about the Hillary supers that Bernie is planning on hijacking at the convention?
reformist2
(9,841 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)It won't be Bernie, that's for sure.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)The Democratic Party needs to eliminate superdelegates.
They are there because the powerful faction in the party wants to have final say if they don't feel they're okay with the nominee.
Well, their approval doesn't matter. After all, it it mattered, we wouldn't have caucuses and primaries in which it is voters—and not the Democratic Party insiders—who do the nominating.
I'm no longer suggesting the Democratic Party should eliminate superdelegates. I'm now requiring it if the Democratic Party wants my vote in presidential elections. To be generous along with being fair, I will admit that It's too late with 2016. But, I expect this to start in 2020.
brush
(53,758 posts)Trump anyone?
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)Not okay.
Understand?
brush
(53,758 posts)doesn't happen in the Dem party.
You don't have to like it, but don't blame Clinton because Bernie hasn't been able to get as many super delegates as she does.
When you think about it, it makes sense. He's only been a democrat for eight months so of course she has more super delegates.
Bernie made the decision to stay an independent (socialist actually) years ago instead of joining the dems because he thought it was an advantage to him.
Now that he's a dem, he hasn't had much time to form relationships, work for the party — not an advantage now — and thus earn super delegates.
CobaltBlue
(1,122 posts)The Democratic Party needs to get rid of superdelegates because they do not vote the nomination for president of the United States; caucuses and primaries voters vote the nomination.
brush
(53,758 posts)LOL
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Gee I thought they were like people who have free will.
artislife
(9,497 posts)
drm604
(16,230 posts)If she's endorsing him in the primaries, that's one thing and I would support that.
If she's talking about getting his endorsement, or even making him her running mate, in the general, then that's the last thing we need. All that would do is make the Greens more likely to be a spoiler and possibly hand the election to the Republicans. I don't think that Sanders would agree to that.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)is a coming together.
Unity.
I also don't think it would spell disaster in a GE. Jill is damn bright. Have you seen the video of on YouTube of her debating Mitt Romney? Jeez....Hulk smash! lol
drm604
(16,230 posts)But only because I'm pretty sure that Clinton would win even if Sanders were on a third party ticket. However I'm not sure enough that I'd want to take the chance. In any case, Bernie would not do this. He's a politician and a realist and knows that it wouldn't achieve anything positive.
For the record, I'm still holding out some hope for Bernie in the primaries although I do recognize that it's going to be a tough hill to climb.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)I am thinking she is aiming for a VP pick.
drm604
(16,230 posts)That's an interesting idea, although I think Elizabeth Warren would be a more viable choice.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)that would be a tough choice but I think Warren would like to stay in the senate
Samantha
(9,314 posts)Just a couple of comments about superdelegates. Some people keep saying they will switch to reflect the will of the voters of their states. Howard Dean is not going to, he said that publicly he will vote for the candidate he thinks is the best for the party; the one of the Governors (I think from Illinois) made a similar statement.
Also, we always hears superdelegates are party leaders, former Congressmen, etc. but I read the list and found there are lobbyists on that list as well. Surprise, surprise.
Sam
artislife
(9,497 posts)
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)tritsofme
(17,372 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Trump doesn't gain a vote if someone votes for Stein, Stein does.
tritsofme
(17,372 posts)casting an effective vote for Trump.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)that you are trying to tie someone's integrity to casting a vote for Trump. Sad really.
tritsofme
(17,372 posts)I don't know who would argue otherwise.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)who switches her position every day on something is integrity.
What's up is down, what's down is up. Welcome to the New Democrat mantra!
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)I know some folks who spend their lives developing community around the world. I could makes some calls if you like.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)0 - 0 = 0
I voted for Jill in 2012. McCain did not gain a vote.
tritsofme
(17,372 posts)Luckily that candidate was so fringe and insignificant that she did not effect the ultimate outcome.
This November, if you again oppose the Democratic nominee (this is Democratic Underground?), you could enable Trump to win your state with a plurality of votes. You will have cast an effective ballot for Trump.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)You are obviously making the assumption that voters who vote 3rd party would otherwise vote for the 3rd Way candidate. A faulty premise.
0 + 0 = 0
If I refuse to give you or your enemy $10 neither you or your enemy get any richer.
Fear not. I have voted in 12 presidential elections. In not one of them did my vote decide the outcome.
How about you? Did your vote ever decide the outcome of a presidential election?
Qutzupalotl
(14,296 posts)that a person's vote is a sacred choice and an essential part of society even if that vote never decides an election; that society only works if people are able to exercise their voice; and that it fails when they can't; and that society can be said to function well as a representation in proportion to voter turnout. (No instance of voter impersonation has decided an election either, but I digress...)
There are those who vote strategically, saying half a loaf is better than no loaf, or half a loaf is better than a baboon. Then there are those who vote their conscience, who would rather vote FOR what they believe instead of against what they fear. That's their (your) right; and no one can say fuck-all about it (or rather, they can say it, but it matters fuck-all) because it's YOUR voice. Authoritarian types might urge you to join their strategy, and they have the right to try to persuade, but no amount of peer pressure should influence your vote—only you.
So put me down on the side of voting one's conscience.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)policies. Like FDRs policies, programs, and his 2nd Bill of Rights:
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the Nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
Most Americans do not endorse endless war and regime change, trade agreements which enshrine a global corporate government, for profit healthcare, lack of social safety net and privatization of social security, privatized mandatory education, more tax cuts for the already bloated rich, gutting of epa and other regulatory agencies, further deregulation of banking and investment industry, more jobs shipped overseas, more hb-1 worker imports, etc ad nauseum.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)and how switching to renewables will slash our military budget because we will be able to close half of those.
http://grist.org/politics/meet-the-presidential-candidate-who-makes-bernie-sanders-look-conservative/
Dont call me Shirley
(10,998 posts)But I guess they are warning us about their next venture, water wars Gawd, they just need to give it up already, the vast majority of people are no longer wanting the mics endless wars.
MADem
(135,425 posts)the clothes on most Americans' backs, much of the out-of-season foodstuffs Americans eat, AND they carry the things we produce to countries around the world.
It's not all about oil. We'd still be maintaining those sea lanes if everything ran on seawater and sunshine.
Stein is short sighted and provincial. She's also a professional presidential candidate. She's run more often than Pat Paulsen--who at least got a few TV specials and a comedy album or two out of it. I wouldn't be surprised if he got more votes, frankly. He certainly had some amusing campaign slogans:
A vote for Jill Stein is a vote for "I Stood In Line To Throw My Vote Away."
CorkySt.Clair
(1,507 posts)I doubt the poster has ever voted for a Dem candidate.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)The reality is that if you do not support the D, then you are effectively supporting the R, becuase one of them is going to win. If you live in a deep blue state, you may be able to get away with that, but with someone as dangerous as Trump, I think it is utterly foolish.
You can pretend this isn't true, but it does not change the reality.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Which I didn't. He neither lost or gained a vote. The same is true for Clinton.
However, I must admit that I have the archaic notion that my vote belongs to me. Not to a party or candidate.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)If you don't vote for the D. It's as good as a vote for the R.
Imdo wonder about folks on site dedicated to advancing the Democratic party, but who don't seem to support the Dmocratic candidate. <shrug>
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Bernie Sanders.
"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson
I'm not trying to "advance" anything. Just suggesting that people should think for themselves and consider voting for candidates they prefer.
I first registered as Democrat in California and remained one until I moved to Washington which doesn't register by party. It's quite liberating to be an independent.
brush
(53,758 posts)try re-evaluating whether you're Democrat as you're not helping the party by not voting for the nominees.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Thanks a lot. 
and it was Rmoney not McCain.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)The one you chose to give to Jill instead of Obama.
You had the power to help Obama win but you decided to vote for Jill, who didn't have a chance, and help McCain instead.
pkdu
(3,977 posts)you are admittedly not a Democrat?
Response to pkdu (Reply #202)
Post removed
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)reformist2
(9,841 posts)tritsofme
(17,372 posts)What about the true Berniebros that go the full monty and vote for Trump in the general as some polls suggest? Would you cast any aspersions their way?
reformist2
(9,841 posts)And no one else.
This reminds of me of the weird and commonly -held assumption that Nader spoiled the 2000 election in Florida, as if somehow those votes would have been Gore's, had Nader not been in the running. Maybe they wouldn't have voted at all if Nader hadn't been running.
tritsofme
(17,372 posts)Would have surely favored Gore enough to overcome the final margin of some 500 votes, absent any other shenanigans. I didn't realize people still denied this.
When a third party draws enough votes to allow the Republican to win with a plurality, those third party voters have cast effective votes to the Republican, they allow a majority of center-left voters to be defeated by minority Republicans. Not a good outcome.
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)Those were votes Nader earned. That is how a democracy works. You can dislike it all you want. Maybe you should ask why Gore lost those voters? Or maybe why 200k went and voted republican.
At some point the Democratic party should take responsibility for itself. Like the reason we have so many independents that were once members or never will be, because we're taking up so many center-right positions.
This OP is a perfect example of the seriousness facing the party, and why HRC is not the right candidate for many of us. You are asking us that if our candidate of choice, Bernie, does not advance - that we sacrifice our democratic principles for someone we don't view as democratic by the measure of center-right principles she has supported. It's not to say she doesn't have left leaning positions. It's just that issues that are significant to many of us in regards to the economy (which continues to penalize us at the gain of her donors), and just not worth bending to the right for.
kcr
(15,315 posts)It's not just rooting for a team and then it's over like a football game, and if you lose, oh well there's always next time. If a person decides that their vote was earned by a 3rd party in a 2 party system, they shouldn't ignore the real life and long lasting potential consequence of that. Consequences that are the whole point of voting. I don't care that Nader voters felt their votes were earned and so it was okay. We all still had to live with Bush. Did they even think about that, or care?
Kittycat
(10,493 posts)And I hope our party leaders remember that.
kcr
(15,315 posts)I think it's better to actually focus on and think about what happens to the country and the people in it. Fuck the party leaders. Why should what they care be the ultimate reason you vote? The ultimate reason should be the best outcome for the country. Not a vote that results in Bush/Trump/EvilDuJour just to spite the party leaders and punish them because they didn't earn it. It's not a game. Where is the evidence they learned anything from 8 years of Bush? Did the party leaders learn their lesson?
tritsofme
(17,372 posts)If Nader did not appear on the ballot, his erstwhile supporters necessarily would have split between Gore/Bush/Other/No-vote, and Gore would have netted enough votes to easily win.
When there is a major third party candidate only on the left, it enables the Republicans to win with a minority. In a two party system with first past the post voting, you must vote strategically, or enable your enemies. That is just the math.
Response to tritsofme (Reply #22)
Name removed Message auto-removed
revbones
(3,660 posts)It's just moronic to assume that 0 + 0 = 1. It does not.
A vote for Bernie, Jill, Hillary or Trump is just that, a vote for them - and nobody else.
Live your life in fear and vote accordingly if you must, but don't try to tell others how to vote based on your own fear of Trump.
VulgarPoet
(2,872 posts)2 + 2 = 5, when it has to. Hi, Orwell! 
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Go ahead and try it with me--I dare you. I've been a fucking asshole for longer than anyone can remember, and I'd love nothing more than to fully engage with someone of your caliber.
tritsofme
(17,372 posts)If you vote for the Green Party candidate in November, you are casting an effective vote for Donald Trump. You could enable him to win with a minority of the vote. If you are comfortable with that, or it doesn't bother you, then that is your own sick issue.
revbones
(3,660 posts)But I like how you're couching the language now in "effective vote". Unfortunately that's just as false.
Not voting for Clinton = not voting for Clinton. It doesn't magically add a vote to Trump's numbers.
It's unbelieveable you'd argue otherwise.
If Clinton wants to gain votes outside of her followers, then she'll reach out. If she gets the nomination, I can guarantee you'll see her reaching out... further to the right.
What is "sick" though, is a person using fear to try to coerce someone to vote and believe as they do.
tritsofme
(17,372 posts)With a minority of the vote. It is your right to vote for whoever you wish, but I will not pretend this is a consequence free decision to avoid offending the delicate sensibilities of people threatening, in an an incredibly juvenile fashion, to cast effective votes for Donald Trump if they don't get their way in the primaries.
revbones
(3,660 posts)Dying could also enable a Trump victory.
Or let's take it a step further down the rabbit hole of idiocy that it represents...
Assume that Hillary is the nominee. And say you throw out all your principles and vote for Hillary. What if she still doesn't win?
Did you enable a Trump victory because you didn't volunteer? Ok, say you volunteered 20+ hours per week, but she still loses.
Is it because you didn't volunteer enough? Maybe you didn't donate. What amount to her campaign and super-PAC would it take to absolve you of this Trump victory responsibility you are assigning people?
No, your logic is what is juvenile here.
MannyG
(13 posts) artislife
(9,497 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)A vote for Stein isn't a direct vote for drumpf, but it helps split the left vote, creating an easier path to victory for the right.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Are you crazy?
What can you tell us about Stein and her polices?
We'll wait.
tritsofme
(17,372 posts)If Greens snake enough votes from the Dems, Trump can win with a plurality. Everyone knows this, the stealth Trump advocacy is just gross.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)A vote for a Green is a vote for a Green.
No different than if someone votes for the GOP candidate.
We have more than 2 political parties.
If someone wants to buy a MOPAR instead of a Chevy or Ford, that is their choice.
tritsofme
(17,372 posts)What you say might be true if we had some sort of proportional or preferential voting system, but the reality of our "first past the post" elections is that if a third party on the left with no true chance of victory drew enough votes, they would enable Donald Trump to win with a plurality of votes.
Sorry you don't like this, but that's the way it is. We've been lucky that especially since the 2000 debacle, these third party candidates have received only insignificant support, while the winning presidential candidates have all received absolute majorities of the popular vote.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)And, quit whining when their candidate fails to attract the votes of the Left.
tritsofme
(17,372 posts)then you will enable Trump? Too bad.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)If you don't vote for Jill Stein will that give Trump a vote?
tritsofme
(17,372 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)So, don't vote for Jill Stein and risk Trump becoming president because you didn't vote for her and enabled Trump.
See how that works? 0 - 0 = 0
tritsofme
(17,372 posts)The Green Party candidate can either be insignificant because one of the major party candidates or the other scores a clear majority, or they can serve as a spoiler to allow a Republican to win an election with a plurality. In national elections they can serve no other purpose.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)You seem to find them significant and powerful enough to decide an election.
If you want to blame somebody for losing the election...blame the candidates who fail to attract enough votes. Rather than the voters.
tritsofme
(17,372 posts)And how they could potentially enable a Trump presidency.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Strategy: Don't vote for Republicans or Moderates.
Consequences: Zip.
tritsofme
(17,372 posts)Then I guess you're right. Lucky for you Hillary is going to score a clear majority making all this talk meaningless.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Interpretations differ.
Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)....it shows that the voter has rejected the two major parties but is still engaged enough to vote. It can also show that the voter aligns themselves with the Green Party.
I never tell people how to vote, it's not my place. I just ask them to vote.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Who's Kshama Sawant?
But wait, there's only 2 parties!
KAPOW!
tritsofme
(17,372 posts)do not typically translate into the two party duality of presidential politics.
Here is an example you might be able to to understand:
Third Party Left Candidate: 11%
Democratic Candidate: 44%
Donald Trump: 45%
Donald Trump's 45% beats an electorate that is 55% left of center. The 11% that vote for the Third Party candidate with no chance of victory enable Trump by allowing his minority to come to power. That is how our system works.
Beowulf
(761 posts)I see 11 % voting for the left candidate, and 89% voting for right of center candidates.
or
45% voting right
11% voting left
44% confused and/or delusional
HRC is not left. To me it's 11% voting left 89% voting right.
LA Green
(34 posts)The right has a strong third party also...Ever heard of the Libertarians?
This is ludicrous to say that a vote for Jill Stein is a vote for Drumpf.
What if this happens?
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/top-conservatives-gather-to-plot-third-party-run-against-trump-220786
dana_b
(11,546 posts)maybe you didn't take a Logic class in college?
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)but it doesn't work for those of us that are free.
Autumn Colors
(2,379 posts)Sorry, won't work this election.
You're wasting your typing energy.
tritsofme
(17,372 posts)Is this undeniable truth now controversial on Democratic Underground? Sad.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)tritsofme
(17,372 posts)Third Party Left Candidate: 11%
Democratic Candidate: 44%
Donald Trump: 45%
Donald Trump's 45% beats an electorate that is 55% left of center. The 11% that vote for the Third Party candidate with no chance of victory enable Trump by allowing his minority to come to power.
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)My community-developing colleagues don't have the time to teach you to sing. Better that I ignore the ignorer.
reformist2
(9,841 posts)tritsofme
(17,372 posts)Assuming one side or the other gets a clear majority, they are innocuous. I thought this would be pretty obvious, but here is an example:
Third Party Left Candidate: 11%
Democratic Candidate: 44%
Donald Trump: 45%
Donald Trump's 45% beats an electorate that is 55% left of center. The 11% that vote for the Third Party candidate with no chance of victory enable Trump by allowing his minority to come to power. That is truth.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)
desmiller
(747 posts)Naughty list for you. BIG TIME!!
Response to tritsofme (Reply #10)
PonyUp This message was self-deleted by its author.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)
ScreamingMeemie
(68,918 posts)On Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:45 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein offers ‘collaboration’ with Bernie Sanders
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511531362
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein offers ‘collaboration’ with Bernie Sanders'
Advocating for a 3th party against the democratic party is a TOS violation.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Sat Mar 19, 2016, 01:52 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: 'Collaboration' does not mean co-option. No violation of TOS. Leave It.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Link to news article using exact same title...
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: That's not what this is doing, but that was a really, really nice try.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I don't see where anyone is advocating for Jill Stein. The tweet itself says that Bernie Sanders has NOT responded to their request for a dialogue. There is no comment on this post that appears to advocate for a third party...
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)yet expect Bernie supporters to support their candidate should she be the nominee?
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Stein is offering collaboration with Bernie. Nobody is saying vote for Stein are they? Go read the article. She is offering an olive branch.
I wonder, can you tell us what you know of Stein's polices?
Sorry you think uniting people is bad.
This is refreshing to see in a world of finger pointing and stagnation in politics.
kcr
(15,315 posts)I'm glad. I'd hate to see Bernie throw everything away he's accomplished in this campaign.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Unity.
When was the last time we even had such a thing in politics?
kcr
(15,315 posts)We finally get an actual movement going that's effective. Let's not give up.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)though seems to be a movement
Sorry but this has zero to do with Trump. It would bring Green voters, Indies and Dems together. You need a coalition to win the white house.
kcr
(15,315 posts)Turning around and teaming up with Jill in the GE will spoil the election and completely undo all of that. That is not unity. I don't think he will do it, though. Jill Stein is nuts.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)but I think she is wanting a VP position.
Think about that
kcr
(15,315 posts)"What Stein’s idea of a collaboration would include remains elusive, and with Sanders more or less ignoring the olive branch, it currently is serving more as a preemptive offer to collaborate with those who “feel the Bern” should they find themselves dissatisfied with a Clinton nomination."
Given how late in the primaries it is, and the tone of those tweets, I think the author is right. She's talking third party spoiler teaming up with her. But again, it's so unlikely that Bernie would do that anyway.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)that maybe she is offering Bernie a VP spot?
I hadn't thought of that.
kcr
(15,315 posts)But I think if he wants to go that route he'd leave himself open for being Hillary's. He's jumped on board the D train he might as well ride it all the way.
BeyondGeography
(39,367 posts)http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton_us_563f6c93e4b0b24aee4aa19a
Sorry.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Whoops!
During the town hall, first-time voter Aidan Char asked Sen. Sanders, “So seeing that it is — as it is nearly impossible for a third party candidate to be elected and the fact you had to switch from an Independent to Democratic to be considered as a legitimate candidate, since reformation of our party system has never been addressed by a presidential candidate, how would you suggest to reform our system and allow for other parties and ideas to be represented?”
“Well, I probably know more about that issue than any human being in the United States of America,” replied Sanders. “You know, when I became mayor of the city of Burlington, I had to take on Democrats and Republicans and so forth. Your point is well taken. I chose to run, proudly, in the Democratic primary and caucus process and I look forward to winning that process, but clearly, as a nation, I think we flourish when there are different ideas out there, when there are more differences of opinions.”
He continued, “If you go to Europe, for example, there are many, many political parties. Sometimes the two-party system makes it very, very difficult to get on the ballot if you are a third party, and I think that’s wrong. I think we should welcome competition, welcome different ideas. And I think the two parties should be open to making sure that people have a fair shake if they want to run on another party.”
http://truthinmedia.com/sanders-criticizes-two-party-system-for-blocking-third-parties/
#SorryNotSorry
BeyondGeography
(39,367 posts)or would you prefer he harvest the gains he has made for his message by going off to what would be seen by the vast majority of people as Sore Loser Land with Jill Stein?
pinebox
(5,761 posts)I'd say sore loser land is asking people to vote against their own self interests. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand for many Hillary supporters. She doesn't represent many people and as I've said, many Bernie supporters support Bernie, not the party per say. People vote for who best represent them, be it Hillary, be it Bernie, be it Alien Elvis.
BeyondGeography
(39,367 posts)If I support anything, it's common sense. So what choice should Bernie make (because he will lose this race and he will have to make a choice); endorse HRC and work with her to defeat her opponent or not?
pinebox
(5,761 posts)As far as Obama, he has done some great things but nobody is perfect, I think we can all agree on that.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)
comradebillyboy
(10,134 posts)the rules favored Obama.
artislife
(9,497 posts)
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Fuck him forever for that! 
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)It certainly wasn't the 1% who voted for Nader.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Projectile !!!
Sadly, its no surprise to me.
brush
(53,758 posts)Link pls.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)You can easily Google for Florida.
brush
(53,758 posts)and was the reason for Bush's win — and he was ecstatic about it.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)Enjoy your Kool Aid. Chiao.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)voters chose to vote for a progressive -- the one who didn't have a chance of winning.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)-Pinebox
kcr
(15,315 posts)I lived and did a lot of volunteering there for 15 long years. That is such a lame attack against Gore.
He couldn't win.
Always the "Nader gave us Bush!"
No, Kathleen Harris and a conservative SCOTUS gave you Bush.
kcr
(15,315 posts)One that is and was red, getting redder by the year. Always with the Gore lost the election! But, see, he didn't. Because you're right. Kathleen Harris and the SCOTUS stole it. But guess what made it easier in Florida? Guess what wouldn't have happened if Nader hadn't have run?
pinebox
(5,761 posts)was a shitty candidate.
Personality of a refrigerator.
I didn't like him after that PMRC bullshit.
brush
(53,758 posts)the where Nader made it close enough that the repugs could steal it.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Would have been a good move early on but Sanders already has all of her supporters. He has them with or without her blessing. She is trying to reach out to a movement she was never able to produce in size. Makes sense politically but a wee bit late. Sanders will be endorsing and supporting Clinton if she wins the primary. He is simply too smart to go Nader. I still see why Stein is doing this. No biggie and I like her.
msongs
(67,381 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Uh..........
Must be all that cash from speaking fees he made.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)redwitch
(14,943 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)doing the long hard slog.
But the Paulites masquerading as Sanders supporters and Greens don't give a crap about anything except protecting their sanctimonious piety and cynicism.
artislife
(9,497 posts)
Walk away
(9,494 posts)Hey Jill, last chance to get some wind off of Bernie's tail! He running out fast.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)The Green Party will be on the ballot in most if not all states, correct?
If I were Bernie and I was going to win the elected delegate count for the primary, and the party was considering allowing superdelegates to overturn the vote of the electorate, I would use a possible 3rd party run on the Green ticket as leverage to prevent the superdelegates from giving the election to Hillary.
The Greens, with Bernie on board, could indeed keep Hillary out of the white house.
I don't want to see us go down this road, but superdelegates are inherently undemocratic, the people should be the ones who decide. If the party feels otherwise, they need a very strong incentive to do the right thing. A credible third party threat is about the only such incentive that would have enough leverage to prevent a superdelegate coup.
Interesting development.
My state (CA) was safely blue in 2012, and I was beyond disgusted with how Obama campaigned as a change candidate and governed as Republican lite, so I voted for Stein in 2012. That's a luxury of living in a very blue state, I suppose. I would never want to tip an election to a Republican. But I would want to do everything possible to force the Democratic Party to live up to its name.
justaddh2o
(69 posts)I agree. I also wonder also whether the supers might just switch to Bernie because they see the demographic of voters: Bernie (mostly young and middle-aged) vs Hillary (old). If they themselves want to stay in office, they may want to side with the voters who are going to be alive when they themselves run for reelection. I guess it's a question of whether they think the corporate money can put them in office. The Democratic Convention could be an interesting one this year.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)It is not similar to '08, IMHO, the party establishment was OK with Obama so the supers were willing to switch to him.
Bernie is not riding the corporate gravy train so he is not going to get the support of the superdelegates unless they feel like they have no choice. That's what it looks like to me, anyhow.
If Bernie can catch up in elected delegates, it will be difficult at best to get the corporate wing of the party to give up control to Bernie, which is why I think he needs extreme leverage to force their hand.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)out of the White House.
What are you saying? That it would be fine if the next President is Cruz or Trump?
Or do you think the Greens could get 270 electoral votes but Hillary couldn't? Dream on.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)I was suggesting it is a tool for leverage that Bernie has in the superdelegate situation.
But, since you asked, how would such a 3rd party run impact the campaign? It's not entirely predictable. Trump and Hillary are unusually positioned, issues-wise, compared to the usual Democratic-Republican postions. Trump would hit hard and often at Hillary for dishonesty and indebtedness to corporate donors. Trump is immune to the donor issue, well I'm no expert on his funding, he may have more corporate money behind him than I realize, nowhere near what Hillary takes in though, and he'd make a big deal about it.
Bernie would trump them both on integrity and authenticity. He'd have to overcome the red-baiting from both of them, and a ton of trash the donor class woud throw at him. So far he seems pretty resilient, I believe the authenticity protects him from a lot of it.
Hillary would be the most corporate candidate of the three, hard to say how that spins out in this climate. She has tremendous brand recognition, which is both good and bad for her. There are a lot of people who, given two equal choices, would love to vote for a woman (I am such a person), but most seem to decide primarily on other issues, such as who they think will fight for their interests.
I love the Greens and their platform, always have. I have never found them to be good at large-scale campaigns and mobilization, they tend to splinter off into niche politics. Bernie's a unique candidate, so that could change.
Anyway, I wouldn't assume a green run from Bernie would disproportionately hurt Hillary, he'd take a lot from Trump, there's a lot of no-more-business-as-usual commonality between those camps, even if they differ in their response to that sentiment.
But what I really don't see, is the superdelegates behaving towards Bernie in a way similar to how they switched to Obama. Obama was much more of an acceptable establishment candidate to such people. So, if Bernie closes the elected delegate gap, I think he'll need something over the heads of the party to get any kind of fair treatment.
Do you have any better suggestions as to how he could get the superdelegates to respect the popular vote? There may well be a better way.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)Knowing that if no candidate got the required 270 electoral votes, the election would automatically be decided by the Rethugs who control 33 of the state delegations to the House?
A Green run by Bernie would guarantee a GOP Presidency, either by splitting the votes of progressives and handing the Presidency over to Trump or Cruz -- or by dividing the electoral college votes so that no one got the 270, in which case it would also be Rethugs making the decision.
I can't see Bernie making such a choice. That's the reason he ran as a Democrat in the first place -- so he wouldn't be following in Nader's footsteps.
As far as your last question, I think you're dreaming. Hillary is way ahead in the popular vote and in the pledged delegate count -- about 325 pledged delegates ahead. If he's as successful as Obama in the next month or so, he'll cut into her lead by about 60 delegates, putting her at 265. And then she'll hit NY and several other large, diverse states, and she'll start picking up more delegates again.
Her superdelegates will be icing on the cake.
dreamnightwind
(4,775 posts)if they ever have to decide whether to overturn the popular vote. That is all.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)
OhZone
(3,212 posts)independent or green forum.
Oh well.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)and didn't put his foot down about the third parties.
This guy is pretty much a green party supporter who has been bashing Democrats and Hillary since the primaries began. The fact that he has posted so many links to right wing sources to do so shows that he is nothing but a disruptor here.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)I'm an indy however You know, that largest voting block in America?
I suggest you find the Dempublican forum. You're likely to find many Hillary fanboys on it.
766 post count lolz?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You have to be at least 13 years of age to register on Democratic Underground.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Perhaps you are the one on the wrong board.
HERVEPA
(6,107 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)David Brock crap? MSNBC, CNN & FOX crap?
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)the people will turn its back on the Democratic Party. The Greens could get a lot of support this election.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)The ones who have so far voted in larger numbers for Hillary than Sanders? Why is it that some of you don't get that Americans are voting for the candidate they prefer? Is this your idea of democracy, that the one getting less votes should be given the nomination?
Ron Green
(9,822 posts)and the Democrat for Pres had not fulfilled his campaign promises or the tenets of the Democratic Party, in my view. So I voted for Jill and myself, rather than Barack and myself.
We're allowed to do this; to vote, not in some triangulating and strategic way, but for the right person.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)When the fuck did this place become GreenUnderground?
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Someone suggests unity and you flip?
My God imagine that, politicians working together! The horror! Absolute horror!
My God have you seen that DU even has a Socialist Progressives Group? http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1024
Run for your lives!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)To see you lecture someone else on unity here is fucking laughable.
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)and leave the Dems, if he doesn't become the nominee.
And you're encouraging this, too.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)stopped being enforced as often as before.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Not to worry, it was very representative of your standard output. I'm guessing that when you get your copy, you'll find yourself asking what the fuck that shit is too. That would be funny.
MattSh
(3,714 posts)can clean up a thread like this and make it a lot more pleasant!
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Bjornsdotter
(6,123 posts)Thanks for sharing!
polichick
(37,152 posts)Just a con.
99Forever
(14,524 posts)
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Activists who have never been elected to public office shooting for the top one.
Bernie will, of course, reject this silly gesture.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Yet you support a candidate a candidate who is directly responsible for the deaths of millions with Iraq, Syria, Libya and Egypt?
It sounds like Stein isn't the one who has a credibility problem here.
"We came, we saw, he died".
Tarc
(10,476 posts)Oh Piney, you are a card. 
Many Democrats were duped by the Bush administration's falsified intel, so no, we're not laying Iraq at her hands.
Syria, Libya, and Egypt have terrorist-infested and/or dictator problems that need to be dealt with. People die in war, it is unavoidable. If you, and by extension you candidate, aren't ready to make hard cdecisions in wartime, then perhaps you should rethink why you'rt here. There's larger issues at stake here, other than the one-trick pony "big banks big banks big banks!" junk.
In answer to the other question, yes, I as a voter do make decisions on who is qualified to be president and who is not. It's kinda what we do, bro.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)should have been "indirectly".
Blame the hospital drugs and lack if coffee.
No one trick pony about it.
Go check this bud http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/28/upshot/the-senate-votes-that-divided-hillary-clinton-and-bernie-sanders.html
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)if Bernie isn't the nominee.
Hillary isn't offering anything they're interested in - particularly her weak climate change proposals and endless war.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)Voting for Status Quo Hillary doesn't change ANYTHING.
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)Enabling Democrats to be Dems in Name Only because we have no where else to go with our vote is only bringing US the same thing. Corporations running things through 2 corporate parties & no representation for citizens' best interests. Only Moneyed Interests.
Time to stop playing along.
We need that CHANGE Obama talked about. He woke US up. That's all he delivered on, but at least there is that.
Hillary. Possibly 8 years of her conservatism wrapped in triangulation & then followed by a repub after that is a future that is very bleak & just not acceptable.
onenote
(42,660 posts)elected and doing anything.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)I'm surprised you got this far into the thread without apprehending that basic piece of information.
onenote
(42,660 posts)and a vote for her is worthless since, as you acknowledge, she has no chance of delivering on anything she is offering.
I could offer you a billion dollars but that offer and your acceptance of it would be worthless since there is no way I could deliver on that offer.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)...for fear of leaving a chad hanging. But if Stein's name is on the ballot, one can check it, punch it, screen tap it, or whatever. There's no one, including Stein herself, who thinks she'll get anywhere near the White House.
thanks
pinebox
(5,761 posts)People vote for what they believe in and who represents them best, correct? I'd venture to wage a guess that people who would vote for Stein don't exactly see as Clinton as someone who represents them.
onenote
(42,660 posts)Wrap it up in pretty paper and stick a bow on it, but it's still throwing away a vote, just as much as those folks who still cast votes for (or write in) O'Malley in primaries are throwing away their vote (and hurting Bernie in the process).
pnwmom
(108,973 posts)We can thank them for the Bush administration. Going with their high principles was such a smart decision.
riderinthestorm
(23,272 posts)pnwmom
(108,973 posts)keep an election that was decided by less than 1,000 voters away from the Supreme Court.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)corbettkroehler
(1,898 posts)I have nothing but respect for Dr. Stein and wish that our broken system allowed a member of my party to mount a viable campaign for president.
As for her offer, I am torn. A number of members of the Democratic Party have voted for or will vote for Sanders. Support from a Green candidate might have caused a problem. Now that the states with closed primaries are mostly behind us, though, it seems the right time for a collaboration.
Jeff Weave, if you read this, please know that I have donated to Sanders countless times and want you to connect with Dr. Stein.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Jitter65
(3,089 posts)makes a lot of people angry and will turn a lot of Dems away from Sanders in coming primaries. Just watch.
Matt_in_STL
(1,446 posts)That would be an awesome start.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Are made aware of these Green Party shenanigans.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts)Is that you Bill?
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)
Rosa Luxemburg
(28,627 posts) Bleacher Creature
(11,256 posts)People actually bragging about voting against Obama in 2012, even though that election easily could have gone the other way.
Others having no clue how elections work and not recognizing that in a two party system a vote for a third party is hurting the candidate who you are closer in agreement with (even if differences remain).
I mostly agree that it should be locked, but on the other hand it's a pretty good opportunity to identify posters who don't deserve to be taken seriously.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)one of them is banned for it.
Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)
uponit7771
(90,323 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)But I'm not in the mood for popcorn.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts) Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)and run for senate.
We have a few idiot Republicans here we could stand to replace.
LexVegas
(6,041 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)You're mad about something which happened 16 years ago?
Gore couldn't even win his home state.
ou should also recall that it wasn't Nader who brought you W but rather Kathleen Harris and a conservative SCOTUS.
Nader is a myth. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth
frazzled
(18,402 posts)This woman has run for every possible seat imaginable: Governor of MA (twice), State Representative, MA Secretary of the Commonwealth, and--amazingly--self-appointed President of the United States of America. Nada. Zippo. The only thing she's ever won is a seat for the Lexington Town Meeting. We're talkin' tiny.
Her influence on any election is smaller than a dwarf hamster's bellybutton.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)The last thing we need is Bernie running third party. If Hillary is the nom, we'll have an uphill battle without any of this bull. If Bernie isn't the nominee then Bernie needs to help the nominee. This would be completely counter productive. Stein is a lunatic. She lost me when she said that Obama was "a monster compared to George w Bush." Pathetic third party spoiler. I have confidence Bernie won't have any part of this nonsense, but the idea pisses me off. 
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Like him or not, Bernie has a huge following (which I am a part of). And if he where to run third party, the left vote would be split, creating a path to the WH for the repukes
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)The 'progressive' movement would lose all credibility for many elections to come.
onenote
(42,660 posts)If O'Malley was still in the race for the Democratic nomination and someone who couldn't stand Clinton decided to vote for O'Malley instead of Sanders (even though they knew O'Malley had no realistic chance of getting the nomination in what had become a two-person race) would you think that wasn't hurting Sanders' chances against Clinton?
Duppers
(28,117 posts)
joshcryer
(62,269 posts)And Sanders would rebuff any attempts to run independent, as he's already getting Green votes in open primary states (and same day registrations).
pinebox
(5,761 posts)
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)vintx
(1,748 posts)Stein/Sanders no.
He has experience. She does not.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Vote2016
(1,198 posts)Response to Vote2016 (Reply #217)
PonyUp This message was self-deleted by its author.
colsohlibgal
(5,275 posts)The post saying she is trying to help Trump floored me, she is further left than Bernie on a lot of issues and has been for years.
The DLC Corporate Wing will get down and dirty as they have to to keep control. I remain astonished that more people cannot see that.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
merrily
(45,251 posts)still_one
(92,110 posts)Hillary, I have some swamp land in Arizona to sell you.
As evidenced by many of the responses in this thread, it only confirms the my point
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)And yet it still stands.
I'll leave it up to you as to what that means.
Nothing good though IMO.
still_one
(92,110 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)MaggieD
(7,393 posts)DU is a site to support the election of DEMOCRATS. Lucky for you this isn't my site. I would ban this shit in a heartbeat.
Bleacher Creature
(11,256 posts)Looking through this thread, some of the individual posters don't belong on DU.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)but hey!
Metric System
(6,048 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)Democratic Party.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Beacool
(30,247 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 20, 2016, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)
She's winning because VOTERS prefer her. How hard is to understand that she's winning the pledged delegate and popular vote by a country mile?
It's so damn offensive for her opposition to keep pretending that the super delegates are keeping her candidacy afloat. Hillary WILL be the nominee for the simple reason that more people are voting for her than her opponent.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)when she isn't, we can start there and stop trying to frame her as something she isn't. I would appreciate it if her supporters would at least stop trying to spin and re-clothe her as something she isn't, it speaks of dishonesty.
Voters prefer her? They also see as completely dishonest and untrustworthy. So far they have voted for her sure but now we're coming into more progressive states and Bernie will take those & by wide margins perhaps, too.
Should Hillary be the nominee, you better pray and pray hard that the RNC has a contested convention because that would be the saving grace for Hillary winning the general. If not, Dems will lose.
Bookmark me right now.
Beacool
(30,247 posts)I frankly don't give a fig what you think of her.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Bleacher Creature
(11,256 posts)She wasn't old enough to vote for him (as she was 16 for all but a week or two of the campaign), but has NEVER been able to live that down on DU.
But DUers who voted AGAINST Barack Obama only three years ago openly and unashamedly flaunt it on this board, and most people don't have an issue with it.
This place has gotten strange lately.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Non issue.
I didn't vote against Obama either.
I do agree though, DU has gotten odd
still_one
(92,110 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)obviously ridiculous is embraced without thought. Putin actually is laughing at how easily led some people are, and at how easily certain forces can manipulate them. This thread shows ratfucking at its lowest and its finest.
still_one
(92,110 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)Why is that?
still_one
(92,110 posts)Cheese Sandwich
(9,086 posts)They cover a lot of issues US corporate media ignores.
Every channel is propaganda. MSNBC is propaganda for the owners of NBC. CNN is propaganda for the owners of CNN.
RT is propaganda for the owners of RT.
etc.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)They collaborated with the Republicans here in Pennsylvania
http://articles.philly.com/2006-08-01/news/25397092_1_carl-romanelli-santorum-supporters-larry-smar
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Republicans have donated to Dems in the past and DNC chair DWS helped her Republican buddies get elected.
Now what?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)but it's only fair we are honest
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)Gore won the election.
You can thank Kathleen Harris and a conservative SCOTUS for giving the election to Bush. Gore was a shitty candidate who couldn't even win his home state with the personality of a cardboard box, just like Kerry.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)pinebox
(5,761 posts)get a grip and lose the grudge.
Facts matter http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/12/6/1260721/-The-Nader-Myth
