2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSlimey. Jill Stein offers Bernie "collaberation" on third party ticket.
I've always been annoyed by Jill Stein, Nader, and all the other 3rd party spoilers. This time, Stein crossed the line.
"A Stein/Sander collaboration has always been on the table." she tweeted. HELL NO. The last thing we need is a Third Party run from Bernie. The Dems have an uphill battle in the GE to begin with. The last thing we need is a huge split in the left vote.
I am confident though, that Bernie will have no part of this nonsense. He has always run for office as an Independent, but in collaboration with the Democratic Party so that he wouldn't be helping a wingnut win, he isn't going to break that trend this year.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)will support Hillary 1000%.
merrily
(45,251 posts)plenty of Greens love their country.
Equating political differences with lack of patriotism is straight out of the Lee Atwater playbook, which means it's ia disgusting smear of a political view that is not like your own.
Jackie Wilson Said
(4,176 posts)My comment about his patriotism has nothing to do with who he supports, but that he wont use a 3rd party run to fuck everything up, but I suspect you knew that and just wanted to take this opportunity to do a cheap shot.
merrily
(45,251 posts)Lee Atwaterish smear of the Green Party. It's the same thing Lee Atwater tried to do to Democrats, claim they were less patriotic than Republicans. You are equating Bernie's staying away from Greens with his being patriotic. The corollary of that is joining with Greens would be unpatriotic. That is a bs smear of people who simply have a political difference.
Sorry, my prior post was spot on accurate.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Well said Merrily...thanks!
merrily
(45,251 posts)Most of the others have admitted to (snort) having changed their minds because of one "horrible" thing or another that Bernie or his supporters said or did, some relatively early and some relatively recently. AFAIK, there's only one about three faux "Bernie supporters" remaining.
I was going to come out next week as having been "converted" myself by Bernie's dastardly ending of an interview after the reporter exceeded the time limit. That kind of thing is so hard to excuse, after all. However, now that reinforcements are coming in, I just might have to keep faking support for Bernie.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Ned_Devine
(3,146 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)No reason to think he'll go back on his word.
artislife
(9,497 posts)I wouldn't blame him if he gave her a pass if she wins.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)But it doesn't sound good to me. They shou;d have just endorsed him long ago, as did the Working Families Party, because they support what he stands for and he has a much better shot than they do. Otherwise, they should just have gone their own way, IMO.
I thought her tweet was ambiguous crap.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Like Nader calling Bernie a corporatist.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)merrily
(45,251 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Stein/Sanders means Stein-President Sanders-Vice President.
Just like Obama/Biden, Gore/Lieberman, Kerry/Edwards, Nader/LaDuke ect.
merrily
(45,251 posts)OMG. Poor thing is delusional.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Then she referred to it as a "opening dialogue."
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)Sheesh.
It means Jill Stein is approaching Bernie Sanders to open a dialogue about some sort of collaboration.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Shes not gonna give up her position.
senz
(11,945 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)KingCharlemagne
(7,908 posts)worst sort.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)a symbolic gesture of good will, and affirmation of shared ethical and democratic values.
dogman
(6,073 posts)Why not try and pick up the strays?
chillfactor
(7,573 posts)that would split the Democratic ticket..and even Bernie would not support that.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Karmadillo
(9,253 posts)probably got excited about the opportunity to call Jill Stein "slimey."
haikugal
(6,476 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)Oh, that's right. Only certain woman matter.
I like Jill, I might vote for Jill. It may be time for a woman president, afterall.
shadowandblossom
(718 posts)That behavior is slimy.
revbones
(3,660 posts)Given the importance of this primary and what it says about establishment vs grassroots, I don't find the overture "slimey" at all.
I do however find the part about receiving no response a bit questionable however.
I'll follow the candidate that best matches my principles. I'm not caught up in identity or team based politics.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)I love when people talk about having ideals and principles, and they go off and do something stupid. Yea, that makes sense. You would think that their Progressive principles inform them that helping Trump or Cruz to win would be just plain dumb.
BillZBubb
(10,650 posts)Ideals and principles MEAN something, unless you support Hillary apparently.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Let's take a objective view of what options are available for satisfying you progressive ideals and principles should Bernie not win the nomination.
1) You could just not vote.
2) You could vote for Jill Stein or someone equally unqualified to be President of the United States running under a third party banner.
3) You could hold your nose and vote against Cruz and Trump.
We can eliminate Option 1 right away. No one with ideals and principles backs away and doesn't participate.
You can adopt Option 2 and vote for the Democratic candidate who is a hell of lot more progressive than which ever candidate the Republican will ultimately chose. With that option you prevent the Supreme Court from becoming a organ of the most conservative part of the Republican party. You could help prevent the Republicans seizing control of the White House and both Houses of Congress, and getting rid of Obama Care, and defunding Planned Parenthood, and return to an adversarial relationship with Cuba, and go back to war at the drop of a hat. Surely your progressive principles and ideals would allow you help prevent the conservatives who would wreck the country from taking control of all three branches of government.
You could also go with Option 3. Voting for Jill Stein is probably your best bet. This would give the Green Party more visibility although it's chances of becoming viable are near future are nearly non existent to none. Your vote might enable that the Green Party to get enough votes in the Presidential election to get public funding, but that certainly is far from likely because there is almost no chance that Jill will get the required 5% of the vote. Of course if the Green Party party does pull in 5% of the vote they will probably throw the election to Cruz or Trump and then every progressive will hate them and never vote for them again. Hence the saying, "Third parties are like bees, when they sting they die."
Of course you can't discount the revenge factor of going with Option 3. It's an opportunity to pay back the the DNC for not favoring poor Bernie just because he has been an independent all of his long political career, has constantly run against Democratic candidates and continually battled with them because they weren't liberal enough. And you could pay back those stupid Hillary supporters on DU for disparaging your candidate and making your life less appealing than it could of been.
Frankly my dear, I don't give a .... how you and yours vote, but at least do whatever you ultimately plan to do for the right reasons.
revbones
(3,660 posts)Firstly your use of the word "objective" is hilarious.
Then there's your statement "No one with ideals and principles backs away and doesn't participate". The funny bit is where you assume yourself the arbiter of what constitutes ideals and principles for everyone. Plenty of principled people can and will choose not to vote, or just to skip voting for that office.
I think you got the order of your points and subsequent explanation wrong between 2 & 3 though since #2 is the third party one, but it's #3 in your explanation.
I'm not sure how you think that choosing Jill Stein results in Cruz or Trump being elected. That makes the leap of logic that if they didn't vote for Stein that they would instead vote for Hillary.
And on to your point about "Democratic candidate who is a hell of lot more progressive" when if it's Hillary, she's not really a progressive at all. She more of a pro-corporate person that will feel free to compromise on any ideal or position actually. It's funny how you suppose that voting for Hillary will apparently cause unicorns and rainbows to appear everywhere and prevent various disasters, unfortunately your argument at this point supposes that someone not voting for Hillary isn't voting at all, and that's probably unlikely since anyone engaged enough to specifically not vote for Hillary is probably engaged enough to care about downticket races. That said though, you may have been alluding to the disastrous turnout numbers that will result if Hillary is the nominee, in which case I'll agree that you might have some justification in your thoughts there.
I'm not sure you understand how our election works, but you cast a vote for someone. Not against someone. Your statement "vote against Cruz and Trump." doesn't really make much sense.
The best part though is how you've rambled on in the comment I'm replying to and so many others, but yet claim here "Frankly my dear, I don't give a .... how you and yours vote". You must not give a ... so much that your fingers are cramped from it.
revbones
(3,660 posts)0 + 0 = 0.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)...if Trump or Cruz win because too many progressives though their vote away voting for the Green Party.
I'm sure that you will tell yourself that it wasn't your fault that that Republicans seized control of the White House and both Houses of Congress, that the Supreme Court will be run by conservative for the next 20 years, that they finally got rid of Obama Care, defunded Planned Parenthood, returned to an adversarial relationship with Cuba, and went back to war at the drop of a hat.
You can tell yourself that if the Democrats would had only nominated Bernie (who you knew from the start had no chance of winning), you would have voted for him. Yep, you can lie to yourself, but your conscious will now better and because you are a bigger progressive than the rest of us, you will suffer more than we will.
revbones
(3,660 posts)That is correct. If Hillary is the nominee and Republicans "seize control of the White House" then I won't believe it's my fault. I'll believe it is the fault of those that nominated someone so divisive.
As for both houses of Congress, well the Senate is likely to flip, but the House is so gerrymandered that its very likely going to remain in Republican control. Given how well Bernie does among independents and how many feel about Hillary, I would say our gains or losses really depend on which one of those two would be running.
If you're trying to throw future-blame out on losses in the Senate or House, well I think you should reconsider. All of this talk of not voting for Hillary, has specifically been for one race - the presidential one. You yourself mentioned their voting for the Green Party which would seemingly indicate that you understood they'd still be voting, just not for Hillary.
I would be quite impressed at your mind-reading skills you purport to have here as you claim that I knew something "from the start" but that's obviously not true and seems more to be spoken from some incredible frustration on your part rather than anything on mine.
Again, not voting for Hillary is not the same as voting for Trump or whoever. For all your blame and bluster, that fact remains.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)"Not voting for Hillary is not the same as voting for Trump or whoever", its more of a cop out. It's a way of taking your ball and going home because your candidate didn't win while you blame your ideals and principles for what you are doing.
Hey, do what you need to do. I simply don't care enough to continue this conversation.
revbones
(3,660 posts)You seem to care enough to continue to lambast others for not seeing things your way, or doing what you want them to do.
Label the actions of others whatever you will, but understand that just because you think something that doesn't make it true.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)....butt I see that emotion, not logic rules your thinking and it is impossible to have a logical discussion with an emotional person. This conversation is truly over.
revbones
(3,660 posts)Ascribing one's own beliefs on others is not an accurate definition.
Beowulf
(761 posts)There are some real significant changes I think this country needs. Why would I support any candidate who would never entertain those changes?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)...if it turns out that Sanders does not win the nomination, why wouldn't you vote to at least protect what President Obama has achieved? Or is your attitude - well, if we can't get everything we want, we would just as soon let the Republicans win and have nothing.
Beowulf
(761 posts)but it really doesn't work for me.
It isn't about getting everything I want, it's about laying the foundation for fundamental change and first, the Democratic Party needs to change. I actually worry more about a Clinton presidency as I believe another 4-8 years of Clinton would mean the forces resistant to change would be even more entrenched. Hillary or the GOP is a false choice for me as neither promises to address the systemic problem of our country being an oligarchy. I realize other people are looking for other things this election and while I share many of the items on their wish lists, I just don't see Hillary being a positive change agent or even just a benign agent.
artislife
(9,497 posts)if she doesn't have enough votes of her own.
No one owes hillary anything.
She is supposed to EARN her votes.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)You future on this site is not promising.
artislife
(9,497 posts)Are you going to go all Trump on us and smash our faces?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)And who are you to tell people to go elsewhere? Are you the new bouncer?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)1) artislife has stated maybe 20 times that she is going to vote 3rd party if Bernie doesn't get the nomination. She's here to support Bernie and for no other reason.
2) DU will be "Hillary Central", it's just a matter of time and when Skinner lowers the boom artislife will soon be gone.
3) No I am not the bouncer, but if she gets herself kicked off of DU, I won't be shedding any tears. She has not been the most pleasant person to deal with.
senz
(11,945 posts)I don't care who people support.
But I do care if they mislead, smear, lie, and play games in support of their candidate.
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)...are famous for having the "authoritarian gene." It's certainly one of the characteristics that the two extremes share along with a predilection to try to shut down anyone who disagrees with them.
senz
(11,945 posts)And what did you just say about someone who disagrees with you?
Hm?
CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)... try to change the subject, and attack every time someone drives you into a corner and you have nothing intelligent to say. It reminds me of skunk reaction when it is irritated.
senz
(11,945 posts)You made a statement about authoritarians who want to shut down anyone who disagrees with them, right after gloating in anticipation of someone who disagrees with you being shut down. I showed you both your quotes to point out the contradiction.
Then I laughed.
As for the laughing emoticon, I rarely ever use it, so you lied when you said I use it every time I meet someone of your towering intellect.
That's lame, honey. You're making yourself look less than admirable.
Adios.
mcar
(42,298 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)If this ticket did play spoiler and allow Trump to be elected, it would be a great way for Sanders to say "that's what you get for no nominating me, Democrats". Democrats will pay somehow if Sanders isn't the nominee.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Unlike other candidates, Bernie doesn't lie, or break his word.
snip---
Speaking at the Newseum in Washington on Thursday, Sanders said that if he ran a third-party campaign, it would draw support away from the Democratic nominee, potentially handing Republicans the White House.
I would not want to be responsible for electing some right-wing Republican president, Sanders said.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/249800-sanders-vows-no-third-party-run-in-2016
KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)Before he had to say that in order to get some Democrats to vote for him. If he loses the nomination, all bets are off.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)KingFlorez
(12,689 posts)But, we will see what happens.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)senz
(11,945 posts)He is far, far better than you could understand.
Before Bernie ever entered the race, he said he didn't want to run as an independent because he would not want to be a third party spoiler and throw the race to a Republican. He said this on the Thom Hartmann program months before he threw his hat in the ring.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)for a different reason. That was then, this is now.
struggle4progress
(118,273 posts)Surely this is what makes America great!
Zorra
(27,670 posts)Game over. Would you like to play again?
struggle4progress
(118,273 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)him out of a level playing field as it appears they will, then he has every right to stay in the GE by any means.
If you cheat and lie your ass off then you have no standing to complain about someone else not keeping a commitment.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)and cheating was coming from the Clinton camp/Dem Establishment before he entered the race.
There really are some people in this world who have integrity; Bernie is one of them. And that's one of the primary reason why many of us support him wholeheartedly, without reservation.
Do you really expect that he will sink to the level of the opposition?
Never gonna happen.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)enough to know the difference.
He's honest, not stupid.
struggle4progress
(118,273 posts)3.5% in her 2002 campaign for MA governor! And over 1.4% in her 2010 reprise campaign!
0.36% in her 2012 Presidential campaign and as high as 1.3% in Maine that year! If she runs for US President in every election for the next 552 years, her percentages will total over 50%!
It's an inspiration!
shadowandblossom
(718 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)artislife
(9,497 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)should Hillary be the nominee.
Hillary doesn't inspire these people even in the face of a tRump presidency.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Attorney in Texas
(3,373 posts)is LOTS of space to the left of a lukewarm centrist third-way DNC party. Republican Ike would revolt against the right wing nature of the Democratic Party of today (not to mention what FDR would do to see the wreckage of his progressive party of the people which has turned into a servant of corporations and the status quo)
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)Sanders is running in primaries, which have lower turnout than general elections, and many millions of Americans haven't yet had the chance to vote for him. Nevertheless, his vote total already exceeds the combined general election totals of Nader and Stein, in all their presidential campaigns, combined.
IOW, for progressives who want to show that there's space to the left (a laudable goal), Sanders's method of running in the primaries is far superior to the Nader/Stein method of running no-hoper general election campaigns. That's even aside from the contentious issue of splitting the vote and thus helping the Republicans.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)who had a solid infrastructure in place she might gain incredible traction almost overnight.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)So I'll explain.
People will not play the lesser evil game again, ever. That means the greens may get a new influx of fresh supporters. Jill has much to offer, I'm looking at her. This would be true wether Bernie goes to the White House or not.
Bernie supporters don't slime people/opponents, sorry. That's a third way tactic.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)CajunBlazer
(5,648 posts)Fairgo
(1,571 posts)Always open to ideas. Tell me more.
MurrayDelph
(5,293 posts)not that Bernie would run against the Democratic candidate if it's not him, but maybe the Greens would support Bernie if he's the candidate.
Case in point, in the part of Oregon I live in, the state representative was endorsed by both the Democratic and Republican parties.
senz
(11,945 posts)Nice to see someone say something intelligent.
Blue_Adept
(6,397 posts)Perhaps he should look at this angle.
Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)They're saying they'll either write him in or vote for, well, Jill Stein, should Hillary be the nominee.
It's a very real movement.
Blue_Adept
(6,397 posts)And many are saying they won't vote downticket either since the whole party is corrupt.
So it's time to either piss or get off the pot. Get a real viable third party going or just give up. Working with Stein is one way to jumpstart it since there is some national organization there.
Based on what Bernie has said, he won't do it. So it's up to supporters to figure something else out. But that requires real work and I really don't see them going the distance with it since it requires years of work and effort with no payoff.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Work put into this.
Enjoy your bubble.
Blue_Adept
(6,397 posts)Just reinforces what I put into my sig each time.
haikugal
(6,476 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In 2000, the Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, got 2.74% of the popular vote. Four years later, Nader as an independent and David Cobb on the Green line combined for 0.48% of the vote. In 2008, Nader was again independent, Cynthia McKinney was the Green candidate, and they combined for 0.68%. Last time around, Nader finally stopped running, and Jill Stein got 0.36%.
Even if the Democrats nominate Clinton, which is obviously the best case for the Greens, Stein has no realistic prospect of reaching the 5% necessary to qualify the party for federal matching funds. I don't even see her besting Nader's 2000 total, which is likely to remain the Green Party's high-water mark.
So, under the most optimistic scenario that has any plausibility, how many years or generations do you expect it will take before a candidate running solely as a Green wins the plurality of votes in a presidential election?
haikugal
(6,476 posts)That's as far as I'll go for now. The instability in our system was not created by liberals..we have massive corruption in both political parties and there are a lot of us who won't play the corrupt game any more.
We'll know more in May.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511536522
artislife
(9,497 posts)There is no GE now.
senz
(11,945 posts)The little jabs just detract from your message.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Run as a Democrat or GO AWAY.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)No, under current circumstances 3rd party candidacies are not really viable- but the fact that we end up with only two options allows both parties to ignore large numbers of voters cause where the hell else are they gonna go? The whole system is designed to limit the impact and participation of average people and keep the power in the hands of the select few, and that sucks.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)I could never vote for someone with zero qualifications what so ever. Could never vote for someone that called President Obama "a monster" and a "warmonger". Stein is a lunatic.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Could you support somebody went after Obama tooth and nail? And, seeing that Hillary supported Bush's wars she would be ill fitted to call him a warmonger.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)She also never ran as a spoiler that does nothing but help the right.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I'll take an inexperienced progressive over an experienced collaborator any day.
CorporatistNation
(2,546 posts)THE KITCHEN SINK AT HER! CORPORATE PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX MONEY... AND DIRECT CAMPAIGN INVOLVEMENT! FRACKER MONEY! In addition to all of the Wall Street, Walmart , Flip Flopping, FIBBING, Trade etc.. etc! She will collapse...
demwing
(16,916 posts)Do not run a third party campaign. Convince Greens to vote for Bernie in western state primaries, and if Bernie wins, perhaps Bernie can offer a cabinet position?
Department of Health and Human Services? Interior? Energy?
This year, Greens should vote Blue. That's a collaboration...
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Blues vote Green?
demwing
(16,916 posts)When I'm ready, I would prefer to leave DU on my own terms
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)An art I have yet to master.
jillan
(39,451 posts)in the main two parties that aligns closer to her beliefs.
I really think she is hoping to win over Bernie supporters if Bernie does not win the nom.
Of course Bernie would not do this. As I said, I think Jill is promoting herself to be the next best thing to Bernie.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)redruddyred
(1,615 posts)jalan48
(13,855 posts)Nedsdag
(2,437 posts)Why is it "slimey"?
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Nedsdag
(2,437 posts)I didn't read its obituary.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)The Supreme Court did.
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)for the narcissist there would not have been an Iraq War. There were other things that contributed for sure but people should always be aware of the consequences of a protest vote. Let's face it, Nader was not Presidential material.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)redstateblues
(10,565 posts)A lot of Naderites are still trying to justify their disastrous choice
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)When a Green Party candidate finally got a large following it did nothing but cause a disaster.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)"Failure to win any election in history."
Chan790
(20,176 posts)This is Elizabeth Horton Sheff. When I lived in Hartford, she was my city councilwoman for 8 years. Two four-year terms on the city-council of a major US city. I'd call that fairly major. She's only ever sought or been elected to office as a member of the Green party.
She also did this, as the lead-plaintiff in the lawsuit to desegregate Connecticut's schools:
...and that's more than Hillary or her Third-Way friends have ever done for African-American youth.
So, whose party is dead? Whose movement? I see Greens getting more done for traditional Democratic constituencies than I see Hillary doing.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Some of comments on here are insane.
Lots of patriots won't be voting for Hillary or Trump. If Bernie managed to make a third party for ACTUAL progressives and liberals possible that'd be quite the patriotic achievement.
Voting out of fear on the other hand is not something I consider very patriotic at all.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Nedsdag
(2,437 posts)I know I do.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)Plenty of progressives that wish the Dems were a left-wing party in every state. They should be represented properly in a democracy.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)On a national level, in a country with a two party system, the only thing a third party candidate can do is hurt the political wing they are running on.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)And that fear is what stops American democracy from being truly representative.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Proof? Every past general election
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)The US has NOT always been a two party system.
Maybe you need to go read up on the history of US political parties.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)But it has been throughout most of history. Ever since the Democratic and repugnant parties were formed a third partier has never had a prayer.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)If you know that then you know that political parties have changed when a third party or a fourth emerges.
Americans are waaaaaaaaaaaaay to scared of change. And this whole fear of Trump narrative is weak tea.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The word is "primaries".
In the 1850s, there was a growing antislavery movement, but it couldn't find expression in either major party. The Democrats were strongest in the South. The Whigs were strongest in the North but their leaders wanted to be competitive everywhere, so they didn't want to take a strong position that would alienate the slave states. The result was the emergence of the Republican Party.
What's happened since then is the introduction of the primary system (and, in a few cases, caucuses). If there had been primaries in the 1840s and 1850s, antislavery Whigs would have won primaries and moved their party to the left on that issue. The party establishment would no longer have been able to block them. There would have been no need to establish a new party.
A modern example is civil rights. Historically, the Democratic Party, even under progressive leaders like FDR, was willing to play along with the white supremacists in order to keep the Solid South. Democrats unhappy with that alliance could have stomped off and started a new party. They didn't, though. Instead, they pressed from within the party. (See Hubert Humphrey's famous speech at the 1948 convention, where the party adopted a strong civil rights plank against the wishes of its nominee, Harry Truman.) At all levels, Democratic candidates and officeholders came to be pro-civil rights, either because they won primaries against the old guard or because old guard types saw they'd need to adapt or die. Thus, working within the Democratic Party turned out to be more effective than Henry Wallace's 2.37% of the vote in 1948 on the Progressive/American Labor ticket.
There are other changes that have also served to entrench the two-party system, such as public financing of presidential campaigns. The effect is that the two-party system that we've had for a century and a half is very unlikely to change.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)You're just practicing negative partisanship which has been destroying America for years and years.
America need more options because it's wildly obvious that two parties isn't enough to represent all of the people.
And honestly - as a Progressive - the Democratic party and leadership do a crap job of representing me.
I'd suggest that all the corporatist third way Dems can keep the Democratic party. All the progressives and liberals can have a new people first party. All the nutter tea parties can have a party. And all the corporatists Republicans can have a party.
Then the corporatist Dems couldn't just PRETEND to be liberal at election time. They'd have to ACTUALLY be liberal to sustain a left wing coalition if they wanted to remain in power.
The two party system is a huge scam and I'd proudly support Bernie if he took it on.
And no, I'm not falling for Begala's fear fear fear campaign. Lol.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)and hasn't for a long time. But, what I said is not incorrect. Because of the two party system, the only thing a Third Party candidate can do is hurt the side they are running on.
EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)in the short term maybe, but it has to be broken at some point... and as I'm not scared of Trump, and as there'd be no better person to start one than Bernie... a uniter... so no, that's not the reality... the reality is that we need to break the strangle hold of corruption lunacy that has crippled both parties... so a REAL and MEANINGFUL outcome could be that... a fresh start for American democracy.
PeaceNikki
(27,985 posts)EdwardBernays
(3,343 posts)At the comments. My use of it is a direct response to that.
Context is adorable.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)Count the Hillary supporter recs.
Zorra
(27,670 posts)BeanMusical
(4,389 posts)Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)I get they may agree with her politically and on the issues, but just agreeing is not the reason you should vote for someone. Does she have experience doing anything in government? At least Sanders has been in the U.S. Senate and House. He's qualified to be president. Stein is nowhere near qualified to even be mayor of a major U.S. city - let alone governor or president.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)But I agree, she's a physician, no experience what-so-ever. She should run as a republican next time, they're the party shes been helping all these years.
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)Qualifications be damned! It's scary how we don't value intelligence and experience anymore.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)is nothing but a careful series of weedouts for those who fit badly within the neoliberal establishment
obviously it's important to elect someone who we think likely to do the job well, but if you want real change that is certainly not going to be HYP
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)They built up a movement through the grassroots - school boards, town councils, city councils, state legislatures and they built a nice feeder system for the national party.
redruddyred
(1,615 posts)i don't get it
Drunken Irishman
(34,857 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)Russian government owned media that enthusiastically supports it and the number of recs and the comment thread that just eats up blatant ratfcking!
It's sad how many are so easily lead and easily duped.
I can understand Jill Stein's desperate attempt to be relevant, but it's not what Bernie said, but given how his campaign's current conduct belies what he was saying a few months ago, who knows. What's sad is what the BSers will cling to, no matter what the source is, anything negative about Hillary, anything that might prevent Bernie's loss, no matter how vile or how obvious the source offering them whatever it is they wish to hear.
Ratfucking at play and at its most reprehensible. I don't mind the support of the candidate you believe in, it's just lack of critical thinking and the need to embrace anything regardless of the slime, the source or the obvious attempts at disruption. It's sad.
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)I may have to google her, sounds interesting.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)(to the jury... sorry but it is my job to know who is who in the zoo... hell Gary Johnson is running on the libertarian ticket, so stuff it)
PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)redruddyred
(1,615 posts)"interesting", would you be banned from DU?
i have friends in the green party. i think they are bad at politics but their hearts are in the right place. i more or less agree with their positions on the issues.
here's what i think:
if bloomberg were to run as third party candidate, against trump and hillary, sanders would not be wrong to take jill stein up on her offer. it would not jeopardize the left wing of the US electorate, and instead give the "leftest" wing a voice.
whether or not it is "right" for a candidate such as sanders to run third party really depends on the numbers. will he be a spoiler like nader? (do we even know that nader was a spoiler? al gore was a mediocre candidate at that) or will it end in a runoff election as no single candidate has the majority?
i think this is a worthwhile conversation which i hope still has a place here at DU.
Response to liberalnarb (Original post)
snowy owl This message was self-deleted by its author.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)the collaboration because I'm a true progressive and not just a liberal so for me it would have been okay. I agree that Bernie won't do that.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)backed by the fact that Jill Stein has never won an election.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)Its not a matter of how you "see the world." Its a matter of whether or not there is any chance a Third Party candidate can win the GE. Spoiler alert, there is none.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)It takes courageous people and true progressives to learn about and support the real left. Canada has the NDP and peopole finally found themselves moving to the left after so much Harper right-wing government and now they're back to a good tradition left party with Trudeau. I wonder if we'll ever be so smart?
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
redstateblues
(10,565 posts)That superiority attitude is not winning any converts. You Bernie folks are the only smart voters- Feel The Bern
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Tell us how we are wrong?
SoLeftIAmRight
(4,883 posts)who are your favorite 3 left thinkers?
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)No philosophers - that's a different question, right? What do you mean by "left thinkers?" Zinn? Marx? Stiglitz? Krugman? Reich? Chomsky? Goodman?
Politics: klein, frank, press I get a lot from nation magazine and sometimes The atlantic - my two subscriptions.
You?
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I see nothing corrupt or slimey about making the offer. It is Bernie's to consider or reject. I don't think you need to use language like that. it reeks of all the Berniebros crap that is out there today in Bernie's name. The Greens represent a lot of people and they would be voting most likely for Bernie had he been the candidate. That kind of overreaction reflects on all of us. Yes, I've voted Stein before. She represents me better than a Clinton. So?
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)I meant it was a slimey attempt to revive a dying campaign with someone who has a better chance then you. Theres no chance Bernie will have any part of this nonsense fortunately.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)She is in the business of politics and change. I'd prefer her to Clinton. Give her the same respect you give Bernie. He'll handle it.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Our two party system is corrupt and needs a third party to make it accountable. If the Democratic Party continues to turn its back on the American people, they will start turning to a third party. Over 40% of Americans are now Independents. If Democrats want them to vote Democratic instead of third party, then the Democratic Party needs to start listening to the people, not to the corporations.
basselope
(2,565 posts)If they run a third party candidate, there could be an easy path to victory for Bernie as a 4th candidate.
But, I doubt he would do it in a 3 way race.
I know there is 0 chance that I am voting for Clinton, so I will have to find someone who isn't a republican to vote for in November if the democrats go down the Clinton path.
kevink077
(365 posts)to pull a stunt like this. Nader was bought and paid for by republicans. The best money they ever spent.
The Green Party idiots in NH gave us 8 years of Bush. Florida should have been irrelevant.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)so good luck with that argument. Anyone including you and the OP that posts that trash gets put on my ignore list.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)If the Democratic Party wants the votes of the left, they have to deliver in return.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)a threat to Bernie's campaign is bullshit misdirection and propaganda.
HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)If Sanders gets the nomination, I don't think Stein will even campaign. If Clinton gets the nomination, Stein will get votes from quite a few Sanders supporters, boht Indies and Dems. In that case, it will be interesting to see what % she gets.
GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)breaks down badly if there is a "not evil at all" candidate running.
I don't believe there is any genuine concern for Bernie here.
dmm80
(38 posts)third party or not is their choice, but nowhere near unpatriotic. I understand that you don't want the left vote to split. I'm sure that the others here agree with you on that. But we are far too resolute in voting for our respected candidate on this side - which is the left wing. The only way a small possibility of a truce will present itself is after the GE, and by then, it'll be too late.
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)dmm80
(38 posts)making a choice.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)GoneFishin
(5,217 posts)what's the problem?
I say he should keep his options open. But I can understand why someone who doesn't support Bernie would love for him to just lay down and let the righties march right over him. Fuck that.
snowy owl
(2,145 posts)I trust Bernie and I trust Jill. She's got my vote in 2012 when Obama disappointed.
Scurrilous
(38,687 posts)What is she...Candidate for Life?
liberalnarb
(4,532 posts)snowy owl
(2,145 posts)Response to liberalnarb (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Deadshot
(384 posts)if Trump gets the requisite number of delegates, this election cycle is going to be a mess.
I don't see Bernie going for this.