If you ever voted for a Green Party candidate, or worse, donated to one....

[scheming daemons]

....YOU are part of the problem.

You are a "useful idiot". Used by conservatives and Putin to weaken the Democrats.

Jill Stein's vote total was enough, if those votes went to Clinton, to flip Michigan and Pennsylvania. Those 38 EVs would've taken Clinton to 270.


Ralph Nader helped bring us Bush.
Jill Stein helped bring us Trump.


USEFUL F***ING IDIOTS. Putin is laughing at you marks.

[California_Republic]

1. That is a little harsh.

Not like any US political party is kicking ass on Climate Change.

[tirebiter]

3. Reality's a bit harsh, eh?

How can a Putin Puppet be considered good on the environment in any way whatsoever?

[Lee-Lee]

18. Lets see what the realistic choices were

Trump, who is dismantling the EPA and making things even worse.

Or

Clinton, who may not have gone as fast or far as you would want on it but is certainly making progress.

Or

A third party candidate who can’t win and whose candidacy will steal enough votes from Clinto to ensure Trump has a better chance of getting elected, but sends a “message”.

2 of those 3 options leave you with the worst possible outcome. Voting for Stein just allowed you to have a false sense of smug satisfaction like you had not actually just helped Trump but thinking you did something positive.

Unless the Green candidate is polling strong enough to show it’s a tight race and they are viable to possibly win then a vote for them is a vote for the Republican, and nothing more, because you know they can’t win.

[yardwork]

37. Good post.

[Squinch]

66. What yardwork said. Excellent.

[Eliot Rosewater]

126. That what you just said could be argued with by anyone claiming to know what is going on

is why we will be destroyed.

Wont be cons who do it, there are more of us than them

It will be us. damn sure

When I say us I dont consider myself part of any group that would vote for 3rd party...nope

In one year the terrorist party has appointed enough judges to destroy this country for the next 40 fucking years.

[Historic NY]

127. Yup, some people really don't live in the real reality.....

[Demsrule86]

76. It is not harsh at all.

Any who vote for Greens or a third party...are electing Democrats...and personally, I think Obama was much much better on environmental issues than Trump and his GOP enablers...Democrats are always better...this time the Greens helped elect an environmental Hitler and have lost any shred of credibility...And DFA by not supporting a Democratic candidate in Virginia have done the samething. And Our Revolution for saying the would and actually supporting a Republican (Jersey) have done the same. They are all dead to me and will receive nothing...I won't vote for any of their candidates in a primary and will not spend a dime on or work for their organizations.

[jrthin]

98. Sometimes the truth is harsh. nt

[BoneyardDem]

138. Nope...OP is not harsh

what's harsh is living the fucking nightmare of a Trump Presidency.

And yes, many many of Steins votes would have gone to Clinton...if not for Stein, and by their own words those Bernie supporters who were embittered over his loss in the Primary and voted for Stein.

[VOX]

152. No its not, But it SHOULD be harsh as all hell.

The U.S. is currently fighting Civil War 2nd Edition; at stake is who/what defines the American reality for the future.

There is a huge schism in the country, and a massive albatross on the neck of a (formerly) free people. The heavy lifting hasn’t even begun.

[musicblind]

199. If anything, it wasn't harsh enough. n/t

[sheshe2]

201. That is harsh?

Why bother with the concern with climate change, AND I AM concerned for our future on that. However...Medicare, Medicaid, ACA and SS are about to go. Few of us will be left standing when all is said and done.

I will also note that many of those that are about to lose the above are the ones that have been fighting for the climate and future of our world and children who will be impacted. A dim future awaits us all.

The Green Party is a joke.

[sofa king]

203. But by voting Ralph Nader in 2000, climate change is far worse today.

So the Greens achieved that success, anyway: accelerating the pace of the problem they care most about. Golf clap for them.

[H2O Man]

2. Respectfully disagree.

I've supported candidates from the Green Party. I work with several area Democratic committees, in several towns and counties in upstate New York. In our region, republicans have the most registered voters, followed by independents, followed by Democrats. We try to work with those independents from the Democratic Left. And there have been times when we have put a Green Party candidate on the ballot, and won.

[yardwork]

39. The OP was clearly talking about the 2016 presidential election.

[ExciteBike66]

63. "If you ever voted" No he wasn't... nt

[kcr]

97. So you missed the part about Jill Stein and the electorate? n/t

[ExciteBike66]

101. The post I was responding to was incorrect.

1.) The Op was not talking only about 2016, since he mentioned Nader.
2.) The Op was not "clear" since the post is titled "If you ever..."
3.) The Op's analysis could of course apply to any election with both a Dem and a Green, so there is that.

[kwalter66]

132. Well

Since ALL of the things that you just pointed out are referencing PRESIDENTIAL elections, I can see where you would have completely missed that and became confused.

[ExciteBike66]

144. "If you ever voted..."

Just because the body of the OP mentions two presidential elections doesn't mean it is necessarily limited to those two elections, especially with the way the title is worded.

Either way, you are trying to insult me, which is against the TOS.

[ExciteBike66]

190. Here is that same OP this morning discussing a local race.

Guess I was correct that the OP's logic applied to all races, not just president...

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210005440

[H2O Man]

121. See posts 7,8, & 13.

My response was to the original OP.

[yardwork]

154. I'm not impressed. Not a fan of JPR or its approach.

[H2O Man]

158. That's nice.

I'm not sure of what you mean by JPR or its approach, but if it is something you are not a fan of, that's fine.

[yardwork]

167. Right. It's open to the public. I read the threads there last summer.

[H2O Man]

183. Okay, got it.

[Demsrule86]

78. Right..how many times have you won? I would wager that had you not split the vote...the Democrats

would have won more often..seriously, why are you even here if you support Greens? We support Democrats.

[H2O Man]

118. Perhaps you might

re-read what I wrote. A local Democratic Party opted to run a Green Party candidate on the Democratic Party line. Thus, those contests featured a republican against a Green/Democrat. We won every time.

So, let's see ....if you were in one of the two towns I'm speaking of, who would you have voted for?

[kwalter66]

133. You

were unclear on that. You need to be more specific.

[H2O Man]

134. The last sentence

on my first post was clear.

[Demsrule86]

153. A Green is not a Democrat first of all. I did read it. I won't back Greens myself.

[H2O Man]

157. That's fine.

I respect your right to vote for the candidate of your choice. Or, if you were in a place where the Democratic Party had put a Green candidate on the ballot as their candidate, to refuse to vote for them.

[BoneyardDem]

141. I respectfully disagree with your statement

When there was so much Russian meddling, when so much misleading info was put out electronically on social media, when Primary candidates were so milque toast in their embrace of the winning candidate, when so many BerniesSupporters proudly and loudly proclaimed all over the interwebs and even here on DU that they would vote Green, trying to create that anti Hillary movement...when this climate of disruption and division was nurtured by Putin and Stein, it was clear that the Green party played a role in helping Putin....errr =I mean Trump.

[H2O Man]

147. Interesting.

My post that you responded to was a response to the original OP, before the bits about Stein and Nader was added in. Thus, it reflects my opinions about grass roots Green Party members, and local elections.

Clearly, you are correct that the Stein votes had an impact upon the 2016 election results. It was not as significant, of course, as the number of Democrats that voted for Trump. I've seen different estimates on that number, most often around 14%. That includes a majority of white women.

In my opinion, the most important presidential election for us to consider is the 2008 contest, which won by way of the Obama coalition. In my efforts in a four-county region of the very republican upstate New York, I did outreach to not only registered Democrats, but a significant number of independents, Greens, Democratic Socialists, etc. My approach wasn't the old "you have no where else to go," but instead, "you have good reasons to vote for the Democratic candidates."

This included my speaking to a friend who I've known since grade school, and who I worked with on political issues in the 1980s. By 2000, he had become a Green Party member. I was surprised to learn that he had voted for Ralph Nader. I couldn't imagine myself ever even considering voting for Mr. Nader, and he and I had some discussions on that back then. But, I was able to get him to vote for Obama.

I believe that is the way to win elections. I have no problem respecting your opinions. They are different than my own, but it's a good thing for people with different life experiences to think differently.

[PDittie]

148. You're probably the only person

on this platform that could post that and not get it hidden.

[H2O Man]

159. If that is true,

it's a shame. Our goal should be to elect candidates from the Democratic Party in 2018. There are people who believe that the Green Party has the responsibility for Trump's victory. If so, I suspect that working to gain their votes would be important in those states that believe we should have won. The 2018 congressional elections, if they are correct, might depend upon getting every vote possible. Thus, I do not view attacks on people who belong to the Green Party etc as representing the moral or ethical high ground, and definitely not an intelligent political philosophy. Rather, I favor going with what made the Obama coalition victorious.

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. The green party crawls out from under a rock

Every four years, makes a big stink, gets attention for 3 months and then disappears until next time. They accomplish absolutely nothing at any level. Their source of funding is a mystery. It's a boil on the thigh of civilization.

[demosincebirth]

10. That's a big 10-4 C O.

[yardwork]

41. Their source of funding is no longer a mystery to me.

[dalton99a]

91. Bingo

[4now]

5. Hopefully people won't be so stupid next time

[demosincebirth]

11. Some will always be stupid.

[jrthin]

99. Agreed. You'd think after the Nader fiasco

We'd have learned our lesson.

[jzodda]

177. They will

Its nights like tonight when I despise them the most. In their quest to be morally superior all they did is help to damage the country and that's exactly what this is. Even if we win big in 2018 and 2020 its going to take a lot of work to undue this damage.

[Blue_true]

196. A lot of people said that after Gore got the office stolen from him.

If just 2% of the votes that went to Nader in Florida had gone to Gore, we would not be talking about a lost cause in Iraq and Afghanistan and likely would not have even heard of ISIS, or be sable rattling with North Korea. Greens and anyone that think like them are clueless fools who have no idea of how government works. The recount result from Virginia yesterday should wake those idiots up, but it won't. If two of the people that voted for the Dem had voted third party, wrote in or stayed home, she would have lost and Virginia would likely have ended up with more conservative governance than it will see over the next two years. Voting intelligently matters, period!!!!!!!!!

[pnwmom]

6. And all those people who helped pay for that phony recount helped.

The recount that never had a tiny chance of changing the election results (they would have needed to overturn all 3 states and it was already too late to have a full recount in Pennsylvania).

All the money she had left over just went to her coffers.

[Ken Burch]

7. Ok...it would be better if nobody had ever voted for a Green Party presidential candidate.

Obviously agreed.

But are you extending your OP to demonize anybody who ever voted for a Green candidate at ANY level of electoral politics? To, say, a municipal election where the Dem nominee was anti-progressive or corrupt or deadwood?

And if you want people who did vote Green in a race like that, do you really think you can make them vote Dem in all races by demonizing them about past votes? Have you ever heard of us winning one election by shaming people for not voting for us in all races in every election in the past?

Do you also apply this philosophy to anybody who actually voted Republican in the past? Seems to me none of the people who vilify those who vote Green ever did that to Dems who voted for either Bush or Reagan(or those who were "Democrats for Nixon&quot . Were their voting decisions somehow LESS shameful?

Why focus on demanding repentance for past voting choices of ONE, but not all groups of voters, rather than taking a hard look at why we have lost votes to third parties in difference contests in the past?

It isn't sustainable to simply demand that everybody on the progressive of the spectrum OWES our candidates support in every race in every election, no matter what, until the GOP simply vanishes from the electoral map.. What IS sustainable, what IS workable, is to listen to the people whose votes we didn't get(while still centering the wishes of those who do-and that's an easy thing, because most of those who DO vote for us no matter what want us to be a more progressive, more egalitarian, more small-d democratic party)
and making some effort to show we've listened and are going to be open to what they want from politics.

The country is moving towards us. Let's win by winning the argument.

[scheming daemons]

8. Presidential only

You would've thought that the Nader experience of 2000 would've taught people a lesson about saying that Dems and GOP were the same.

Apparently not.

[Ken Burch]

13. Thank you for clarifying.

n/t.

[Ken Burch]

176. Agreed on that.

n/t.

[Demsrule86]

81. Yes...voting Green means you are not suporting the Democrat...splitting the vote...and in my

opinion that is wrong on every level...if you did it in 16 than you elected Trump. Our candidates will deserve our loyalty or they will lose...and we get a much worse outcome...I believe some who encourage people to vote for useless Greens are trolls...and I can't believe you defend them and those who voted for them...maybe if Stein ends up in an orange jumpsuit...people will realize the truth about Greens...in Georgia they were used to split the vote if a Democratic candidate had even a glimmer of hope of winning...they have done this in Texas as well...the Greens were paid to deep six our candidates...of course they hate Democrats and willingly work with the GOP...and then call themselves Green ...bull shit that. They are about as green as a pile of manure.

[Ken Burch]

123. I didn't do that in '16 and you know it.

The way to fight Greens is to address at least some of the issues they address.

It doesn't work to scream at people for having voted Green or other third-party in the past.

We don't do that to Dems who outright voted for GOP candidates...ever. If we're going to do the useless strategy of simply demanding loyalty, we SHOULD call those people out as much as there'd be call outs for people who voted Green or other left third-party.

[Demsrule86]

151. I never said you did...I those who voted for Greens did that.

If you vote for a Green (not you but the general you) then you split progressive vote and are voting for a GOP in reality.

[Crunchy Frog]

87. Liz Warren needs to be burned at the stake.

She voted Republican in the past.

(I don't actually believe this, just drawing the logical conclusion from the general sentiment of the thread.)

[Ken Burch]

124. Except that you rarely see call-out threads about Dems who used to vote GOP here.

That's ONLY done to people who vote for parties to our left.

Why are the Trump/Bush/Bush/Reagan/Nixon Dems ALWAYS given a pass?

[NurseJackie]

96. Always vote for the party's nomineee. Always!!

If changes need to be made, then it's done during the party's primary and by working within the party.

Anything else is just a "vanity vote" and beneath contempt.

Have you ever heard of us winning one election by shaming people for not voting for us in all races in every election in the past?

Aww... boo-hoo-hoo! Who exactly ARE these delicate snowflake Green-Voters that you describe? If the Green-Voters think that they're being clever by voting Green (and "sending a message" or "destroying to rebuild'') then they're emotionally strong enough to handle some well-deserved SHAMING for their Green-Voting antics. They're not the fragile flowers you're describing, so stop that... just stop.

It isn't sustainable to simply demand that everybody on the progressive of the spectrum OWES our candidates support in every race in every election, no matter what, until the GOP simply vanishes from the electoral map.

Nobody is saying that anyone OWES anyone anything. Nobody! Who is saying that? NOBODY!

[bluecollar2]

12. And, once again I have to wonder...

Why the OP couldn't have added two words to the post.

"for President" would have changed the entire context.

I've voted for the Green party candidate several dozen times...always because no Democrat was running.

Usually these were in down-'ballot races.

My middle finger is pointed straight up.

[progressoid]

14. OFFS. This again? Why not blame Union Members. 42% of them voted for trump.

And registered Democrats. 8% voted for trump.
What about the LGBT voters? 14% voted for trump.
Let's not forget the Latino voters: 28% for trump.
Asian voters: 27% for trump.
Or hell, what about the millions of registered Democrats that didn't even bother to fucking vote!

But, yeah, I guess it's more important to whine about the 1% that Stein got.




p.s. Here's a little secret. There will be third party candidates in 2020 too. Just like there have been in every election.

[shanny]

19. Amen.

This about using the Greens as a scapegoat; it beats looking in the mirror.

[ollie10]

64. Do Greens/Trump for president ever look in a mirror?

They should

[shanny]

104. Greens for Trump? wot?

[ollie10]

105. A vote for Green is a vote for Trump

More honest to simply vote for Trump and get it over with.

As for me, I am a Democrat

[shanny]

108. People get to vote for whomever the eff they like.

Anything else is to honestly not believe in democracy.

[ollie10]

112. Yes, and you get to vote in such a way as to elect Trump if you want

Trump was a clear and present danger.

There was only one way to stop him, and that was to vote for Hillary.

Staying home or voting for Stein.....did not help defeat Trump. Really a lame choice.

[shanny]

114. That's what freedom means, isn't it?

The right to be wrong.

[ollie10]

117. I don't know what your point is....

I am not arguing that voting rights should be restricted or anyone's freedoms taken away.

[shanny]

142. My point is that people get to vote for whomever they want.

That is what democracy is.

[Gothmog]

139. A vote for Jill Stein was a vote for trump

[Ken Burch]

128. That's true.

Everyone who obsesses about the Greens is doing so to deflect any discussion about what might need to be changed in THIS party.

The people who fixate on Stein(or Nader)KNOW that endless callouts about that are never going to lead to people who voted Green in the past switching to support for OUR ticket, and they know that, if anything, all that the callouts achieve is to cause people we MIGHT have won over with a reasoned, respectful, issues-based argument and with SOME responsiveness to what it is about our party that alienates them to close their ears, dig in their heels and REFUSE to listen to anything we have to say.

I absolutely agree that it's a bad idea to vote Green presidentially(in local races where the GOP isn't a factor, there's no real cause to be self-righteous about it, and the possibility exists to win votes for our presidential ticket from people who vote Green or other third-party left locally by committing our party to electoral reform measures). Equally It's a failed strategy to scream at people for doing that. People never change their voting habits as a result of being insulted and shamed.

So why stay with what we KNOW doesn't work?

[Orsino]

23. Tens of millions weren't even registered at all.

Quibbling over a handful who did show up but voted wrong is beneath us.

[Demsrule86]

109. I do blame any who voted for Trump...as for 'registered' Democrats...people change but don't

change their party affiliation quite often...I do GOTV and went out to registered Dems only they were tea party assholes.

[Champion Jack]

146. Well said

[chwaliszewski]

15. Not this again...

[DanTex]

136. I don't know why you have a soft spot for the Greens, but I hate to break it to you, we're not

going to forget that they intentionally helped put Trump in the White House. So if you're looking for a Green Party love-fest, probably better to look somewhere else.

[progressoid]

149. I can't speak for chwaliszewski, but it's not about having a soft spot for Greens. It's about

not wasting time bitching about the Greens - most of whom were likely never going to support Hillary anyway - to focus on actionable solutions. While DU is busy with its misguided umbrage against the Greens, it ignores millions of mainstream voters that decided not to vote for Hillary and Democrats in general for the last 10 years.

How about we focus on getting millions of actual Democrats out to vote who sat out the recent elections. Or trying to get millions of young voters to become Democrats instead of Indies. The recent special elections show that it can be done. But it seems that some diehard members of DU are hellbent on flogging the dead green horse.

Its funny that the media is arguably more responsible than any group in getting Trump elected, and yet they are regularly praised here.

[DanTex]

150. If it were really about "not wasting time" then the Green defenders here wouldn't waste their

time replying to these threads. Because there is tons of content on DU that is about other issues, some of which have nothing to do with any election at all, so the idea that the Green defenders are really just neurotic about other people "wasting time" on a message board is absurd.

Intelligent people can argue about the magnitude of the Green effect, but there's no doubt that they have been helping the GOP win elections in the US since at least 2000. And the horse is not "dead", I have no doubt they are going to do all they can to re-elect Trump in 2020.

By all means, if you have something else on your mind that can help us win elections, then post about it. There's plenty of room in the internet. But the Greens remain a tool of the GOP, and we will continue to call them that.

[chwaliszewski]

163. Exactly!

Couldn't agree with you more.

[Ken Burch]

155. I'm not looking for a "Green Party love fest" at all.

I'm looking for US to work out a real strategy that achieves the following objectives:

1)Breaking loose the soft Green voters who could be won over to US with some degree of engagement and respect;
2)Turning as many nonvoters into voters as possible;
3)re-credentials and re-registers suppressed voters and gets them to the polls in large numbers.

I have no use for Stein and you know that. My point has always been that, while her party should NOT stand in presidential elections, endlessly going on about people having voted for her and the consequences of that will never swing any of those people over to OUR ticket. And it may actually harden some of them in their resolve never to listen to us.

Therefore, what does it actually achieve?

Why not focus on the future-which, unlike the past, we can actually do something about?

[DanTex]

160. Would you say the same thing about Trump voters?

If someone voted for Trump, thinking he would make America great again, and instead millions of people lose healthcare and the top 0.01% gets a huge tax cut, is it not appropriate to talk about the consequences of a Trump vote?

Believe it or not, some people actually believed that Trump was going to help working Americans. And, in my opinion, it is worth pointing out, over and over again, that Trump is doing the exact opposite of that. And in the same way, it's worth pointing out that Green voters got exactly the opposite of what they claimed they wanted with their Green vote.

I agree that it's better not to focus on the voters themselves, but rather on the propagandists that convinced gullible people to vote for Trump or Stein. I can forgive young naive people who voted for Stein because they bought into far-left anti-Democratic propaganda. But I won't go easy on the supporters of the Green Party who produced that propaganda.

For example, take someone like Jimmy Dore. In the last election, he was actively helping Trump get elected by trying to peel away Democratic voters to Stein. I don't think we should treat people like him much differently than, say Alex Jones, simply because in between conspiracy-mongering and lying he claims to support progressive values.

Now, you can argue that saying things like "people who listen to Alex Jones are idiots" isn't particularly helpful in swaying Alex Jones listeners. And you may have a point. But confronting Alex Jones himself is worthwhile. So while you may have a point that attacking people who fell for Green Party propaganda may not be productive, certainly confronting the people like Jimmy Dore who produce that propaganda is very worthwhile.

But the thing is, sometimes people who buy into the lies that the likes of Alex Jones or Jimmy Dore or Jill Stein peddle are actually part of the problem, not just victims. I don't know where to draw the line exactly.

[Ken Burch]

161. We are far less likely to reach MOST people who voted for Trump.

And yes, I realize that a lot of people who did believed(wrongly)that he cared about working-class voters in a way our nominee seemed to them not to.

As to the people who voted for Stein or didn't vote...look, I agree that they should have voted for us (and spent massive amounts of time online pleading with them to vote for our ticket when I wasn't out extensively campaigning for that ticket), what I'm saying is that we need to find a way to engage with what they care about...that doesn't mean deferring to them or letting anybody "take over the party&quot news flash-nobody is actually TRYING to take over the party, and it probably can't be "taken over" by anyone anyway), but it does mean finding the way to say "we hear you and we're going to try working WITH you rather than simply demanding that you vote for us". It means moving, once and for, all, past the 1990s idea that the Left was or is our enemy and that the key to success lies in telling the Left to "pound sand and peddle it walking". Since 1933, the Left has been the source of every good idea the Democratic arty has put into practice, and while we can't do everything the Left wants, we can get back into a healthy relationship with it.

So it isn't just confronting Stein as an individual...it's confronting the ways OUR party works that gave Stein the ability to have the effect she had.

We can't do anything about the fact that she ran last time...we can figure out a better response to the existence of her party NEXT time, though.

[DanTex]

165. Yeah, I don't think the "we hear you" thing is going to make much difference.

Here's the thing, and there's no getting around it. For anyone who cares at all about progressive policies, supporting the Green party is one of the dumbest things they could possibly do. The only thing dumber would be actually supporting the GOP. But it's still pretty damned stupid.

And it looks like you agree with me on that. But you want to leave this essential fact out of the discussion. This is like trying to talk to people about eating poison without reference to the fact that poison will kill them. Sure, you could try saying things like "maybe a hamburger would taste good" or "are you sure you're hungry right now?", but the fact that poison kills you, like the fact that Greens do nothing but help Republicans, is at the very heart of the matter.

The Green Party would not exist, at the national level, unless it were possible to convince some gullible people that the difference between 15 and 12 is equal to the difference between 15 and zero. You and others might be right that attacking people who are this mathematically challenged isn't the best way to change their minds. But do you really think that changing the numbers around is going to make a difference in the land where (15-12)=(15-0)?

A lot of people who end up voting Green, or not voting, are young people who like the idea of "sticking it to the system, dude." Yes, it's tricky to reach people like that, but then again it's tricky to reach all kinds of irrational voters, Trump voters included. But I have serious doubts that shifting the platform left will make much if any difference. After all, the Dems have been moving left since 2000, and they moved the platform left in 2016, and that didn't stop Jill Stein and Susan Sarandon and the rest of them from saying that Clinton was worse than Trump.

The Greens, having no hope of winning, can propose any kind of fantasy and than attack the Dems for not matching them. Remember Stein's "forgive college debt with quantitative easing, which is a magic trick" thing? It's impossible for a serious Democratic candidate to propose something like that, not because they aren't "progressive" enough, but because that's just idiotic. So it will always be possible for the Greens to be to the "left" of the Dems, and accuse the Dems of being corporate sellouts for not supporting whatever impossibly dumb thing they come up with. That's their game.

I say confront the Greens with the truth, instead.

[chwaliszewski]

164. How dare you?

If you are accusing me of having a 'soft spot' for the Green party then you better offer up some proof. Otherwise, what you're doing is a sort of a Fox news tactic and is completely uncalled for. I have never supported or voted for a Green party member and feel it is a complete waste of time complaining about the past and instead focus on the future. Some people here are starting to sound like jilted lovers sometimes. The election is over, time to move on to the next one and do better.

[stevepal]

16. So in other words, it's impossible to even consider third parties??

This is ridiculous. Stein has brought up useful issues for many years and it took a lot of courage for her to do that over the years. I've never voted for her but I was always grateful for her courage and forthrightness. I would guess that most of the useful social changes in American society thru the years have come to a great extent thru third parties.

Hillary won by over 3M votes. If the vote counting had not been rigged in PA and WI alone thru voter suppression and outright rigging of the votes, she would easily have won. I voted for her and think she cd well have been one of our best presidents. Kerry would have won in 04 if not for the vote counting scam that Karl Rove masterminded. There's good reason to suspect that Bernie would have won the primary if the votes had been counted properly. In MA e.g. among the 3% of voters in MA whose vote was hand-counted, not counted in a computer, Sanders won by 17% pts, yet in MA as a whole Hillary won by a comfortable margin. Is this not worth thinking about and trying to remedy for future elections and not trying to demean a person who has thru the years pushed for progressive issues and brought these issues into the public space that is so much corrupted and poisoned by such as Fox News.

Why don't you focus on something that cd really alter an election like making sure people's votes for whatever candidate are properly counted and that all people who want to vote and have a right to vote can do so legally?

[Demsrule86]

84. The Greens are dead to me ...fuck them...Stein may finally get caught this time...hope she

rots in prison.

[Lil Missy]

125. yes.

[scheming daemons]

185. Yes. If you vote 3rd party, you are helping the worst of the 2 parties.

Any Republican leaner who votes 3rd party helps those he hates most...Democrats.

Any Democrat leaner who votes 3rd party helps those he hates most... Republicans.

[jimlup]

17. I disagree

in my opinion this is far overstated. I confess to voting for Nader in 2000, but I was in a safe blue state and I made absolutely sure of that before I voted. I'm not advocating my 2000 vote, just stating a fact.

So in a nutshell, you are attacking me - I resent that.

[Lee-Lee]

21. Supporting Greens in safe blue states helps them get momentum to get votes in battleground states

It also lowers the popular vote totals and while that doesn’t elect a President it helps establish credibility or lack thereof in the victory.

Unless it’s a race where the Green actually is polling with enough support to win or some obscure local race where it’s possible voting Green is the same as staying home- it only helps the Republicans. And gives you a false and misplaced sense of having done something good.

[Gothmog]

140. I agree with your analysis

[jimlup]

171. I wonder if you've ever considered

the false sense of security you gain by supporting the establishment without question?

It seems to me that those who supported Hillary without question in the last election are missing a huge part of the equation. People don't just accept the establishment. They only do it because they perceive it as benefiting them. I know for a fact that the establishment is deeply corrupt. If significant elements in the party can't begin to recognize that, all is probably lost.

[Lee-Lee]

173. Oh Ive questioned many things

But when the rubber hits the road and it’s time to vote, I vote Democratic.

If you don’t, then this probably isn’t the place for you.

[jimlup]

175. See this is a bit of a problem

just think about what you've just done? Consider it from my perspective for example. Are you even capable of that?

Don't think we will win if we keep playing the stupid exclusive club way.

[Lee-Lee]

192. What are you trying to say here?

[jimlup]

198. I'm saying

that the folks here who play the exclusive club game are deluding themselves. No political progress will be made this way.

Personally, I feel deep in my soul that most of the mainstream dems misunderstood the 2016 election and are lashing out in self protection. Playing the "this is not the place for you game" is part of the problem. I've been a member of this site long enough to be an old hand. I am not alone in my views even among members of this site. I know we have to stop blaming each other and start being the real progressives the country needs. We are going to have to steer the God Damn ship of State away from the disaster the Refucks have steered us into.

That my friend is what I am saying.

[freddyvh]

20. sorry

but people are allowed to vote for whom they wish.

[Lee-Lee]

22. Sure- and everyone is allowed to tell them how stupid a vote it was too

[freddyvh]

24. that's your right

just like it would be my right to vote neither major party if i think their platform sux

[Lee-Lee]

25. Except your on a website all about Democrats and the Democratic Party

So saying that on here is actually against the rules...

People who think both major parties suck shouldn’t be on a website that is dedicated to one of those major parties...

[Squinch]

29. This is a site for Democratic supporters. Read the TOS. Then read the definition of censorship. SMH.

[Squinch]

33. Again, it is against the TOS to support non Democrats. Unlike you, I have read the TOS.

I don't really give a shit about your open mind. Take this shit somewhere else.

[freddyvh]

35. fine

show me where on here i have ever supported a non-democrat for office


i will wait

[Squinch]

38. When you compare support for Democrats to Trumpism, you are supporting non-Democrats.

When you talk all about the closed minds of those who are loyal to the Democratic Party, you are supporting non-Democrats.

When you talk all about how terrific you are because you vote for other parties you are supporting non-Democrats.

[freddyvh]

42. oh

so you can't give me an example

didn't think so


you are saying we are to rally around democrats no matter what.

even the new mexico candidate who has been arrested multiple times for stalking


got it

[Squinch]

43. I gave you three. Yes, I am saying we vote for Democrats and not other parties. As is

specified in the TOS.

There are plenty of places for you to spout your "open minded" support for Republicans and third parties, and where you can criticize those of us who are committed to voting for Democrats. This is not one of them.

You should find one of them and go there.

[JackInGreen]

45. Careful freddy, the long knives are out.

[Squinch]

50. LOL! Aren't you the brave little toaster. Though your TOS reading skills are limited.

[Squinch]

48. I suppose the TOS is a long knife, now?

[NurseJackie]

107. Oh brother!

[Squinch]

28. And they often use their votes self-destructively, as the OP is pointing out, giving us Trump(R).

Those who use their votes self destructively, like voting for the third party when Trump(R) is one of the candidates and the other candidate is simply not pure enough for them, are part of the problem.

[freddyvh]

30. then keep them off the ballot

[Squinch]

32. I have no power to do that. What I do have the power to do is come to a website that

does not welcome those who encourage votes for a third party.

Which you seem to be doing.

[freddyvh]

34. the original post wasn't encouragement

it was insulting

no different that what trump does on twitter on a daily basis.

i vote who whom i think will be the best person for that office.

i do not check a box based on the little letter behind their name on the ballot.

[Squinch]

36. You are not getting it. This is a site for people who support the Democratic Party and who

do not support other parties. It is specifically spelled out in the TOS. Once again, take this shit about your "open minded" support for Republicans and third parties somewhere else.

[Squinch]

47. LOL. Is this the new talking point tactic? Once again: This is a site for those who support the

Democratic Party.

This is not a site for those who need to argue vociferously about all the ways we we should NOT vote for Democrats and argue vociferously about how we are closed minded if we sometimes do not vote for Republicans and third parties.

You seem to be having a hard time understanding that.

And yes. Support Democrats or buzz off.

[freddyvh]

49. so

using your logic we are to support a candidate arrested multiple times for stalking. just because they are a democrat

got it.

[Squinch]

51. You really do seem to have some trouble understanding. The TOS seems very hard for you.

[Squinch]

54. Do read the TOS. It would do you good.

[freddyvh]

56. i have

have you?

it does not say you have to blindly support all democratic candidates.

or did i miss that?

[Squinch]

58. Maybe read it again. Absorb it, so its rules don't upset you so.

[freddyvh]

59. yep

Members are not expected to hold across-the-board progressive opinions on every single issue, but we do expect members to be generally progressive and to support Democrats at election time

Constructive criticism of Democratic politicians, party officials, and public figures is welcome and encouraged, but we expect our members to follow our forum rules and participate in a manner which promotes a positive atmosphere.


hmm

[Squinch]

60. Saying "you're closed minded if you only vote for Democrats" is not supporting Democrats at

election time.

Saying that support for Democrats at election time is the same as Trumpism and that those who do it are just like Fox News is not supporting Democrats at election time.

You really don't understand, do you?

If you need to talk about how wonderful you are because sometimes you vote for Republicans and third parties, and how terrible the rest of us are because we don't, you should really find somewhere where people want to hear about that shit.

This really isn't that place.

[Squinch]

73. Wow. For the record, I only alerted on one of your posts to me. You've really annoyed some folks.

[NurseJackie]

120. ###

You've really annoyed some folks.

That appears to be the case. Amazing! I think this must be some sort of record!

[revmclaren]

53. Comparing DU to Fox News is a direct TOS violation!

Third party support and right-wing propaganda and statements are not welcome here. The MIR Team needs to take a look at your replies IMO.

[freddyvh]

55. if only i did

i did not compare DU to faux

i compared the mentally of that poster to a faux news view

there is a difference that any intelligent person can see

[revmclaren]

61. Well, you have some mighty righty opinions

For someone here only since April. And I stand by my and other opinions on your TOS violations. Now we will see if MIR agrees.

[Squinch]

57. Watch out! He's going to call you names now!

[revmclaren]

74. Not anymore....

[Squinch]

75. I just saw that! I went to check on the progress of my one alert on his replies to me and found

that four others had the same idea!

[democratisphere]

26. The green party is about money for their so-called leaders; not the environment.

[Lee-Lee]

62. Money and attention

It’s like the “real housewives” equivalent in politics. No redeeming qualities at all, they do nothing positive for anyone, but they are all about how much money they can get and how much attention they can draw to themselves.

[ollie10]

65. Isn't Stein one of those who has Russian ties?

Just sayin'

[whathehell]

68. Yes, she's in picture at a party in Russia seated with Putin and Flynn. n/t.

[Demsrule86]

85. She is also about to be interviewed by Mueller.

[oberliner]

67. What about the folks who sent Jill Stein money for the recount?

Do they qualify or is that different?

[ProfessorGAC]

90. Well, It Does Make Them Suckers

I'd like them to invest in my time machine project.
I have the same probability of success as did Stein.

[oberliner]

102. Yep

I did try to talk DUers out of it at the time.

[Hortensis]

166. She's slime, but I sent her money with my eyes open.

Just in case it illuminated anything at all. And it did keep the subject in the news a bit longer.

[oberliner]

168. She was supposedly going to use the leftover money to create a voter integrity organization

Called "Count My Vote" - which I have not heard anything about since January of this year (2017).

It was about $2 million that she had in extra funds, if I remember correctly.

[Hortensis]

184. Oh, no surprise to that. BUT, the media had immediately

brushed off the entire subject, satisfied with killing the Democratic presidency and far more committed to the horrified fascination of America's Trump election train wreck.

Clinton's campaign undoubtedly knew by then that what had happened was far larger than what a recount would reveal, and I trusted them to know what they were doing.

I donated, not expecting the election to be overturned, but because the media were at least covering her little noise, and also for the long shot that any new, curious information might be turned out. We all knew at that point the election had been tampered with somehow.

[oberliner]

186. Understood

I just feel that Jill took advantage of the situation for her own benefit, and I found that disgusting.

[Hortensis]

189. Sure, we knew she would though. Hardly the only money

I knowingly put into grasping, dishonestly manipulative hands. We just spent $90 for a Nerf toy that'll probably retail for $20 or 30 next year.

As for Stein's case, I'm absolutely sure there's something seriously mentally wrong with her and always has been. She's not a whole, normal person, and no sensible person would hire or dare leave their children with.

But even if it'd be silly to expect a broken clock to tell time,there's just no point investing emotion in despising the clock, and if you happened to have a walnut you wanted to crack and it was sitting there...

[G_j]

69. If youve spent your time in an endless blame game

then maybe you’re foolish and useless too.

[Iggo]

71. I disagree.

People who are trying to split us up are extremely useful.

[bahrbearian]

79. Agreed, same old sit stirring

[Iggo]

70. Ever?

Okay.

[Gothmog]

72. I agree with the analysis in the OP

[mcar]

77. +1000!

[we can do it]

80. Fuck Stein. Fuck Nader. Fuck everyone who voted for them.

Merry fucking 🎄 Christmas.

[stonecutter357]

82. K&R

[Crunchy Frog]

86. If you ever voted wrong in your entire life, you're irredeemable.

Might just as well dig a hole and jump into it.

[jalan48]

88. This approach should really help attract voters.

[betsuni]

89. k&R

[Gothmog]

92. Rove funded Nader in 2000 and 2004 for a reason

Rove funded Nader in 2000 and 2004 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

Furthermore, Karl Rove and the Republican Party knew this, and so they nurtured and crucially assisted Nader’s campaigns, both in 2000 and in 2004. On 27 October 2000, the AP’s Laura Meckler headlined “GOP Group To Air Pro-Nader TV Ads.” She opened: “Hoping to boost Ralph Nader in states where he is threatening to hurt Al Gore, a Republican group is launching TV ads featuring Nader attacking the vice president [Mr. Gore]. ... ‘Al Gore is suffering from election year delusion if he thinks his record on the environment is anything to be proud of,’ Nader says [in the commercial]. An announcer interjects: ‘What’s Al Gore’s real record?’ Nader says: ‘Eight years of principles betrayed and promises broken.’” Meckler’s report continued: “A spokeswoman for the Green Party nominee said that his campaign had no control over what other organizations do with Nader’s speeches.” Bush’s people - the group sponsoring this particular ad happened to be the Republican Leadership Council - knew exactly what they were doing, even though the liberal suckers who voted so carelessly for Ralph Nader obviously did not. Anyone who drives a car the way those liberal fools voted, faces charges of criminal negligence, at the very least. But this time, the entire nation crashed as a result; not merely a single car.....

On July 9th, the San Francisco Chronicle headlined “GOP Doners Funding Nader: Bush Supporters Give Independent’s Bid a Financial Lift,” and reported that the Nader campaign “has received a recent windfall of contributions from deep-pocketed Republicans with a history of big contributions to the party,” according to “an analysis of federal records.” Perhaps these contributors were Ambassador Egan’s other friends. Mr. Egan’s wife was now listed among the Nader contributors. Another listed was “Nijad Fares, a Houston businessman, who donated $200,000 to the Bush inaugural committee and who donated $2,000 each to the Nader effort and the Bush campaign this year.” Furthermore, Ari Berman reported 7 October 2004 at the Nation, under “Swift Boat Veterans for Nader,” that some major right-wing funders of a Republican smear campaign against Senator John Kerry’s Vietnam service contributed also $13,500 to the Nader campaign, and that “the Republican Party of Michigan gathered ninety percent of Nader’s signatures in their state” (90%!) to place Nader on the ballot so Bush could win that swing state’s 17 electoral votes. Clearly, the word had gone out to Bush’s big contributors: Help Ralphie boy! In fact, on 15 September 2005, John DiStaso of the Manchester Union-Leader, reported that, “A year ago, as the Presidential general election campaign raged in battleground state New Hampshire, consumer advocate Ralph Nader found his way onto the ballot, with the help of veteran Republican strategist David Carney and the Carney-owned Norway Hill Associates consulting firm.”

It was obvious, based upon the 2000 election results, that a dollar contributed to Nader in the 2004 contest would probably be a more effective way to achieve a Bush win against Kerry in the U.S. Presidential election than were perhaps even ten dollars contributed to Bush. This was a way of peeling crucial votes off from Bush’s real opponent - votes that otherwise would have gone to the Democrat. That’s why the smartest Republican money in the 2004 Presidential election was actually going to Nader, even more so than to Bush himself: these indirect Bush contributions provided by far the biggest bang for the right-wing buck.

[Blue_Tires]

93. This older+wiser Nader 2000 fanatic tried to warn folks...

Because he knew how this story was going to end...

[treestar]

94. I would never do it for POTUS, but locally

but it was for state representative. The Democrats have given up on this district for that. Last 2 times, I had a choice between a Republican and a Green, so I voted for the Green. He received 17% of the votes. Though had the Democrats runs someone, I would have voted for them. Maybe I should run as a Democrat. This is the type of thing Democrats should re-consider. Keep running, even if it seems hopeless.

[David__77]

110. Im glad you didnt vote for the Republican.

If Democrats want people voting for Democrats then there better be Democratic candidates to vote for.

[treestar]

129. I would never do that!

In prior elections, when there was no Green option, I wrote in my Dad.

[scheming daemons]

187. If one person in Newport News voted for a 3rd party instead of the Dem...

..the GOP would control the VA state house.

Think about that.

[treestar]

193. I know, but in mine there was no Democrat

Choice between R and Green.

[ollie10]

95. We Democrats need to stand up for our values

For democratic values, both small D and large D.

We are facing a crisis with an authoritarian president.

The administration fills the air with bullshit.

We need to be the voice of America's values. Somebody has to do it, somebody has to fill the void left by the Republicans' abdication to Trump.

Defeating Trump should be very attainable in 2020. Does anybody think Trump's policies. such as the tax bill that favors the rich, are going to help Trump hold on to WI, MI and PA?

Trump's entire focus has been on his base. He forgets at his own peril the swing voters in these states, which normally lean Democratic. He is ignoring the electoral math that got him in the White House to begin with.

We won't win by playing his game. We won't win by running against Trump.

We win by embracing our values as Democrats.

This will also diminish the numbers of folks who wander into third party territory.

[moriah]

100. I object to "ever" as I have voted for a Green when we weren't fielding a Dem.

Also, if you've repented and learned from 2000 and voted Dem this time, you may have been part of the problem in 2000 but learned from your mistakes. So aren't part of it *now*.

Otherwise, agreed.

[Auggie]

103. Damn straight. Its a two party system, like it or not.

[David__77]

106. I have the idea some here are more receptive to ex-GOP voters than ex-Green voters.

The successful Democratic candidate for Virginia governor voted for Bush. Is he a “useful idiot?”

[Demsrule86]

113. He was not a Republican though... And the other candidate in the primary voted to restrict

abortion in the ACA while a sitting Congressman. Although he has repented and worked his ass off for Northam...you think a GOP is better than either of those candidates? I don't and voting for a Green is the same as voting for a Republican.

[David__77]

116. No, I dont think so.

....

[jalan48]

115. Great question.

[SidDithers]

111. DU Rec...

Sid

[JHan]

119. K & R!!! to ETERNITY!

[Tom Rinaldo]

122. I never vote Green, even though I am often ideologically alligned with them

Other considerations keep me voting Democratic. That's me. Like most people, I tend to think I'm right. I certainly try to influence others toward my point of view, but only my own vote is mine. I would have to be crazy to assume that most Green voters see things the same way that I do, at least as crazy as I would have to be to assume that most Republican voters see things the way that I do.

But I would have to truly be off my rocker to believe that all Green voters are lost Democratic votes. The world doesn't work that way. Everyone has their own personal reasons for voting the way that they do. There are people who would simply join the majority of Americans who do not vote if their only choices in the polling booth were either a Democratic or Republican candidate. That's not my line of reasoning, but it can be theirs.

[Historic NY]

130. What has Jill Stein ever accomplished in electoral politics......

:largehttp://]

[Ken Burch]

156. She hasn't accomplished anything and I don't defend anything she does.

My point is that thread after thread that simply attack people for voting for her do nothing to help us in the future, and probably cause at least some who might listen to what we have to say to tune us out.

[Historic NY]

174. Exactly

[Corvo Bianco]

131. I thought there was a rule in DU that we can't bash 3rd parties.

Bullshit rule if you ask me. Carry on!

[Bettie]

135. I voted for one, a long time ago

in a local race where my choices were the Green or a Republican.

Guess I'm part of the problem then.

[Clarity2]

137. Have always

voted Democrat. Except once. My first time voting...my mother dragged me down when I turned 18 and told me to vote for a Republican.

She of course regrets that now. She's been a staunch democrat for a long time.

Like I've said, I will not abandon my party ever for these little offenses, unless the extreme happens, and their ideology changes completely to "republican like". I don't see that happening in my lifetime.

What's the alternative? Voting Republican (nope)? Voting Green/Independent/Other (nope...splinter the vote, and a republican may win).
If you want to save our country, you must vote for Democrats.

If the Democratic party was selling out the country to the Russians, killing regulations & protections that support the average citizen, talking about removing safety nets like Medicare/SS/Medicaid, blocking voter rights, tampering with elections, at risk of becoming a plutocracy, etc, I would be doing the opposite. So I think it is every Republicans DUTY to vote for Democrats to save our country.

[NurseJackie]

143. Also... THOSE WHO PROTECT, SHIELD and DEFEND them are also IDIOTS!!

I've seen and read the words of many people who continually defend Sarandon, Stain, and Green-voters and other assorted non-Democratic-party voters. Anyone who does such a thing is a sympathizer and enabler. Sarandon and other assorted Green voters DO NOT DESERVE to be coddled.

[alarimer]

145. Half the country doesn't bother to vote at all!

THEY are the ones that make a difference each and every time. You are assuming Steins's voters would have voted for Clinton. There is no evidence that that is true.

As far as I am concerned, it is absolutists that are the problem. Name-calling is not going to get you want you want, no matter how loudly you scream.

THIS is McCarthyism. "Are you now, or have you ever been a..."?

[VOX]

169. The Stein voters COULD have voted for Clinton.

It’s not about making them vote for Hillary. It’s about them refusing to look at the big picture, and thus not grasping the multiple indicators on display that Trump would be incredibly destructive for the country (now an absolute).

If serious Green Party voters had used common sense, they’d have understood that Trump, and not Clinton, would do significant damage to the climate, the environment, women’s right to choose, minority rights, healthcare, etc. 2000 should have been a signal lesson in showing the damage a third-party candidacy does to democracy.

But the Greens remained pure, voted with their pure ideals. Just one more nail in the coffin of democracy.

[Jamaal510]

162. Seem to

be quite a few feathers being ruffled on a Democratic messaging forum about an OP that specifically targets Greens...

[milestogo]

170. Even worse than if you voted Republican, because....

because DU is really irrational on this subject.

[PragmaticDem]

172. Amen! A vote for the Greens is vote for the GOP.

[chwaliszewski]

181. Actually, your statement is incorrect.

A vote for the Greens is a vote for the Greens. Nothing more.

[PragmaticDem]

188. No my statement s correct.

These so called greens say they are voting on principles but their actions actually help elect Republicans. By not voting Democratic they dilute the vote on the left and help elect Republicans.

Not principled but fools!

[chwaliszewski]

191. We can agree to disagree on this.

[jzodda]

179. Lets look at all the great things the Greens have given us

They gave us

Bush and Trump tax scams

Iraq war and then ISIS

Financial meltdown

and now the worst of all a deranged President whose damage will be long lasting.

Without them we have 8 years of Gore and now Clinton. Would it be perfect? NO! nothing ever is but we could have avoided so much nonsense. The past year has been a disaster that makes GW Bush actually seem Presidential in comparison. Thats no small feat.

[Tarheel_Dem]

180. Yes! And anyone objecting to your message is not here as an ally. The Greens are an oppositional...

party just like the Republicans. If I talk shit about one, I can talk shit about the other. I don't know why anyone would think these people (Greens) are our allies. Why would anyone make that mistake after 2000?

[Blue_true]

197. I agree. Greens and anyone that subscribe to their philosophy are our rivals.

Our core values encompass everything they CLAIM to believe in, except we get meaningful results.

[Dorian Gray]

182. What has little chance of getting people to listen to you?

calling them stupid....

Seriously.

[aikoaiko]

194. Oh, stop pouting and get to work.

[Blue_true]

195. Couldn't Wisconsin have been flipped also? nt

[musicblind]

200. Never forget.

And believe me, we won't.

[flamingdem]

202. She's suspect, that's for sure

What the hell was she doing hanging out with Vlad?