I don't like Jill Stein or support the Green "spoiler strategy" but let's be honest about it.

[Attorney in Texas]

172. I see the issue the same way you do. I'd rather have them in the tent pissing out than outside the

tent pissing in.

The overwhelming majority of my friends are Democrats, and among those few friends who are not Democrats, most are Greens (I have few friends who are Republicans and none of my friends are really Libertarian -- the few who describe themselves as "Libertarians" vote Republican without exception as far as I can tell so I count them as Republicans).

None of my Green friends (and family) support Trump. They are all appalled by Trump. They are pretty consistently voting for Stein, and -- of course -- they all know she is not going to win (they also think there is no chance Trump is going to win either).

Hillary didn't "lose" their vote; a year ago, they were going to vote Green unless Warren ran, and then after Warren declined to run they all got excited about Bernie, but they were never more than potential Green party voters who had a fall-to-summer fling flirting with becoming Democratic crossovers but who have now gone back home to their Green party.

They are progressive by every dictionary or poly sci textbook definition. They are not "fuckers" or "spoilers" or "busters" or "privileged elite exercising the indulgence of a protest vote." They just look on Hillary more-or-less the same way I look on Kasich (who is someone I find pretty agreeable and not incompetent for a political candidate who shares neither my core values nor my idea of which pathway the country should take).

I am trying to get them to vote Democratic in key down-ballot races, and they all seem fairly open to that idea. Demonizing Green party voters does not help us persuade them to join us in down-ballot races.

I don't understand why so many here disparage the idea that we should

(1) reach out to Libertarians and explain how much of our party platform matches better with their values than a Trump authoritarian state would;
(2) reach out to the dwindling remains of the moderate wing of the Republican party and explain how our ticket embraces much of the international trade and foreign policy ideas that used to be more closely associated with the Republican party;
(3) reach out to Greens and explain how much of our party platform moves the country in a direction that may not be parallel to the Green party pathway but which is - at least - not driving the country in the polar opposite direction on a majority of issues (which is how Trump would attempt to govern).

We have tough Senate races in AZ, CO, FL, GA, IL, IN, IA, MO, NV, NH, NC, OH, PA, and WI as well as tight House races in AK-at large, AZ1, AZ2, CA21, CA25, CA49, CO6, FL2, FL7, FL10, FL13, FL18, FL26, IL3, IL10, IN9, IA1, KS3, ME2, MI6, MI8, MN2, MN3, NV3, NV4, NH1, NJ5, NY1, NY3, NY19, NY21, NY22, NY24, PA8, PA16, SC5, TX23, UT4, VA5, and WI8.

Winning half of these races would make a real difference in what we could accomplish, and winning two-thirds of these races would enable an incredible change. On the other hand, winning just a third of these races would mean gridlock even if we win the White House.

We should not vilify those voters who can help us take back the Senate and win key seats in the House. That should not be a controversial statement.