The Jill Stein Discussion thread

[Formless]

It was brought up in the Presidential election poll, but someone thought it might be possible that no one votes for third party or independent candidates in the USA because very few people have heard of them. First, I have a poll up there to see how much this is true here on SDN of a specific candidate (Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate for 2012). You can also vote for "other" if there is another politician out there who you think needs more publicity-- but please not Ron Paul. We all know about Ron Paul already.

Second, if you are familiar with Jill Stein and like her politics, please feel free to explain why. If you don't like her politics, again, that is what this thread is here for. Creating discussion of a politician that doesn't get talked about for reasons that may not be entirely fair (like the fact advertising costs money).

Third, if you voted "Other-- I am familiar with third party candidate X", please tell us who this politician is and what you think about them. Again, we've already had lots of discussion about Ron Paul, so he can't really be called "obscure". Besides, he's technically a Republican.

Oh, and lastly, lets leave Obama, Romney, and the main two parties out of this discussion if possible. I want this thread to be about pure politics, and not get bogged down by the fact that these politicians are unfamiliar or "unlikely to be voted into office". We know that already. Lets talk about something new.

OR to put it another way:

Seriously, who are they?

(Yes, I could look it up, but maybe they should be talked about here if they're going to be listed as poll options)

In fact, you know what? This argument [Vote for Obama because he's not Romney/third party candidates will never win so don't vote for them] pisses me off so much, here's what I am going to do. Make a thread for discussing Jill Stein, and only for discussing Jill Stein. Because that seems like the only way to get away from this kind of red herring for even ten minutes. It does at least seem like it has worked for Ron Paul in the past, even if the consensus was that he sucks donkey balls. I'll be back with that shortly.

[General Zod]

Okay, so what's she accomplished?

[Haruko]

For a while now I felt that some of the pressure groups in the halls of Congress may have instead chosen to become Parties if the atmosphere was conducive enough. In other words, it seems more worthwhile to be a pressure group rather than a Party.

And this is my first time hearing about Jill Stein.

[eion]

I do like the Green New Deal she advocates. Government investment is a great way to make clean energy economically viable. I'm concerned though at her paying for it by cutting the military budget by 30%, not because I don't think it needs trimming, but because a cut that deep will have a massive economic impact in the form of base closures and factory shutdowns. While the factory shutdowns can be accounted for by retooling them for production of green goods, the base shutdowns are more problematic and I really do need more details before I could support such a plan. If the plan is to spur economic growth by investing in green technology I would hate for that to happen by killing of the local economies of military towns.

[Col. Crackpot]

I do like the Green New Deal she advocates. Government investment is a great way to make clean energy economically viable. I'm concerned though at her paying for it by cutting the military budget by 30%, not because I don't think it needs trimming, but because a cut that deep will have a massive economic impact in the form of base closures and factory shutdowns. While the factory shutdowns can be accounted for by retooling them for production of green goods, the base shutdowns are more problematic and I really do need more details before I could support such a plan. If the plan is to spur economic growth by investing in green technology I would hate for that to happen by killing of the local economies of military towns.

indeed. The lost jobs would most profoundly affect the working poor as it would be hardest for them to replace lost jobs with their limited education and skill set. Restaurant and diner workers, dry cleaners, grocery clerks etc. With the base closures there would no longer be a need for the support network that sprung up around the bases and the towns around these bases would crumble.

[Guardsman Bass]

I do like the Green New Deal she advocates. Government investment is a great way to make clean energy economically viable. I'm concerned though at her paying for it by cutting the military budget by 30%, not because I don't think it needs trimming, but because a cut that deep will have a massive economic impact in the form of base closures and factory shutdowns. While the factory shutdowns can be accounted for by retooling them for production of green goods, the base shutdowns are more problematic and I really do need more details before I could support such a plan. If the plan is to spur economic growth by investing in green technology I would hate for that to happen by killing of the local economies of military towns.

A cut like that would be completely impossible without Congressional support, so it's not going to happen anyways - not unless we're in a situation where the Green Party controls a majority or near-majority in Congress.

Honestly, rating Presidents over their domestic policy plans is usually not that useful except in terms of "will they sign X bill?", "what will they do with executive orders?", or "who will they appoint to high office?" Presidents can't do anything in Congress unless Congress happens to agree that it's an important issue and brings up a bill to do something.

[Grumman]

While I would expect to be happy with either as President, at this point Gary Johnson would be my pick.

The biggest problem I have with Stein is that both Wikipedia and her own website make her look like a cardboard cutout. With Johnson, I know he supports same-sex marriage, expanded legal immigration and drug law reform, opposes the War on Terror and security theatre, and that he's an athlete who has used medical marijuana. With Stein, only three things caught my eye: the Green New Deal, the way she wants to fund the Green New Deal (by cutting military spending and soaking the rich) and that she was arrested last week at a protest. While I assume she supports same-sex marriage and civil rights, she hasn't done a good enough job of saying so.

[General Mung Beans]

While I would expect to be happy with either as President, at this point Gary Johnson would be my pick.

I like and respect Gary Johnson in many ways-he's much better than Ron Paul especially but I have big qualms about him especially on taxes (Governor Johnson wants a "FairTax") and foreign policy.

[Grumman]

Ghetto edit: I found what I was looking for - it was on her "Green New Deal" page. Since I assumed the "Green New Deal" was her environmental and economic plan and not everything, I didn't look there the first time. A more intuitive choice would be to mimic other candidates and just call the thing "Issues" or "Political Positions".

[Simon_Jester]

I like her platform, but if she had political savvy she'd be trying to take over the Democrats and get what she wanted done anyway.

[Faqa]

Well, she doesn't have the savvy to take over a major political party. Do you necessarily think that translates into not being able to be a political leader? I think the two skillsets are very different.

[Irbis]

Well, she doesn't have the savvy to take over a major political party. Do you necessarily think that translates into not being able to be a political leader? I think the two skillsets are very different.

She may be savviest leader in the world, but without any seats in legislature it means exactly nothing.

And no, never heard of her until now.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, she doesn't have the savvy to take over a major political party. Do you necessarily think that translates into not being able to be a political leader? I think the two skillsets are very different.

I think they're related. A leader needs to be able to figure out how to get bits of your agenda done even when the Big Meanies are saying "no, we'll vote against this or filibuster it or veto it." They need to be able to predict what other people are thinking, and how their actions will affect the public's opinion.

There's no use in having a grand technocratic vision of how you'd remake the country if you were an absolute monarch adored by all. Even dictators don't get to do it that way. There's a reason dictators maintain unpopular regime protection forces and torture people, even though obviously it doesn't help them win the Miss Congeniality awards, and doesn't make their country richer or stronger.

Now, it's not totally simple. A bad politician might make a good ruler or vice versa. But if I'm so tone-deaf or self-righteous that I'd rather be a big fish in the small pond of Greens instead of a small fish in the big pond of Democrats... That is not a good thing to put on my resume as a would-be political leader.

[CaptHawkeye]

I like this woman honestly, but splitting the election is a guaranteed way to get Romney in office. The Republicans already view voting for a Democratic candidate to be tantamount to high treason. They will not be losing any of their votes to a Green Party Candidate and that's that. Left leaning folk in the country have their hearts in the right place wanting Stein even over Obama, but she won't win. And if she gets a lot of support that'll cripple Obama. Again, I chose the socially progressive tyrant.

[CaptHawkeye]

I like her platform, but if she had political savvy she'd be trying to take over the Democrats and get what she wanted done anyway.

The Democrats are honestly a Centrist party with occasional right-wing leaning. Though their right-wing features are usually just cross party voter pandering. I would not expect this woman to join a party she did not really feel a part of deep down. I think it's time Americans entertained the idea of a replacement party for the Republicans. Since if things continue the way they are the Republicans will continue to lose supporters as their party base dwindles due to apathy, disillusionment, and plain ol death. The party may just spend a few years in the background and make a comeback, but it may not. In either case, I think it's time a proper Left Wing party sat in the Capitol. Of course first "Left" Americans have to start looking inwards and realizing how left wing they aren't.

Additionally this hinges on the Republicans losing the 2012 election of course.

[Lord Revan]

And the thing is even in systems with more then 2 parties like the finnish system for example, minor-parties (what would be more or less the equilevant of US third party) candidates have very small chances of getting their policies thru.

and IIRC the US president can't really do any major policy changes without the support of the congress, though I'll be the first to admit I'm nowhere close to even resembling an expert on US politics.

[Channel72]

People complain a lot about the current US system, and how it's broken and everything (which it is) - but the real problem is unfortunately much more fundamental. I'm voting for Obama because I know Jill Stein has no chance of winning, and we can blame the "First Past the Post" voting system, or the Electoral College, or whatever, and while these are all definitely problems, the fundamental fact remains that most Americans are fundamentally conservative people. I mean, seriously, half the country doesn't even accept evolution.

And that's something that will only change slowly over time. This is why I always say the best voting strategy has nothing to do with what ballot you cast, but it has to do with how you use your time to slowly influence other people for the better. Getting involved in organizations or movements that promote progressive thinking, donating to progressive causes, etc., is a much more effective use of your time and energy than just delusionally voting for some candidate who has literally zero chance of ever winning an election.

[Blayne]

Actually from what I've heard if every eligible voter were to vote, then based on their issues and political leanings Congress would move so far left that the Democrats would inevitably split and still the Republicans would never have a chance to win power ever again.

Arguably some of the problems are partially solved just by increasing turnout.

What the progressive wing of the Democrats need to do is primary out Conservative democrats in Blue states, even one or two such victories would help bring progressive agenda to national discourse.

[Simon_Jester]

I like her platform, but if she had political savvy she'd be trying to take over the Democrats and get what she wanted done anyway.

The Democrats are honestly a Centrist party with occasional right-wing leaning.

The Republicans aren't really libertarians either, and Ron Paul differs from the 'generic Republican positions on a ton of issues, but he still ran for their presidential nomination. He didn't win, but he didn't do that badly for himself.

Though their right-wing features are usually just cross party voter pandering. I would not expect this woman to join a party she did not really feel a part of deep down.

There are a lot of Democrats who aren't noticeably to the right of Stein, and who remain with the party. They just don't run the party.

I think it's time Americans entertained the idea of a replacement party for the Republicans. Since if things continue the way they are the Republicans will continue to lose supporters as their party base dwindles due to apathy, disillusionment, and plain ol death. The party may just spend a few years in the background and make a comeback, but it may not.

I think it will rebound, but in a somewhat reimagined form. Exactly what that looks like I don't want to predict- I think the religious element may be stronger and the chronic distrust of government a bit weaker. We've got so many problems that are blatantly caused by corporations that within another 10-20 years, I don't think it will be credible to say that unregulated capitalism is the way to go.

Additionally this hinges on the Republicans losing the 2012 election of course.

Winning in 2012 may not be to the Republicans' advantage.

In 1964, the Republicans ran a man named Barry Goldwater, one of the founders of what we'd now call the 'conservative movement' in America. He lost the election badly to Lyndon Johnson- but this was arguably to the party's advantage. Because Republicans were out of power in the mid-60s, Johnson got a chance to enact a host of social programs that cost a lot of money... but he also got all the responsibility for the Vietnam War, which discredited him and the Democrats.

Meanwhile, the Republicans ran a more moderate string of people up through 1976: Nixon and Ford. The conservative movement continued to gain momentum behind the scenes, particularly at the state level. But the disaster of the Vietnam War, the social turmoil of the late 1960s, and the economic malaise of the 1970s weren't associated with the Republican right wing in most people's minds. So when the far right came back in 1980 saying 'big government' was the problem with America, no one had any experience of "yeah, we tried that under Goldwater and it was a disaster."

Some movements are better off not taking national power at the wrong time, because it serves to discredit them. The Republicans would probably have done better in 2008 if Bush hadn't won a second term, for instance- because they'd be able to blame the economic crash and the ongoing bungle of the Iraq War on Kerry.

[Covenant]

Actually from what I've heard if every eligible voter were to vote, then based on their issues and political leanings Congress would move so far left that the Democrats would inevitably split and still the Republicans would never have a chance to win power ever again.

Arguably some of the problems are partially solved just by increasing turnout.

What the progressive wing of the Democrats need to do is primary out Conservative democrats in Blue states, even one or two such victories would help bring progressive agenda to national discourse.

The problem is that very old people have basically nothing to do but sit around, watch FOX news, and vote. Which is what they do. They vote in primaries, they go to town halls, they're retired and they don't want to move and they care about what happens in their communities and they tend to be conservative or contrarian or just overly easy to terrify into voting for what they see as stability. My Grandpa wanted to vote for McCain because he thought Sarah Palin was spunky. This was after he had had a stroke so we were able to keep him home, but help us all, that man wanted to negate my vote because Grizzly Mama was cute to a 90 year old.

America is a deeply conservative place, but the overwhelming majority of potential left-leaning political power is lost because people who should vote don't. Some don't because they don't believe in the system, some because the candidates aren't Left enough, some because they work three jobs and don't pay attention except at presidential elections. I'm in the final category. Between family and work I don't really have the time to be involved in local politics, find out who supports what, vote for them and help push things in the directions I want... and along with that means that people like me won't or can't vote for third party candidates without feeling like we're hurting our own politics.

We need a system that gives me a chance to put in votes for more than one person. I'd happily vote for Ms. Stein over Romney, but not at the expense of the largest not-republican force out there. If I could throw out two votes I'd be more interested in who else was running. Hell, if I was able to list (in order) who I wanted to get my share then I'd be able to write down the a list of most left to most right in descending order of prominence. But we don't and we probably won't and I'll push for it but I'm probably boned. If I only have one vote and no compromises and no system where factions are assigned seats via national then I've got no literal choice and all and I must vote for Obama because the result is not going to be Jill Stein, it'll be Romney.

If everyone voted and all the lefties voted for Jill, she'd be in. But that's not going to happen and I still feel partially responsible for the time my vote went to Nader and I got Bushwacked.

[Sriad]

I'm familiar with the Green Party platform, know Jill Stein is the party candidate, so I basically know what she's about. In an instant run-off voting system I'd vote for her second after Gary Johnson (because I think he also mostly represents things I agree with, but with more open contempt for the ludicrous post-9-11 security measures taking over the USA and with more ability to implement policies piece-meal with our likely post-election Congress), and Obama third.

If I wasn't in a swing state I'd lodge a "protest vote" for Johnson... but I live in Colorado so it's not gonna happen this election cycle.

[Agent Sorchus]

If everyone voted and all the lefties voted for Jill, she'd be in. But that's not going to happen and I still feel partially responsible for the time my vote went to Nader and I got Bushwacked.

Here is why I don't buy the 2000 vote for Nader allowed Bush to beat Gore, because even in 2004 where Nader got demolished Bush still won handily. Hell even the Democratic Leader ship didn't believe this tripe at the time.

Democratic party strategist and Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) chair Al From expressed a different view. In the January 24, 2001, issue[73] of the DLC's Blueprint magazine,[74] he wrote, "I think they're wrong on all counts. The assertion that Nader's marginal vote hurt Gore is not borne out by polling data. When exit pollers asked voters how they would have voted in a two-way race, Bush actually won by a point. That was better than he did with Nader in the race."

So bullshit has been called. What people are ignoring is how the US Supreme Court threw the election in Bush's favor. Hell there were more Overvotes in Florida then there were votes for Nader. (Overvotes is when a ballot is marked twice in a location that is mark only one.) And nearly as many that had been thrown out by the mechanical counting machines.

And as a percent of the populace Kerry lost ground compared to Gore, which I would doubt if all the Nader supporters went Democrat in proportion to the populace. Instead I suspect they were poisoned by the 2000 election and dropped out of the active voting pool in larger numbers than those that jumped ship to the democrats, or they jumped to the Republicans.

Why Republicans? Because there are a fair number of areas that the common conservative voter actually trusts the greens more than the democrats, ie gun control. Even just the most basic element of the Green party platform has a large amount of appeal to the basic social conservative that enjoys the outdoors and believes that the 1890's were a better time due in no small part too the closer to nature living of the people then.

This is why I consider the dismissal of Third parties by Liberals to be so damn discouraging. There is no real mathematical or factual basis for it, only a gut level that sounds about right and by god we won't let it happen again. We as voters need to be better informed than that, need to place being properly informed at a higher level as liberals than that. Because otherwise we can easily be tricked into voting against anything that we would naturally support.

What does make me happy is that the Democrats are facing a very high turnover of the blue dogs in congress as compared to the progressives. This is where I am ready to vote democrat. Then again my other choice is Joe Coors .

[Covenant]

Well, I'm glad it didn't cause any damage in reality. I'd certainly like to destroy the two party system, having minority voices and marginal voices in the conduct of the country's management would help. As is we have too great a voice given to extreme elements that are then given the de facto seal of approval because a Republican who doesn't want to vote for Obama but doesn't like Fill-In-The-Blank does the same thing I do and makes it look (to me and others) like everyone on the Right is an immovable wad of fundamentalist crazies.

Coalition systems where several groups pull together on an issue-by-issue basis to pass things that the majority agree upon sound like a wonderful change from all-or-nothing deadlock. Nobody likes this, and even if a coalition system is not entirely superior it would at least make it seem like there was the possibility of working together in a coherent group. I hate it when a Democrat or two peels off to vote against their party on some kind of cultural issues nonsense. I'd much rather they exist in some nebulous "Conservative Democrat" party than on Blue Team. I'd like more options. MEH.

In any case, I'm not going to dispute your data. I'd certainly rather believe I did no damage and can indeed vote who I want to without worrying about it causing a kerfuffle. I still seriously doubt any third party candidates will be winners until we pave the way first, but paving the way should be a priority. I bet even the crazy right-wingers would be down for that, they'd be able to vote Libertarian or Evangelical or Freedom or whatever their parties are called.

[Skgoa]

An even better argument for voting for "outsiders" than that it doesn't matter that much is that it DOES matter. By voting for what you believe in, instead of what you think will win the election, you force politicions to gravitate to your point of view. (Well, depending on how many people share the same values, of course.) Germany is a good example: once the Greens came onto the scene, every major party got itself a pro-enbvironment stance. When The Left formed up from several parties/interest groups, there was a HUGE shift to the left. Our current "conservative" government has enacted policies that would have been far-left only few years ago. This is, in fact, the strategy the Pirate Party is following - so far it seems to be working.
So yeah, IMHO a system were you don't have to sacrifice everything you stand for just to win would be better than winner-takes-it-all.