Well here we go again. Jill Stein for Spoiler 2024

I voted for Johnson. I was pissed that the Republicans let Trump win by turning the debates into roasts. I was pissed the the Democrats didn’t have a real nomination process because somehow it was owed to her.

I could afford to vote for a protest candidate. Hilary was winning my state no matter what. If I lived in a battleground state there’s no way I would have voted that way. I can’t help but think if you are voting third party in an obvious battleground state you’re not voting mainstream with a gun to your head. True believers don’t have nuanced points of view.

I did the same. If I had a time machine I wouldn’t have. But…

Same with me. I live in a blue state and we’re going to vote for the Democrat for POTUS no matter what. So it didn’t actually make a difference.

I am one of those people who voted for Stein…twice.

It is a misconception that the Greens don’t run anyone but a presidential candidate, Currently 136 Greens are serving in local elected office, who were elected to those offices. Another three have been appointed to elected office, and six more joined the Green Party after being elected.

The reason this is not more well known should be obvious. Until this year, the Green Party has gotten very little coverage in the media. Even when candidates are arrested for participating in various events that are important to that party, and many times important to the public who may be dissatisfied with the major party in which they’re registered, the media chooses to ignore them so everybody will say “they do nothing but come out every four years and spoil the vote for the REAL candidates”. The candidates that do get any coverage are those running for president, who are generally covered in order to mock them/blame them for what is perceived as “taking votes from the rightful candidates”. Truthfully, no one I know who voted for Stein would in any case have voted for Clinton, or Trump, for that matter. It is the height of arrogance to think that anyone owes any candidate their votes. Votes do not belong to a candidate, they belong to the voters. Candidates claiming a “loss” because someone exercised their right to reject those candidates that they see as unfit is a poor, but easy and effective, excuse for their own failings.

Like so much other information lacking in general knowledge is the answer to why Greens run a presidential candidate every time, and that reason is ballot access. In some states, ballot access is dependent on the vote a third party candidate received in the previous presidential election. In 2016, Greens were able to achieve ballot access in 44 states, which is a hell of a lot of work, and not an easy nor inexpensive process. Signature lists that have been gathered for access are routinely challenged in court. Third parties and independent candidates try to gather more signatures than they need because of this very practice. And you would be surprised at the nit picking reasons some are challenged. Things such as the wrong font on the signature forms, that the voter signed their names John Smith, when his driver’s license says John X. Smith, even though addresses and phone numbers are included, and that the petitions are submitted in a manila envelope and not “fastened in a secure and suitable manner”. Even if the challenge is overcome, the challenger still comes out ahead, having wasted the scant resources of money, man hours and time to comply with the 51 different ballot access procedures that are required by, and sometimes adjudicated by the very parties that are the challengers.Those resources could otherwise go to election of party members. It may be

This brings me to one more thing people don’t generally take into consideration when assessing how committed, organized or serious Greens are, and that is that Green Party candidates don’t take corporate money. Ever. This is not the case with the Libertarians, to whom the Greens are frequently compared, nor of Mr. Kennedy. Greens fight, because they don’t want to abandon their principles. They fight hard, with one hand tied behind their backs, and shackles on their feet.their efforts are stymied any way the major parties (who make all election and campaign law) can conceive of.

And finally, if either major party candidate can’t get enough votes to get elected, maybe their party should choose better candidates or have better platforms. Many people just stay home rather than help elect people who don’t deserve it.

Oh…and just as an aside, 300,000 Democratic voters voted for Bush in Florida in 2000. That beats the 97,000 votes Nader got by a long shot. Still, it was all Nader’s fault. There is so much more I could write but this is already way too long. Sorry I had so much to say.

And thus the glaring design flaw, but then there was no way they could have foreseen how the political demographics would play out after 231 years.

It make lead to a final breakup of the country, particularly if an electoral college tie results in an election being decided by a heavily gerrymandered right wing House.

There was a rule (possibly a law) that a territory had to have a population at least equal to the current smallest state before it would be admitted as a state. That rule was abandoned (I believe by the Democrats) when one party saw a chance to admit a new state that would give them two extra Senators. I believe it was one of Utah/Nevada/Wyoming.

There also should not be two Dakotas (same sort of thing IIRC).

Why are there two Dakotas? I thought it had something to do with the Dakota and Lakota Sioux. They both think the other guys talk funny.

I’d like to know how the pollsters are phrasing the questions, if they’re getting 24%.

No there wasn’t, not that I can find at least. The closest was the Northwest Ordinance which was established in 1787 (so it predated even the US Constitution). It established a minimum population of 60,000 before a territory could be admitted into statehood. As best as I can tell that has never been repealed, but was reaffirmed a couple of times and referenced in later legal findings.

It was a form of gerrymandering on Grover Cleveland’s part as he was leaving office.

On February 22, 1889, outgoing President Cleveland signed an omnibus bill that divided the Territory of Dakota in half. North Dakota and South Dakota became states simultaneously on November 2, 1889. President Harrison had the papers shuffled to obscure which one was signed first and the order went unrecorded. The bill also enabled the people in the new Territories of North Dakota and South Dakota, as well as the older territories of Montana and Washington, to write state constitutions and elect state governments. The four new states would be admitted into the Union in nine months. This plan cut Democratic New Mexico out of statehood and split Republican Dakota Territory into two new Republican states. Rather than two new Republican states and two new Democratic states that Congress had considered the previous year, the omnibus bill created three new Republican states and one new Democratic state that Republicans thought they would capture.

To this day I cannot figure out the loathing of Hillary Clinton. I’m not a devoted fan anymore than I am of any candidate. I found her smart, her proposed policies good though not as progressive as I like, and capable, also not crazy. She was not at all charismatic, but I don’t need charisma. I need someone who knows how to do government and who thinks governing is important. I don’t understand how she thought she was “entitled” to the nomination or the presidency. I have always thought there was a lot of misogyny surrounding this particular view of Clinton.

I would ask people, “Why don’t you like Clinton?” no one I can remember could ever articulate a specific reason why. I know a few people who voted for Stein because Bernie didn’t get the nom. I thought it was stupid then and I think anyone voting third party this time around is asking for trump 2.0.

Speaking of spoilers, Cornel West a.k.a. “Brother West” is running again.*

Narcissistic campaigns from the left and right (West has been seeking support from right-wing types) may just cancel out this time.

*peculiarly, The Nation link describes RFK Jr. as opposing “many” vaccines, when he’s actually against all of them.

“It’s Her Turn.”

Note that Hillary Clinton never used this term but it was allegedly discussed as a campaign slogan, and many of her boosters and campaigners used it informally. Hillary repeatedly expressed surprise that she wasn’t blasting her competition (first Bernie Sanders, then Trump) in the poles as if it was obvious that most people would vote for her.

There’s no doubt some misogyny in how she is treated for this as a male candidate can get away with a lot of overt narcissism (witness both challengers above) but it was off-putting from someone who many believed was cruising on name recognition, never mind Clinton’s legislative work in the Senate, her tenure (albeit problematic) as Secretary of State, and all of the behind the scenes organising work she did to get Bill Clinton elected as governor and president twice each. Ultimately, her biggest error was chasing after the donor class and not spending the effort to address actual voters who (with justification) felt abandoned by the Democratic party and Bill Clinton in particular. Fair or not, that was the political reality, and Hillary Clinton acted like it shouldn’t matter even after she lost.

Stranger

On the other side, Romney and McCain both seemed “entitled” as well, but it didn’t seem to hurt them. Some misogyny indeed.

I mean, they both lost, but running against Obama tends to turn out that way.

Honestly, my problem with Hillary Clinton is that she played the part of the dutiful political wife until she was absolutely sure her husband was finished. Why didn’t she run for president - or for anything, really - in 1992? Was he more qualified than her? If that’s so, what does it say that she wanted lead the country, while not being the first choice for leader in her own home? Is that who America wants for its first female President?

Go find an interview she did with Bill back in the day. The one with the extended “Rodham” spiel.
She’s smug personified.

Seriously I don’t think she was all that smug. She just lacks charisma. I don’t think she’s ever been anymore entitled, smug, or pushy than any other politician. YMM obviously V.

I appreciate the passion and commitment you obviously bring to your support of the Green Party. But you fail to address how this passion and commitment can – and has – set back progress in the areas the party supposedly cares most about.

No one can doubt that the Trump administration was far more damaging to environmental concerns than a Hillary Clinton administration would have been. Yet in 2016 thousands of swing state Green voters chose the perfect over the good – or even the good over the neutral – and helped elect Trump. Voting for their ideals instead of the lesser evil helped the greater evil prevail.

You don’t say what state you live in, and if it’s a safe blue (or red) state, I say go for it. But I will never forgive these swing state Greens.

It was the same idea, but this time it was the Republicans’ doing. Of course, in 1889 the Republicans weren’t much like the Republicans of today, and similarly with the Democrats.

Fun fact: when the statehood papers for both Dakotas were brought to President Benjamin Harrison for his signatures, he shuffled them so no one would know which one first became a state.

Both Romney and McCain had to go through a nomination process and defeat multiple candidates from within the party. McCain had to defeat Romney along with others. Whether or not they felt entitled in their hearts wasn’t relevant. They had to earn the nomination. Clinton had no credible party opposition. The party wanted to hand the nomination to her without earning it through a true nomination process. If it wasn’t for a candidate who was an independent right up to the minute he ran she wouldn’t have had to work for the nomination at all.

Well, obviously that means she felt entitled. Seriously, I was OK with Clinton as a candidate, but I would have preferred someone more progressive. However, this constant bitching about how she felt, and thought because of how other people behaved just perplexes me. This stuff happens in both parties regularly. Why was it such an affront to so many people and personal failure on her part this one time?

Misogyny, much of it subconscious. For example:

Honestly, my problem with Hillary Clinton is that she played the part of the dutiful political wife until she was absolutely sure her husband was finished. Why didn’t she run for president - or for anything, really - in 1992? Was he more qualified than her? If that’s so, what does it say that she wanted lead the country, while not being the first choice for leader in her own home? Is that who America wants for its first female President?

Not calling out this poster, because they are a decent person, but this post demonstrates the subtle bigotry women face, even by people who’d never be consciously sexist. If a woman is too self confident, she’s called smug or worse. But if she has any priorities other than her own advancement, then she’s not being a real leader. The needle is often too narrow to thread.

As a practical matter, my default position is to vote for the woman, simply because any woman who’s reached the point of running for office is going to be more competent than any man at the same point.