Is Jill Stein Going to "Ruin It?"

[abaddon]

Blaming Stein if Trump wins would of course be the most stupid and irrational response, but since when is American politics not stupid and irrational?

Yep, and blaming third party voters.

Ultimately I’d rather vote in whatever ways might change how American politics is to something with more choices. I can't this year, because democrats need their asses saved again.

People want to constrict my choices and they come up with the “here’s your only two practical choices so choose wisely” stuff. If the democrats need to be saved every time an idiot or lunatic might become president, that’s not the fault of persons who don't like the two-party system. Yeah, the consequences of a Trump presidency would be horrible. So do better or accept the blame for not doing better. Don't use the horribleness of the republican candidates as a reason that third party voters should have to compromise with the idiotic system they'd like to change more fundamentally.

 

[blastula]

Why is nobody asking if Gary Johnson will "ruin it" for Trump? I think that is more likely, since he still polls higher than Stein does.

Johnson pulls evenly from Clinton and Trump voters.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I don't think I wrote "ruin it for Clinton" anyway...so I am not sure why this has come up. I will ask Jolly Penguin:
if Donald Trump wins will you feel like something has been ruined other than Clinton's Ascendency?

 

[Angry Floof]

Blaming Stein if Trump wins would of course be the most stupid and irrational response, but since when is American politics not stupid and irrational?

Yep, and blaming third party voters.

Ultimately I’d rather vote in whatever ways might change how American politics is to something with more choices. I can't this year, because democrats need their asses saved again.

People want to constrict my choices and they come up with the “here’s your only two practical choices so choose wisely” stuff. If the democrats need to be saved every time an idiot or lunatic might become president, that’s not the fault of persons who don't like the two-party system. Yeah, the consequences of a Trump presidency would be horrible. So do better or accept the blame for not doing better. Don't use the horribleness of the republican candidates as a reason that third party voters should have to compromise with the idiotic system they'd like to change more fundamentally.

Yes, that's another aspect of Jill Stein's job to consider: as a third party, she has the additional job of shaking up to whatever extent possible the current two-party stranglehold. You can't blame Stein or her voters. I agree.

I still will beg them to save our asses again this time, though.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't think I wrote "ruin it for Clinton" anyway...so I am not sure why this has come up. I will ask Jolly Penguin:
if Donald Trump wins will you feel like something has been ruined other than Clinton's Ascendency?

Yes. Comedians across the nation will weep if Trump loses. They will orgasm if he wins.

His loss would also be a missed opportunity to dramatically shake things up in a "burn it all down" sort of way. A lot of your people are looking for that. Hillary is the ultimate insider and that is one reason she is reviled. You had 2 Bushes and now 2 Clintons? And this is supposed to be a Democracy?

I actually think a Trump win could change the future of your political system even if he himself didn't finish his 4 years due to impeachment or losing interest or whatever.

 

[ronburgundy]

There is only one way to prevent a Trump presidency, and that is to vote for Hillary. Any action (or inaction) other than that objectively makes a Trump presidency more likely

Trump is analogous to a nuclear missile that has already been fired toward the US. Hillary is analogous to firing a counter-measure that will destroy that missile.
Stein (and voting for Stein) is analogous to killing the only person that could fire that counter-measure.

Sure, the counter-measure is far from perfect, but the initial nuclear missile is infinitely worse and will cause far more damage. Those that prevent the counter-measure (Stein and all who vote for her) are morally culpable for all the added damage that the missile causes.

 

[ronburgundy]

I don't think I wrote "ruin it for Clinton" anyway...so I am not sure why this has come up. I will ask Jolly Penguin:
if Donald Trump wins will you feel like something has been ruined other than Clinton's Ascendency?

Yes. Comedians across the nation will weep if Trump loses. They will orgasm if he wins.

His loss would also be a missed opportunity to dramatically shake things up in a "burn it all down" sort of way. A lot of your people are looking for that. Hillary is the ultimate insider and that is one reason she is reviled. You had 2 Bushes and now 2 Clintons? And this is supposed to be a Democracy?

I actually think a Trump win could change the future of your political system even if he himself didn't finish his 4 years due to impeachment or losing interest or whatever.

Trump will do nothing but give the GOP additional power. The idea that his presidency will do anything to improve the system is pathetically moronic. It is equal to saying that a feud between two families that use rifles against each other can be "solved" by giving one of the families a nuclear bomb. There is zero chance of impeachment. He will determine the next 4 justices out of 9 on our Supreme Court.

 

[Tigers!]

Based upon what I have seen nothing could ruin it more than the 2 candidates have already done.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Now that the election is days away, Johnson and the Libertarians are losing support as people seem to realize Trump is too dangerous to allow to win. Stein's support seems to be wilting also. It's possible that the fear of a Trump presidency will be a last moment phenomena that elects Clinton and dooms third parties to irrelevance.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Now that the election is days away, Johnson and the Libertarians are losing support as people seem to realize Trump is too dangerous to allow to win. Stein's support seems to be wilting also. It's possible that the fear of a Trump presidency will be a last moment phenomena that elects Clinton and dooms third parties to irrelevance.

Third parties are all ready irrelevant and it has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with the rules for getting on ballots and voting. Rules written and enforced by democratic and republican politicians.

 

[Derec]

Third parties are all ready irrelevant and it has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with the rules for getting on ballots and voting. Rules written and enforced by democratic and republican politicians.

Ballot access is not that big an issue - after all, Johnson/Weld are on the ballot in all 50 states I think, and if not, they are on in most.
The issue is the voting system though - single member districts in the House with first past the post not only favor a two party system but also discourage third party voting due to the spoiler effect. The only way a smaller party can make a big impact is if it is regionally strong - think SNP in the UK.
With presidential election the lack of a runoff also discourages third party voting as well. In France, voting for a smaller party canddiate initially does no hard because if no candidate wins 50%, there is a runoff with top two.

 

[Derec]

I think that a big win will be the only way that she won't ignore her liberal base. If she wins big, it would mean that she has to negotiate with a Dem congress and it would mean that the liberal base came out to vote. A small win means that the GOP keeps one or both of the houses and she's talking to them to pass laws instead of talking to Democratic legislators. It would also mean that the liberal base aren't a reliable group of voters who need to be strongly considered and the electoral math works better if she caters to soft Republicans. She doesn't care about the left anymore than she cares about the right. She'll work with whomever she ends up working with and the policies which result will reflect that.

Then here is hoping she wins as narrowly as possible. The Democratic base has become as lunatic as scary as the Republican. There is nothing truly liberal about them. Racial radicals (#BlackLivesMatter), open border types, radical ecomentalists ("no pipelines", "keep it in the ground"), Israel haters (BDS etc.) radical feminists etc.

 

[Derec]

[picture of a facepalm]

What exactly makes you facepalm Athena? Are you denying that the anti-DAPL idiots are pushing Jill Stein hard?
Have you heard that an Indian from Washington who is part of Hillary's roster of electors has said that he will not vote for Hillary?
Washington state elector says he won't vote for Clinton

 

[bilby]

 

[Derec]

View attachment 8639

 

[ZiprHead]

Trump wins Michigan by 15,000 votes. Stein got 51,000 votes.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Trump wins Michigan by 15,000 votes. Stein got 51,000 votes.

So, once again, it's the third party candidates who are the problem and the Democrats don't need to make any changes.

 

[LordKiran]

Trump wins Michigan by 15,000 votes. Stein got 51,000 votes.

So, once again, it's the third party candidates who are the problem and the Democrats don't need to make any changes.

I mean it also relies on a few assumptions:

1. that gary johnson (Who got way more support than stein) didn't pull just as many people away from trump if not more

and 2. that at least 15k of the people who voted for stein would have voted for hillary instead

Not entirely unreasonable assumptions but yeah.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

So, once again, it's the third party candidates who are the problem and the Democrats don't need to make any changes.

I mean it also relies on a few assumptions:

1. that gary johnson (Who got way more support than stein) didn't pull just as many people away from trump if not more

and 2. that at least 15k of the people who voted for stein would have voted for hillary instead

Not entirely unreasonable assumptions but yeah.

While mathematically true, it ignores the heart of the issue that the Dems face - they didn't appeal to these voters. They didn't feel that Hillary Clinton would advocate for the positions that they think are important. They may have been right or they may have been wrong, but it's Clinton and the Dems who couldn't close the deal with them.

 

[LordKiran]

I mean it also relies on a few assumptions:

1. that gary johnson (Who got way more support than stein) didn't pull just as many people away from trump if not more

and 2. that at least 15k of the people who voted for stein would have voted for hillary instead

Not entirely unreasonable assumptions but yeah.

While mathematically true, it ignores the heart of the issue that the Dems face - they didn't appeal to these voters. They didn't feel that Hillary Clinton would advocate for the positions that they think are important. They may have been right or they may have been wrong, but it's Clinton and the Dems who couldn't close the deal with them.

I don't disagree with that either. Clinton's biggest problem is that of feeling entitled to her party's voter base. But this is a new age with a new generation who wont be extorted into supporting a lackluster candidate out of fear of 'the other guy winning'.