398

"How has Stein fared as a leader? By AOC’s perfectly reasonable standard, she’s done abysmally. As of July 2024, a mere 143 officeholders in the United States are affiliated with the Green Party. None of them are in statewide or federal offices. In fact, no Green Party candidate has ever won federal office. And Stein’s reign has been a period of indisputable decline, during which time the party’s membership—which peaked in 2004 at 319,000 registered members—has fallen to 234,000 today.

This meager coalition can’t possibly kick-start a legitimate political movement, capable of organizing voters and advancing ideas outside of perennial electoral events. It’s just large enough, however, to spoil the work of those who put in this kind of work."

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 1 month ago

Because for as long as they remain an available alternative to the democrats, they place pressure on them to address their policy shortfalls.

The real question is why the Democrats have suddenly decided they are an unacceptable threat, despite their declining registrations numbers.

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago

The real question is why the Democrats have suddenly decided they are an unacceptable threat, despite their declining registrations numbers.

Because the polling is currently a toss up between Trump and Harris. And the closer the race, the easier it is for spoiler candidates to spoil the vote. Hence the panic.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 1 month ago

The last three or four elections have been 'toss-ups', though. Basically since the Greens were a party.

Previously, though, democrats were fairly dismissive, and I'd say even moderately receptive to addressing or responding to their main grievances. Democrats even adopted the Green New Deal from them as recently as 2018.

It's not an exaggeration to say that the democrats have had a very sudden change in tone around the green party, right at a time when their platform is making a swing to the right. I think it's fair to speculate that someone made a calculated decision to abandon any effort to match or compete with the greens on policy and instead attack them on the basis of their opposition.

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 3 points 1 month ago

right at a time when their platform is making a swing to the right.

It's also right at a time when the conservatives have been at an all time high with their open fervor for fascism.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social -1 points 1 month ago

Best to quietly affirm their fears of immigrants, then, amirite?

A classic 'missing the forest for the trees' moment if ever there was one.

[-] Olgratin_Magmatoe@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago

I agree that it's a stupid ass decision/strategy. But you can't ignore other parts of the context.

[-] archomrade@midwest.social 0 points 1 month ago

If the context is a growing fascist movement in the US, appeasement isn't exactly a strategy we would be hoping to see.

this post was submitted on 21 Sep 2024
398 points (93.1% liked)

politics

19132 readers
3966 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS