478

“With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.”

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] SeattleRain@lemmy.world 1 points 2 minutes ago

Trump is gunna win and it will be your fault libs. Just like the first time. You ain't going to be able to spin your way out of this.

[-] nednobbins@lemm.ee 10 points 4 hours ago

Is she really responsible for the problems of the US Green party?

As near as I can tell the EU Green parties had a different trajectory. They initially started winning seats in parliaments on purely environmental platforms. Those MPs actually started pushing green agendas in various parliaments. That, in turn led to more people voting for them. Eventually that had to adopt policy positions beyond the environment and they tended to be pretty left.

The US never had Green party members in a position where they could actually do anything useful about the environment. That means they could never fulfill their primary goal in the US. So when they tried to branch out the same way the EU Green parties did, they just turned into a vague hodgepodge of leftists ideas.

Is there any suggestion that Jill Stein's replacement would have any chance of saving the US Green party?

[-] linearchaos@lemmy.world 6 points 1 hour ago

The Green party is doing exactly what it was designed to do. It's siphoning off eco-conscious Democratic voters just significantly enough to affect voting margins but not enough to win. To be clear I'm not saying that Even a significant number of people in the green party have that as a goal, but top down, that's all it's about.

We are a two-party system and they are allowing the green party to exist to use it as a wedge.

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 8 points 4 hours ago

The issue is she sucks all the oxygen out of the room with her pointless presidential runs and does nothing for the four years in between. There’s an inconsequential number of Greens who run and win elections in small cities and towns or less consequential elections, and none of them have won any federal elections. A real party leader would recruit and foster candidates in large cities and state legislatures— and then get folks to run for the US House, the Senate, state governorships, and then the presidency.

Stein is less a party leader and more a figurehead who basically seems to be in it for the grift. And so US Greens (especially in comparison to those in the EU) are less a party and more just a convenient label for those of a certain bent that want to run as something other than as a Democrat.

[-] nednobbins@lemm.ee 3 points 4 hours ago

My question was more along the lines of the "(not so) the great (wo)man" hypothesis.

Let's imagine that Jill Stein was permanently abducted by aliens. What do we think would happen?

Would the Green Party just collapse?
Would the former member just join the Democrats?
Would they start a new party?
Or maybe someone new would take over who could do a better job?
I think we'd likely just get someone who's functionally equivalent.

[-] ZMoney@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

Maybe vote count is instructive:

Nader 2000: 2,882,955

Nader 2004: 465,650

McKinney 2008: 161,797

Stein 2012: 469,501

Stein 2016: 1,457,216

Hawkins 2020: 407,068

I don't think the party would collapse without Stein. They have been around for decades and they have a cadre of oranizers who will continue to show up regardless of results. Stein is just the most famous person they can use for a presidential election, and you can see from the above results what happens when they run someone nobody has heard of.

I think they genuinely believe in their core values, and it's unfortunate that Stein is their only viable candidate. They won't ever be a real political party until they start winning local/state elections, but they're looking to secure more federal funding by getting enough votes. If Stein disappeared then they would keep doing this but they'd never breach half a million votes. Maybe a progressive democrat in the House would smell an opportunity and break ranks to run for president with the Greens. That could maybe get them a million or two votes again.

Or maybe it absolutely does not matter who they run and they just get a lot of votes when the Democrats run particularly shitty candidates for president.

[-] booly@sh.itjust.works 2 points 21 minutes ago

Nader 2004: 465,650

Nader wasn't even the Green candidate in 2004. Nader ran as an independent in 2004.

That year the Green Party ran David Cobb, who got 119,859 votes, putting him behind the Constitution Party, the Libertarian Party, and the independent Ralph Nader.

In 2008, Nader ran again as an independent and beat the Green Party once again, with 739,034 votes, versus McKinney's 162k. In between were the Libertarians in fourth place, and the Constitution Party in fifth place.

The Green Party has never even come in third place, and several times hasn't even come in fifth place, in our two party system.

[-] geekwithsoul@lemm.ee 1 points 4 hours ago

Ah, I get your question now. Unfortunately I think it’s impossible to say, but I do know it’s impossible to find out while she’s still there.

[-] drunkpostdisaster@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago

And then the Green Party was a zombie.

Just kidding it always was.

[-] arc@lemm.ee 6 points 5 hours ago

I am by inclination Green, but I live in Europe where the Greens have been through their scandals and emerged somewhat presentable. I don't believe that is the case in the US, where the Greens and particularly Jill Stein are basically just useful idiots. They disrupt the candidates most aligned to their own cause. And in Stein's case, she's disrupts her own damned country.

[-] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 13 points 6 hours ago

And Stein's answer every single time this comes up?

"What about Gaza?"

She is literally an operative for Russia and the Republicans. This isn't even a meme or conspiracy theory, it's simply a plain truth.

[-] ZMoney@lemmy.world 2 points 1 hour ago

I don't understand how a genocide can be taken so lightly. Some people have trouble casting a vote for any political party that sponsors one.

[-] buddascrayon@lemmy.world 1 points 41 minutes ago

Okay Mr better party choice. Here's a scenario: You and your friends vote for Jill Stein over Kamala Harris. Now, Kamala Harris has something of a chance to get a ceasefire out of Israel and stop the killing she has stated that that is her goal. But she doesn't get elected because you deluded morons voted for Jill Stein. No, Donald Trump gets elected instead and he pumps the gas on the genocide in Gaza as he has stated several times that he will do. He pours every military asset we have into Israel and gives them carte blanche to wipe out everyone in Gaza. And then on top of that he pulls all of our aid out of Ukraine and Russia steamrolls over the ukrainians wiping them out.

Now who supports genocide you fucking twit?

[-] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 points 1 hour ago

I support the college protestors even when people say they're hurting the cause, but I would say Jill Stein definitely hurts the cause.

[-] ZMoney@lemmy.world 1 points 57 minutes ago

I think you're suggesting Trump would be worse than Harris for the cause. But my point is that a lot of people feel that voting for either is sanctioning genocide, and Stein fills that niche by condemning it. It's pretty low-hanging fruit for a politician.

I'm legitimately curious as to how college protestors could be hurting the cause.

load more comments (8 replies)
[-] DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social 15 points 8 hours ago

Even if you assume she isn't a bad faith actor, she's still objectively failed to pass the one thing the world needs, the Green New Deal, and environmentalism is in the worst shape it's been in decades.

That's not all her fault, but her protest candidacy weirdness put Trump in office the first time instead of spending that time and effort on actual policy so...

Fuck off already?

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] Phegan@lemmy.world 29 points 11 hours ago

Jill Stein is both a terrible candidate and possibly a Russian agent. Even if I do align with much of the green parties stances and I live in a solidly blue state, I would never vote for her out of principle

[-] Scirocco@lemm.ee 10 points 8 hours ago

Indeed. I might vote for some Greens down-ballot, but Stein is a stain on the party and its cause

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 18 Sep 2024
478 points (93.9% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3592 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. 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.
  6. 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