Greens grow into electoral powerhouse (in the U.S.!)

[OKIsItJustMe]

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/10/environmental-organizations-2016-election-112193.html

[font face=Serif][font size=5]Greens grow into electoral powerhouse[/font]

By ANDREW RESTUCCIA and DARREN GOODE | 10/25/14 6:23 PM EDT Updated: 10/26/14 8:34 AM EDT

[font size=3]The green movement has grown into a formidable political force, launching a broad and sophisticated operation this election cycle that rivals many of the most established groups.

Leading environmental organizations like the League of Conservation Voters, the Sierra Club and Tom Steyer’s NextGen Climate Action Committee have hired well-known national and state political operatives to guide the effort, and they are digging into detailed polling and analysis produced by the same white-shoe firms that helped President Barack Obama get elected. More than ever, greens are collaborating with other progressive groups like unions, Planned Parenthood and EMILY’s List, sharing resources and divvying up responsibilities in key states.

…

Several environmentalists said privately they expect to outspend all outside groups in several key states, with the exception of the Republican and Democratic Party organizations.

“Relatively speaking, the environmentalists used to be a small player. Now in many places we’re the biggest player,” League of Conservation Voters President Gene Karpinski said. “That’s a huge change.”

…[/font][/font]

[Jim Lane]

1. I'm glad to see it means the small-g greens. I was afraid it was a puff piece for the Green Party.

We have so many close races this year, especially in the Senate, and yet some environmental activists are out there putting in time and effort and money on behalf of no-hoper candidates.

In 2000, the Green Party was a crucial factor in putting a Republican in the White House. This year, the party (a/k/a the Getting Republicans Elected Every November Party) may help give the Republicans control of the Senate.

[demwing]

2. It's always somone elses fault

The Democratic leadership better wiseup and cultivate the progressive base, instead of scapegoating them when the party loses.

[Jim Lane]

3. As in, blaming the "Democratic leadership"?

Democratic leaders don't have their positions (and powers) by inheritance. There are public official who win primaries and elections, there are party officials chosen by the voters, and other party officials and staffers chosen by those people.

We can scapegoat the Democratic leadership -- or we can change it. Progressives who petulantly stomp off to the Green Party are choosing to absent themselves from that fight.

[cprise]

6. Enjoy that second helping of Clintonism

To the tune of "Blame The Voters".

[Jim Lane]

7. Alas, I won't enjoy it -- but if it happens it will be because a Clinton (again) got more votes.

Hillary Clinton is certainly, at this point, the Democratic Party establishment's pick for 2016 -- but 24 years ago, Bill Clinton was certainly not the establishment pick for 1992. It will be noted that he won the nomination anyway. The same is true of other Democratic Party nominees. McGovern beat Muskie and Humphrey. Obama beat Clinton. Other times, however, the establishment's favorite (Mondale, Gore) does win the nomination.

So, ultimately, it is indeed up to the voters. If you disagree with their choice, there's no reason not to blame them.

[cprise]

8. Pretending, of course, that democracy only applies to the Democratic Party. n/t

[Jim Lane]

9. Pardon my obtuseness, but I have no idea what you're getting at with that comment.

We were talking about the Democratic Party so I noted how democracy applies to the Democratic Party.

If you want to go beyond that, well, the Republican Party also has primaries and elections for party leadership. I did not wish to be read as pretending otherwise.

[Nihil]

4. Yawn ...

Some people never give up on banging the "Nader Did It!" drum ...

[Jim Lane]

5. Yawn back atcha

Some people never give up on trying to exonerate Nader.

Fortunately, they're a minority. The vast majority of his voters from 2000, including his own running mate, looked at the facts and abandoned him in 2004.

You may now have the last word if you'd like. I'm trying to reduce the amount of my time I waste dealing with Nader -- partly because he's now irrelevant and partly because I'm still saddened that someone who did so much good chose to sully his legacy with his colossal blunder.