Slimey. Jill Stein offers Bernie "collaberation" on third party ticket.

[liberalnarb]

I've always been annoyed by Jill Stein, Nader, and all the other 3rd party spoilers. This time, Stein crossed the line.

"A Stein/Sander collaboration has always been on the table." she tweeted. HELL NO. The last thing we need is a Third Party run from Bernie. The Dems have an uphill battle in the GE to begin with. The last thing we need is a huge split in the left vote.

I am confident though, that Bernie will have no part of this nonsense. He has always run for office as an Independent, but in collaboration with the Democratic Party so that he wouldn't be helping a wingnut win, he isn't going to break that trend this year.

In a series of tweets Wednesday, Stein said efforts to reach out to the Sanders campaign have returned no response.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

1. Bernie is a true patriot, so no chance he does this. Unlike some, Bernie, if he loses,

will support Hillary 1000%.

[merrily]

7. Being a patriot is not a synonym for supporting Hillary. I'm sure

plenty of Greens love their country.

Equating political differences with lack of patriotism is straight out of the Lee Atwater playbook, which means it's ia disgusting smear of a political view that is not like your own.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

11. Bernie will support Hillary, period. And you know it.

My comment about his patriotism has nothing to do with who he supports, but that he wont use a 3rd party run to fuck everything up, but I suspect you knew that and just wanted to take this opportunity to do a cheap shot.

[merrily]

12. Whether Bernie supports HIllary or not was not what I posted about. I posted about your

Lee Atwaterish smear of the Green Party. It's the same thing Lee Atwater tried to do to Democrats, claim they were less patriotic than Republicans. You are equating Bernie's staying away from Greens with his being patriotic. The corollary of that is joining with Greens would be unpatriotic. That is a bs smear of people who simply have a political difference.

Sorry, my prior post was spot on accurate.

[haikugal]

52. What up with the Bernie avatars and banners when it's obviously not a supporter...

Well said Merrily...thanks!

[merrily]

61. No clue. Blocked from the Bernie Group at least.

Most of the others have admitted to (snort) having changed their minds because of one "horrible" thing or another that Bernie or his supporters said or did, some relatively early and some relatively recently. AFAIK, there's only one about three faux "Bernie supporters" remaining.

I was going to come out next week as having been "converted" myself by Bernie's dastardly ending of an interview after the reporter exceeded the time limit. That kind of thing is so hard to excuse, after all. However, now that reinforcements are coming in, I just might have to keep faking support for Bernie.

[haikugal]

68. That's the ticket!

[FlatBaroque]

70. Part of the "charm offensive". They do not get it. /

[liberalnarb]

22. You are damn right.

[artislife]

94. Why is a third party unpatriotic? nt

[Ned_Devine]

201. It's the most patriotic thing there could be

[senz]

133. Well said, merrily.

[merrily]

144. Thank you so much senz.

[Adrahil]

203. Bernie has already said he will support HRC if she wins the nom.

No reason to think he'll go back on his word.

[artislife]

210. That was before her dirty tactics.

I wouldn't blame him if he gave her a pass if she wins.

[Adrahil]

214. Ok. Whatever. HDS. NT

[merrily]

2. Do you have any idea what specifically she meant by "collaboration?" I don't.

But it doesn't sound good to me. They shou;d have just endorsed him long ago, as did the Working Families Party, because they support what he stands for and he has a much better shot than they do. Otherwise, they should just have gone their own way, IMO.

I thought her tweet was ambiguous crap.

[liberalnarb]

23. The Greens are a pain in the ass in my opinion. They've always had a holier than thou attitude.

Like Nader calling Bernie a corporatist.

[lunamagica]

31. "A Stein/Sander collaboration". It's prety obvious, IMO. She wants him to be her VP

[merrily]

32. No, it's not obvious .that statement can be read at least 20 ways, including,

but not limited to, the way you read it

[liberalnarb]

42. Um no.

Stein/Sanders means Stein-President Sanders-Vice President.
Just like Obama/Biden, Gore/Lieberman, Kerry/Edwards, Nader/LaDuke ect.

[merrily]

43. She tweeted Stein/Sanders? I thought she only said she offered him a collaboration.

OMG. Poor thing is delusional.

[liberalnarb]

47. Heres the tweet:

[senz]

137. She said "collaboration," not "presidential run."

Then she referred to it as a "opening dialogue."

[liberalnarb]

142. Uh huh, and uh, what do you think

Stein/Sanders means?

[senz]

148. It's sure as hell not a campaign slogan.

Sheesh.

It means Jill Stein is approaching Bernie Sanders to open a dialogue about some sort of collaboration.

[liberalnarb]

151. Collaberation is a code word. The only offer she would give him is running mate.

Shes not gonna give up her position.

[senz]

155. No. See post #19

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511537417#post19

[senz]

136. Pfft. No it doesn't. That's absurd.

[KingCharlemagne]

33. I like and respect Stein, but this is crass opportunism of the

worst sort.

[Zorra]

3. Bernie is not going to do this, and Jill knows it. Think of the offer as

a symbolic gesture of good will, and affirmation of shared ethical and democratic values.

[dogman]

4. I think she knows about the efforts to drive out Bernie supporters before he's run.

Why not try and pick up the strays?

[chillfactor]

5. No....

that would split the Democratic ticket..and even Bernie would not support that.

[liberalnarb]

48. Yuck, Jill might as well run as a repuke, they're the only ones shes ever helped anyway.

[Karmadillo]

6. I was going to point out the dupe of this is only eight threads away, but I realized you

probably got excited about the opportunity to call Jill Stein "slimey."

[haikugal]

56. Yeah because policy is hard...throwing shit is fun....GO TEAM!!

[artislife]

96. Oh where are the calls for misogyny at calling a woman slimy?

Oh, that's right. Only certain woman matter.


I like Jill, I might vote for Jill. It may be time for a woman president, afterall.

[shadowandblossom]

212. There's nothing misogynistic about that.

That behavior is slimy.

[revbones]

8. I disagree that this is slimey

Given the importance of this primary and what it says about establishment vs grassroots, I don't find the overture "slimey" at all.

I do however find the part about receiving no response a bit questionable however.

I'll follow the candidate that best matches my principles. I'm not caught up in identity or team based politics.

[CajunBlazer]

76. I'v broken the code - so you will help the Republicans win

I love when people talk about having ideals and principles, and they go off and do something stupid. Yea, that makes sense. You would think that their Progressive principles inform them that helping Trump or Cruz to win would be just plain dumb.

[BillZBubb]

77. You are still pushing that bullshit?

Ideals and principles MEAN something, unless you support Hillary apparently.

[CajunBlazer]

167. The only BS being pushed around here is yours

Let's take a objective view of what options are available for satisfying you progressive ideals and principles should Bernie not win the nomination.

1) You could just not vote.

2) You could vote for Jill Stein or someone equally unqualified to be President of the United States running under a third party banner.

3) You could hold your nose and vote against Cruz and Trump.

We can eliminate Option 1 right away. No one with ideals and principles backs away and doesn't participate.

You can adopt Option 2 and vote for the Democratic candidate who is a hell of lot more progressive than which ever candidate the Republican will ultimately chose. With that option you prevent the Supreme Court from becoming a organ of the most conservative part of the Republican party. You could help prevent the Republicans seizing control of the White House and both Houses of Congress, and getting rid of Obama Care, and defunding Planned Parenthood, and return to an adversarial relationship with Cuba, and go back to war at the drop of a hat. Surely your progressive principles and ideals would allow you help prevent the conservatives who would wreck the country from taking control of all three branches of government.

You could also go with Option 3. Voting for Jill Stein is probably your best bet. This would give the Green Party more visibility although it's chances of becoming viable are near future are nearly non existent to none. Your vote might enable that the Green Party to get enough votes in the Presidential election to get public funding, but that certainly is far from likely because there is almost no chance that Jill will get the required 5% of the vote. Of course if the Green Party party does pull in 5% of the vote they will probably throw the election to Cruz or Trump and then every progressive will hate them and never vote for them again. Hence the saying, "Third parties are like bees, when they sting they die."

Of course you can't discount the revenge factor of going with Option 3. It's an opportunity to pay back the the DNC for not favoring poor Bernie just because he has been an independent all of his long political career, has constantly run against Democratic candidates and continually battled with them because they weren't liberal enough. And you could pay back those stupid Hillary supporters on DU for disparaging your candidate and making your life less appealing than it could of been.

Frankly my dear, I don't give a .... how you and yours vote, but at least do whatever you ultimately plan to do for the right reasons.

[revbones]

198. Sorry, couldn't stop laughing at this post.

Firstly your use of the word "objective" is hilarious.

Then there's your statement "No one with ideals and principles backs away and doesn't participate". The funny bit is where you assume yourself the arbiter of what constitutes ideals and principles for everyone. Plenty of principled people can and will choose not to vote, or just to skip voting for that office.

I think you got the order of your points and subsequent explanation wrong between 2 & 3 though since #2 is the third party one, but it's #3 in your explanation.

I'm not sure how you think that choosing Jill Stein results in Cruz or Trump being elected. That makes the leap of logic that if they didn't vote for Stein that they would instead vote for Hillary.

And on to your point about "Democratic candidate who is a hell of lot more progressive" when if it's Hillary, she's not really a progressive at all. She more of a pro-corporate person that will feel free to compromise on any ideal or position actually. It's funny how you suppose that voting for Hillary will apparently cause unicorns and rainbows to appear everywhere and prevent various disasters, unfortunately your argument at this point supposes that someone not voting for Hillary isn't voting at all, and that's probably unlikely since anyone engaged enough to specifically not vote for Hillary is probably engaged enough to care about downticket races. That said though, you may have been alluding to the disastrous turnout numbers that will result if Hillary is the nominee, in which case I'll agree that you might have some justification in your thoughts there.

I'm not sure you understand how our election works, but you cast a vote for someone. Not against someone. Your statement "vote against Cruz and Trump." doesn't really make much sense.

The best part though is how you've rambled on in the comment I'm replying to and so many others, but yet claim here "Frankly my dear, I don't give a .... how you and yours vote". You must not give a ... so much that your fingers are cramped from it.

[revbones]

79. Not helping Hillary is also not helping republicans.

0 + 0 = 0.

[CajunBlazer]

180. We'll see how much your principles and ideals and principles like your math...

...if Trump or Cruz win because too many progressives though their vote away voting for the Green Party.

I'm sure that you will tell yourself that it wasn't your fault that that Republicans seized control of the White House and both Houses of Congress, that the Supreme Court will be run by conservative for the next 20 years, that they finally got rid of Obama Care, defunded Planned Parenthood, returned to an adversarial relationship with Cuba, and went back to war at the drop of a hat.

You can tell yourself that if the Democrats would had only nominated Bernie (who you knew from the start had no chance of winning), you would have voted for him. Yep, you can lie to yourself, but your conscious will now better and because you are a bigger progressive than the rest of us, you will suffer more than we will.

[revbones]

190. If you choose to not live a principled life, then it's not on me is it?

That is correct. If Hillary is the nominee and Republicans "seize control of the White House" then I won't believe it's my fault. I'll believe it is the fault of those that nominated someone so divisive.

As for both houses of Congress, well the Senate is likely to flip, but the House is so gerrymandered that its very likely going to remain in Republican control. Given how well Bernie does among independents and how many feel about Hillary, I would say our gains or losses really depend on which one of those two would be running.

If you're trying to throw future-blame out on losses in the Senate or House, well I think you should reconsider. All of this talk of not voting for Hillary, has specifically been for one race - the presidential one. You yourself mentioned their voting for the Green Party which would seemingly indicate that you understood they'd still be voting, just not for Hillary.

I would be quite impressed at your mind-reading skills you purport to have here as you claim that I knew something "from the start" but that's obviously not true and seems more to be spoken from some incredible frustration on your part rather than anything on mine.

Again, not voting for Hillary is not the same as voting for Trump or whoever. For all your blame and bluster, that fact remains.

[CajunBlazer]

194. No, you're right...

"Not voting for Hillary is not the same as voting for Trump or whoever", its more of a cop out. It's a way of taking your ball and going home because your candidate didn't win while you blame your ideals and principles for what you are doing.

Hey, do what you need to do. I simply don't care enough to continue this conversation.

[revbones]

199. Speaking of cop outs

You seem to care enough to continue to lambast others for not seeing things your way, or doing what you want them to do.

Label the actions of others whatever you will, but understand that just because you think something that doesn't make it true.

[CajunBlazer]

206. If you were a logical person, you know I have logic on my side....

....butt I see that emotion, not logic rules your thinking and it is impossible to have a logical discussion with an emotional person. This conversation is truly over.

[revbones]

207. I think you should revisit your definition of logic.

Ascribing one's own beliefs on others is not an accurate definition.

[Beowulf]

204. Some of us think we've been throwing away our votes voting for corporate Democrats.

There are some real significant changes I think this country needs. Why would I support any candidate who would never entertain those changes?

[CajunBlazer]

205. The better question is....

...if it turns out that Sanders does not win the nomination, why wouldn't you vote to at least protect what President Obama has achieved? Or is your attitude - well, if we can't get everything we want, we would just as soon let the Republicans win and have nothing.

[Beowulf]

216. It might be a better question for you,

but it really doesn't work for me.

It isn't about getting everything I want, it's about laying the foundation for fundamental change and first, the Democratic Party needs to change. I actually worry more about a Clinton presidency as I believe another 4-8 years of Clinton would mean the forces resistant to change would be even more entrenched. Hillary or the GOP is a false choice for me as neither promises to address the systemic problem of our country being an oligarchy. I realize other people are looking for other things this election and while I share many of the items on their wish lists, I just don't see Hillary being a positive change agent or even just a benign agent.

[artislife]

98. It won't be the fault of those who do not vote for her

if she doesn't have enough votes of her own.


No one owes hillary anything.

She is supposed to EARN her votes.

[CajunBlazer]

128. You need to fid a new place to be

You future on this site is not promising.

[artislife]

131. lol!

Are you going to go all Trump on us and smash our faces?

[CajunBlazer]

169. No, I going to have to ignore you because it won't be long until you are thrown off of DU

[artislife]

211. Gosh, even more like the other supporters...temper, temper. nt

[senz]

139. This is not Hillary central. The primary is still on, remember?

And who are you to tell people to go elsewhere? Are you the new bouncer?

[CajunBlazer]

172. You evidently haven't been paying attention....

1) artislife has stated maybe 20 times that she is going to vote 3rd party if Bernie doesn't get the nomination. She's here to support Bernie and for no other reason.

2) DU will be "Hillary Central", it's just a matter of time and when Skinner lowers the boom artislife will soon be gone.

3) No I am not the bouncer, but if she gets herself kicked off of DU, I won't be shedding any tears. She has not been the most pleasant person to deal with.

[senz]

179. Apparently I lack the authoritarian gene.

I don't care who people support.

But I do care if they mislead, smear, lie, and play games in support of their candidate.

[CajunBlazer]

183. Hmmm.... actually those on the far left, like those on the far right....

...are famous for having the "authoritarian gene." It's certainly one of the characteristics that the two extremes share along with a predilection to try to shut down anyone who disagrees with them.

[senz]

185. "a predilection to try to shut down anyone who disagrees with them"

And what did you just say about someone who disagrees with you?

Hm?

DU will be "Hillary Central", it's just a matter of time and when Skinner lowers the boom artislife will soon be gone.

[CajunBlazer]

189. I notice you use the little laughing emotion,...

... try to change the subject, and attack every time someone drives you into a corner and you have nothing intelligent to say. It reminds me of skunk reaction when it is irritated.

[senz]

197. Ooo, that's weak...

You made a statement about authoritarians who want to shut down anyone who disagrees with them, right after gloating in anticipation of someone who disagrees with you being shut down. I showed you both your quotes to point out the contradiction.

Then I laughed.

As for the laughing emoticon, I rarely ever use it, so you lied when you said I use it every time I meet someone of your towering intellect.

That's lame, honey. You're making yourself look less than admirable.

Adios.

[mcar]

9. I'm glad Bernie is not responding to this

[KingFlorez]

10. Sanders-Stein seems plausible

If this ticket did play spoiler and allow Trump to be elected, it would be a great way for Sanders to say "that's what you get for no nominating me, Democrats". Democrats will pay somehow if Sanders isn't the nominee.

[Zorra]

17. No, sorry. There is less than 0% possibility that Bernie will run as a third party candidate.

Unlike other candidates, Bernie doesn't lie, or break his word.

Sanders vows no third-party run in 2016
snip---
Speaking at the Newseum in Washington on Thursday, Sanders said that if he ran a third-party campaign, it would draw support away from the Democratic nominee, potentially handing Republicans the White House.

“I would not want to be responsible for electing some right-wing Republican president,” Sanders said.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/249800-sanders-vows-no-third-party-run-in-2016

[KingFlorez]

24. That was then, this is now

Before he had to say that in order to get some Democrats to vote for him. If he loses the nomination, all bets are off.

[Zorra]

28. Only in your imagination. nt

[Snotcicles]

37. You just don't get the whole trustworthy thing do you? nt

[KingFlorez]

38. I get reality. No one is a saint. No one.

But, we will see what happens.

[Snotcicles]

39. I would wager on it. nt

[Snotcicles]

40. Reality comes after the fact. Maybe you should hold those comments until than. nt

[artislife]

100. Lets face it, they are not used to it. nt

[BeanMusical]

164. +1

[senz]

145. You are apparently judging Bernie by yourself.

He is far, far better than you could understand.

Before Bernie ever entered the race, he said he didn't want to run as an independent because he would not want to be a third party spoiler and throw the race to a Republican. He said this on the Thom Hartmann program months before he threw his hat in the ring.

[GoneFishin]

178. Or before the Democratic Party stabbed him in the back and left him for dead. You are correct, but

for a different reason. That was then, this is now.

[struggle4progress]

18. "If I can't have my way, maybe at least I can fugg everybody else over and say TOLD YA!"

Surely this is what makes America great!

[Zorra]

20. "Sanders vows no third-party run in 2016"

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/249800-sanders-vows-no-third-party-run-in-2016

Game over. Would you like to play again?

[struggle4progress]

34. He's a good guy: I wasn't referring to him

[liberalnarb]

60. All the Greens have ever done is put repugs in office

[GoneFishin]

170. That's from July 2105. There's has been a butt load of cheating and lying since then. If they cheat

him out of a level playing field as it appears they will, then he has every right to stay in the GE by any means.

If you cheat and lie your ass off then you have no standing to complain about someone else not keeping a commitment.

[Zorra]

202. Bernie will not go back on his word under any circumstances. He knew the lying

and cheating was coming from the Clinton camp/Dem Establishment before he entered the race.

There really are some people in this world who have integrity; Bernie is one of them. And that's one of the primary reason why many of us support him wholeheartedly, without reservation.

Do you really expect that he will sink to the level of the opposition?

Never gonna happen.

[GoneFishin]

215. There's a difference between having integrity and being a door mat. Bernie has been in politics long

enough to know the difference.

He's honest, not stupid.

[struggle4progress]

13. Stein has proven she can get votes!

3.5% in her 2002 campaign for MA governor! And over 1.4% in her 2010 reprise campaign!

0.36% in her 2012 Presidential campaign and as high as 1.3% in Maine that year! If she runs for US President in every election for the next 552 years, her percentages will total over 50%!

It's an inspiration!

[shadowandblossom]

213. Please Stop! You're making my sides hurt! :D

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. I like Jill Stein and applaud her for trying to form a coalition of progressives.

[liberalnarb]

44. Ugh, Jill might as well run as a repug. They're the only ones shes ever helped anyway. N/T

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

87. How many times did she vote with the Repugs? How many times did Hillary.

[artislife]

101. If only they would answer this honestly. nt

[GoneFishin]

181. Listen .... crickets.

[GoneFishin]

174. I have no problem with it.

[Attorney in Texas]

15. Jill Stein is closer to FDR's model of the Democratic Party than the Third-Way nonsense

[Fawke Em]

25. Yes and that's why so many Millennials and left Independents will vote for her

should Hillary be the nominee.

Hillary doesn't inspire these people even in the face of a tRump presidency.

[PoliticAverse]

35. Stein won't even be able to achieve Ralph Nader "many" numbers. n/t

[Attorney in Texas]

57. I don't think Jill (or Ralph) is (or was) running to win. I think they're running to show that there

is LOTS of space to the left of a lukewarm centrist third-way DNC party. Republican Ike would revolt against the right wing nature of the Democratic Party of today (not to mention what FDR would do to see the wreckage of his progressive party of the people which has turned into a servant of corporations and the status quo)

[Jim Lane]

147. Stein and Nader are delusional.

Sanders is running in primaries, which have lower turnout than general elections, and many millions of Americans haven't yet had the chance to vote for him. Nevertheless, his vote total already exceeds the combined general election totals of Nader and Stein, in all their presidential campaigns, combined.

IOW, for progressives who want to show that there's space to the left (a laudable goal), Sanders's method of running in the primaries is far superior to the Nader/Stein method of running no-hoper general election campaigns. That's even aside from the contentious issue of splitting the vote and thus helping the Republicans.

[GoneFishin]

177. Plus, if she had the good fortune to collaborate with a very honest and popular liberal politician

who had a solid infrastructure in place she might gain incredible traction almost overnight.

[haikugal]

65. This is deeper than that so you probably don't understand.

So I'll explain.

People will not play the lesser evil game again, ever. That means the greens may get a new influx of fresh supporters. Jill has much to offer, I'm looking at her. This would be true wether Bernie goes to the White House or not.

Bernie supporters don't slime people/opponents, sorry. That's a third way tactic.

[GoneFishin]

176. No she doesn't

[CajunBlazer]

192. If you really beleive that BS, I'm sure you can get great odds in Vegas

[Fairgo]

16. I don't know...

Always open to ideas. Tell me more.

[MurrayDelph]

19. Or, one could look at it as

not that Bernie would run against the Democratic candidate if it's not him, but maybe the Greens would support Bernie if he's the candidate.

Case in point, in the part of Oregon I live in, the state representative was endorsed by both the Democratic and Republican parties.

[senz]

149. Good point, thanks.

Nice to see someone say something intelligent.

[Blue_Adept]

21. Considering the number of Bernie supporters saying they won't vote anyway

Perhaps he should look at this angle.

[Fawke Em]

27. They're not saying they won't vote.

They're saying they'll either write him in or vote for, well, Jill Stein, should Hillary be the nominee.

It's a very real movement.

[Blue_Adept]

29. They won't vote for the Dem nominee

And many are saying they won't vote downticket either since the whole party is corrupt.

So it's time to either piss or get off the pot. Get a real viable third party going or just give up. Working with Stein is one way to jumpstart it since there is some national organization there.

Based on what Bernie has said, he won't do it. So it's up to supporters to figure something else out. But that requires real work and I really don't see them going the distance with it since it requires years of work and effort with no payoff.

[haikugal]

74. Of course you don't because you don't see that there has been years, nay generations of

Work put into this.

Enjoy your bubble.

[Blue_Adept]

88. Love your dismissive attitude

Just reinforces what I put into my sig each time.

[haikugal]

102. I'm not the one being dismissive, nice try. nt

[Jim Lane]

165. Let's assess the result of the years, nay generations of effort

In 2000, the Green Party candidate, Ralph Nader, got 2.74% of the popular vote. Four years later, Nader as an independent and David Cobb on the Green line combined for 0.48% of the vote. In 2008, Nader was again independent, Cynthia McKinney was the Green candidate, and they combined for 0.68%. Last time around, Nader finally stopped running, and Jill Stein got 0.36%.

Even if the Democrats nominate Clinton, which is obviously the best case for the Greens, Stein has no realistic prospect of reaching the 5% necessary to qualify the party for federal matching funds. I don't even see her besting Nader's 2000 total, which is likely to remain the Green Party's high-water mark.

So, under the most optimistic scenario that has any plausibility, how many years or generations do you expect it will take before a candidate running solely as a Green wins the plurality of votes in a presidential election?

[haikugal]

209. No. I'm talking about something else entirely.

That's as far as I'll go for now. The instability in our system was not created by liberals..we have massive corruption in both political parties and there are a lot of us who won't play the corrupt game any more.

We'll know more in May.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511536522

[artislife]

104. Actually, November is when the option is open.

There is no GE now.

[senz]

150. Why do you always want to insult Bernie supporters?

The little jabs just detract from your message.

[hrmjustin]

26. Jill is trolling. Sanders will stick with his pledge.

[liberalnarb]

30. I know he will. The Green Party just pisses me off. The country is a two party system.

Run as a Democrat or GO AWAY.

[TDale313]

83. The fact that it's a two party system is a big problem IMO

No, under current circumstances 3rd party candidacies are not really viable- but the fact that we end up with only two options allows both parties to ignore large numbers of voters cause where the hell else are they gonna go? The whole system is designed to limit the impact and participation of average people and keep the power in the hands of the select few, and that sucks.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

90. You prefer Hillary to Jill?

[liberalnarb]

95. Any chance of me supporting Stein was destroyed long ago.

I could never vote for someone with zero qualifications what so ever. Could never vote for someone that called President Obama "a monster" and a "warmonger". Stein is a lunatic.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

97. And, Hillary?

Could you support somebody went after Obama tooth and nail? And, seeing that Hillary supported Bush's wars she would be ill fitted to call him a warmonger.

[liberalnarb]

103. Hillary never called him warmonger. She went after him tooth and nail in a primary.

She also never ran as a spoiler that does nothing but help the right.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

105. No. She just collaborated with the right over and over again.

I'll take an inexperienced progressive over an experienced collaborator any day.

[CorporatistNation]

106. As Bernie Should Go After Hillary ...TOOTH AND NAIL NOW! Hillary WILL FALTER IF HE Throws

THE KITCHEN SINK AT HER! CORPORATE PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX MONEY... AND DIRECT CAMPAIGN INVOLVEMENT! FRACKER MONEY! In addition to all of the Wall Street, Walmart , Flip Flopping, FIBBING, Trade etc.. etc! She will collapse...

[demwing]

36. Collaborate? OK, here's how, Stein

Do not run a third party campaign. Convince Greens to vote for Bernie in western state primaries, and if Bernie wins, perhaps Bernie can offer a cabinet position?

Department of Health and Human Services? Interior? Energy?

This year, Greens should vote Blue. That's a collaboration...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

99. How about the reverse?

Blues vote Green?

[demwing]

140. well recommending that would violate the TOS

When I'm ready, I would prefer to leave DU on my own terms

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

159. I hear you. One must tread lightly so as to not ruffle the feathers of moderates.

An art I have yet to master.

[jillan]

41. I don't know if I look at it that way. Jill Stein is probably thrilled to finally have a candidate

in the main two parties that aligns closer to her beliefs.

I really think she is hoping to win over Bernie supporters if Bernie does not win the nom.

Of course Bernie would not do this. As I said, I think Jill is promoting herself to be the next best thing to Bernie.

[liberalnarb]

50. All she'll do (and ever has done) is help the republicans. Period.

[redruddyred]

109. it grieves me deeply to admit that this is likely the truth

[jalan48]

45. Interesting.

[Nedsdag]

46. It's called democracy.

Why is it "slimey"?

[liberalnarb]

49. Its a weak attempt to try and revive a dead party. eom

[Nedsdag]

51. The Green Party is "dead"? When did it die?

I didn't read its obituary.

[redstateblues]

54. What has it ever done besides putting Bush/Cheney in office?

[liberalnarb]

58. I can't stand the Greens, but they didn't put shrub in office.

The Supreme Court did.

[redstateblues]

154. Sorry- If Naderites in FL hadn't voted

for the narcissist there would not have been an Iraq War. There were other things that contributed for sure but people should always be aware of the consequences of a protest vote. Let's face it, Nader was not Presidential material.

[liberalnarb]

156. No he wasn't presidential material. I didn't support him. But Gore won the popular vote. Period.

[redstateblues]

160. You get bonus points for not being a Naderite!

A lot of Naderites are still trying to justify their disastrous choice

[liberalnarb]

161. Yes.

When a Green Party candidate finally got a large following it did nothing but cause a disaster.

[liberalnarb]

59. I read the obituary. It said

"Failure to win any election in history."

[Chan790]

124. Any election or any election you're aware of or any major election?

This is Elizabeth Horton Sheff. When I lived in Hartford, she was my city councilwoman for 8 years. Two four-year terms on the city-council of a major US city. I'd call that fairly major. She's only ever sought or been elected to office as a member of the Green party.

She also did this, as the lead-plaintiff in the lawsuit to desegregate Connecticut's schools:

...and that's more than Hillary or her Third-Way friends have ever done for African-American youth.

So, whose party is dead? Whose movement? I see Greens getting more done for traditional Democratic constituencies than I see Hillary doing.

[liberalnarb]

126. Any major (General) election. As in Presidential.

[EdwardBernays]

53. Jeez

Some of comments on here are insane.

Lots of patriots won't be voting for Hillary or Trump. If Bernie managed to make a third party for ACTUAL progressives and liberals possible that'd be quite the patriotic achievement.

Voting out of fear on the other hand is not something I consider very patriotic at all.

[liberalnarb]

55. The only "acheivement" would be creating a path for the repukes to win.

[Nedsdag]

62. What if you live in a solid blue state?

I know I do.

[EdwardBernays]

64. There are

Plenty of progressives that wish the Dems were a left-wing party in every state. They should be represented properly in a democracy.

[liberalnarb]

72. I do too. That doesn't mean anything.

On a national level, in a country with a two party system, the only thing a third party candidate can do is hurt the political wing they are running on.

[EdwardBernays]

81. That's incorrect

And that fear is what stops American democracy from being truly representative.

[liberalnarb]

82. Fact, not fear.

Proof? Every past general election

[EdwardBernays]

84. Not true

The US has NOT always been a two party system.

Maybe you need to go read up on the history of US political parties.

[liberalnarb]

85. I didn't say the US has always been a two party system.

But it has been throughout most of history. Ever since the Democratic and repugnant parties were formed a third partier has never had a prayer.

[EdwardBernays]

86. Well

If you know that then you know that political parties have changed when a third party or a fourth emerges.

Americans are waaaaaaaaaaaaay to scared of change. And this whole fear of Trump narrative is weak tea.

[Jim Lane]

157. True enough, because of that word that the Greens never want to hear spoken.

The word is "primaries".

In the 1850s, there was a growing antislavery movement, but it couldn't find expression in either major party. The Democrats were strongest in the South. The Whigs were strongest in the North but their leaders wanted to be competitive everywhere, so they didn't want to take a strong position that would alienate the slave states. The result was the emergence of the Republican Party.

What's happened since then is the introduction of the primary system (and, in a few cases, caucuses). If there had been primaries in the 1840s and 1850s, antislavery Whigs would have won primaries and moved their party to the left on that issue. The party establishment would no longer have been able to block them. There would have been no need to establish a new party.

A modern example is civil rights. Historically, the Democratic Party, even under progressive leaders like FDR, was willing to play along with the white supremacists in order to keep the Solid South. Democrats unhappy with that alliance could have stomped off and started a new party. They didn't, though. Instead, they pressed from within the party. (See Hubert Humphrey's famous speech at the 1948 convention, where the party adopted a strong civil rights plank against the wishes of its nominee, Harry Truman.) At all levels, Democratic candidates and officeholders came to be pro-civil rights, either because they won primaries against the old guard or because old guard types saw they'd need to adapt or die. Thus, working within the Democratic Party turned out to be more effective than Henry Wallace's 2.37% of the vote in 1948 on the Progressive/American Labor ticket.

There are other changes that have also served to entrench the two-party system, such as public financing of presidential campaigns. The effect is that the two-party system that we've had for a century and a half is very unlikely to change.

[EdwardBernays]

63. That is incorrect

You're just practicing negative partisanship which has been destroying America for years and years.

America need more options because it's wildly obvious that two parties isn't enough to represent all of the people.

And honestly - as a Progressive - the Democratic party and leadership do a crap job of representing me.

I'd suggest that all the corporatist third way Dems can keep the Democratic party. All the progressives and liberals can have a new people first party. All the nutter tea parties can have a party. And all the corporatists Republicans can have a party.

Then the corporatist Dems couldn't just PRETEND to be liberal at election time. They'd have to ACTUALLY be liberal to sustain a left wing coalition if they wanted to remain in power.

The two party system is a huge scam and I'd proudly support Bernie if he took it on.

And no, I'm not falling for Begala's fear fear fear campaign. Lol.

[liberalnarb]

67. The two party system isnt't great. And no, the Dem leadership doesn't represent Progressives

and hasn't for a long time. But, what I said is not incorrect. Because of the two party system, the only thing a Third Party candidate can do is hurt the side they are running on.

[EdwardBernays]

75. no

in the short term maybe, but it has to be broken at some point... and as I'm not scared of Trump, and as there'd be no better person to start one than Bernie... a uniter... so no, that's not the reality... the reality is that we need to break the strangle hold of corruption lunacy that has crippled both parties... so a REAL and MEANINGFUL outcome could be that... a fresh start for American democracy.

[PeaceNikki]

93. Lol, your repeated use of "patriot" is adorable.

[EdwardBernays]

107. Look

At the comments. My use of it is a direct response to that.

Context is adorable.

[NCTraveler]

66. Small ball politics. Attach yourself to something bigger. Nt

[whatchamacallit]

69. Foolproof Bernie supporter authentication

Count the Hillary supporter recs.

[Zorra]

135. Nailed it. nt

[BeanMusical]

173. Yep.

[Drunken Irishman]

71. Why would anyone want Stein as president?

I get they may agree with her politically and on the issues, but just agreeing is not the reason you should vote for someone. Does she have experience doing anything in government? At least Sanders has been in the U.S. Senate and House. He's qualified to be president. Stein is nowhere near qualified to even be mayor of a major U.S. city - let alone governor or president.

[liberalnarb]

73. Just look at the right. Qualifications don't matter in this joke of a political system anymore.

But I agree, she's a physician, no experience what-so-ever. She should run as a republican next time, they're the party shes been helping all these years.

[Drunken Irishman]

80. That's the scary path we're going down...

Qualifications be damned! It's scary how we don't value intelligence and experience anymore.

[redruddyred]

113. i agree with chomsky that the socalled elite education system

is nothing but a careful series of weedouts for those who fit badly within the neoliberal establishment
obviously it's important to elect someone who we think likely to do the job well, but if you want real change that is certainly not going to be HYP

[Drunken Irishman]

208. No...but that's why you do what the GOP did in the 80s.

They built up a movement through the grassroots - school boards, town councils, city councils, state legislatures and they built a nice feeder system for the national party.

[redruddyred]

217. who the eff is willing to donate time and money to get these creeps elected?

i don't get it

[Drunken Irishman]

218. Creeps is my guess.

[synergie]

78. Putin seems to be enoying the idea. See the thread on this board referencing

Russian government owned media that enthusiastically supports it and the number of recs and the comment thread that just eats up blatant ratfcking!

It's sad how many are so easily lead and easily duped.

I can understand Jill Stein's desperate attempt to be relevant, but it's not what Bernie said, but given how his campaign's current conduct belies what he was saying a few months ago, who knows. What's sad is what the BSers will cling to, no matter what the source is, anything negative about Hillary, anything that might prevent Bernie's loss, no matter how vile or how obvious the source offering them whatever it is they wish to hear.

Ratfucking at play and at its most reprehensible. I don't mind the support of the candidate you believe in, it's just lack of critical thinking and the need to embrace anything regardless of the slime, the source or the obvious attempts at disruption. It's sad.

[PowerToThePeople]

89. Who is this Jill Stein?

I may have to google her, sounds interesting.

[nadinbrzezinski]

91. She is the candidate for the Greens

(to the jury... sorry but it is my job to know who is who in the zoo... hell Gary Johnson is running on the libertarian ticket, so stuff it)

[PowerToThePeople]

92. .

[redruddyred]

108. if you had commented that it was not "slimey" and instead simply reported as

"interesting", would you be banned from DU?
i have friends in the green party. i think they are bad at politics but their hearts are in the right place. i more or less agree with their positions on the issues.

here's what i think:
if bloomberg were to run as third party candidate, against trump and hillary, sanders would not be wrong to take jill stein up on her offer. it would not jeopardize the left wing of the US electorate, and instead give the "leftest" wing a voice.

whether or not it is "right" for a candidate such as sanders to run third party really depends on the numbers. will he be a spoiler like nader? (do we even know that nader was a spoiler? al gore was a mediocre candidate at that) or will it end in a runoff election as no single candidate has the majority?

i think this is a worthwhile conversation which i hope still has a place here at DU.

[liberalnarb]

111. Why not. BECAUSE THE LAST FUCKING THING WE NEED IS A HUGE SPLIT IN THE LEFT VOTE THATS WHY!

[snowy owl]

112. Misread post so self-deleted - but not really against...

the collaboration because I'm a true progressive and not just a liberal so for me it would have been okay. I agree that Bernie won't do that.

[cantbeserious]

114. Your Opinion Only - Others See The World Much, Much Differently

eom

[liberalnarb]

115. An opinion

backed by the fact that Jill Stein has never won an election.

[cantbeserious]

116. Still - Just An Opinion

eom

[liberalnarb]

118. Backed by fact and logic.

[cantbeserious]

121. Your Opinion Only - Others See The World Much, Much Differently

eom

[liberalnarb]

125. Poor thing. How silly.

Its not a matter of how you "see the world." Its a matter of whether or not there is any chance a Third Party candidate can win the GE. Spoiler alert, there is none.

[cantbeserious]

129. Poor Thing - Casting Aspersions Yet Again

eom

[snowy owl]

117. of course she hasn't

It takes courageous people and true progressives to learn about and support the real left. Canada has the NDP and peopole finally found themselves moving to the left after so much Harper right-wing government and now they're back to a good tradition left party with Trudeau. I wonder if we'll ever be so smart?

[cantbeserious]

122. Not With The Low Information Voters Found In America

eom

[redstateblues]

158. More Sanders' Supporter condescension

That superiority attitude is not winning any converts. You Bernie folks are the only smart voters- Feel The Bern

[snowy owl]

162. Condescension - cheap shot

Tell us how we are wrong?

[SoLeftIAmRight]

171. what are the last three books you had read about left ideas - or politics?

who are your favorite 3 left thinkers?

[snowy owl]

191. Thinkers? Besides Bernie? :)

No philosophers - that's a different question, right? What do you mean by "left thinkers?" Zinn? Marx? Stiglitz? Krugman? Reich? Chomsky? Goodman?

Politics: klein, frank, press I get a lot from nation magazine and sometimes The atlantic - my two subscriptions.

You?

[snowy owl]

119. Why slimey?

I see nothing corrupt or slimey about making the offer. It is Bernie's to consider or reject. I don't think you need to use language like that. it reeks of all the Berniebros crap that is out there today in Bernie's name. The Greens represent a lot of people and they would be voting most likely for Bernie had he been the candidate. That kind of overreaction reflects on all of us. Yes, I've voted Stein before. She represents me better than a Clinton. So?

[liberalnarb]

127. Berniebros? Ha. In case you haven't noticed my sig line and avatar, thats not what I meant.

I meant it was a slimey attempt to revive a dying campaign with someone who has a better chance then you. Theres no chance Bernie will have any part of this nonsense fortunately.

[snowy owl]

163. Call it a "poitical strategy" then - no slimey

She is in the business of politics and change. I'd prefer her to Clinton. Give her the same respect you give Bernie. He'll handle it.

[liberalnarb]

166. Bernie never ran as a spoiler candidate. Always there to help the people, without helping the right.

[snowy owl]

175. Agree - so no need to disparage Stein. She's on our side really.

[liberal_at_heart]

120. Like it or not our democracy has more than two parties and thank God it does.

Our two party system is corrupt and needs a third party to make it accountable. If the Democratic Party continues to turn its back on the American people, they will start turning to a third party. Over 40% of Americans are now Independents. If Democrats want them to vote Democratic instead of third party, then the Democratic Party needs to start listening to the people, not to the corporations.

[basselope]

123. Depends on what the GOP does

If they run a third party candidate, there could be an easy path to victory for Bernie as a 4th candidate.

But, I doubt he would do it in a 3 way race.



I know there is 0 chance that I am voting for Clinton, so I will have to find someone who isn't a republican to vote for in November if the democrats go down the Clinton path.

[kevink077]

130. Bernie has too much integrity

to pull a stunt like this. Nader was bought and paid for by republicans. The best money they ever spent.

The Green Party idiots in NH gave us 8 years of Bush. Florida should have been irrelevant.

[liberalnarb]

132. I have to make one correction. The Greens didn't give us Bush, the Supreme Court did.

[liberal_at_heart]

134. Over 40% of Americans are now Independents and that Nader blaming doesn't work on them,

so good luck with that argument. Anyone including you and the OP that posts that trash gets put on my ignore list.

[HooptieWagon]

138. The left isn't going to vote for a RW Democrat.

If the Democratic Party wants the votes of the left, they have to deliver in return.

[GoneFishin]

186. Correct. They will not. With all of the cheating and lying, people pretending that Jill Stein is

a threat to Bernie's campaign is bullshit misdirection and propaganda.

[HooptieWagon]

188. She got 0.36% of the vote in 2012.

If Sanders gets the nomination, I don't think Stein will even campaign. If Clinton gets the nomination, Stein will get votes from quite a few Sanders supporters, boht Indies and Dems. In that case, it will be interesting to see what % she gets.

[GoneFishin]

193. I think that is the true reason for all of the hostility. The "lesser of two evils" scam really

breaks down badly if there is a "not evil at all" candidate running.

I don't believe there is any genuine concern for Bernie here.

[dmm80]

141. Well the only thing I see that's unpatriotic is not voting at all. Whether people voting for a

third party or not is their choice, but nowhere near unpatriotic. I understand that you don't want the left vote to split. I'm sure that the others here agree with you on that. But we are far too resolute in voting for our respected candidate on this side - which is the left wing. The only way a small possibility of a truce will present itself is after the GE, and by then, it'll be too late.

[liberalnarb]

143. I didnt say unpatriotic, just a REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY BAD IDEA

[dmm80]

146. That's cool. If you think it doesn't work, that's fine. That's the beauty of

making a choice.

[arcane1]

152. Bernie is not running third party. I'm not sure what you are worried about.

[liberalnarb]

153. Not worried, annoyed.

[GoneFishin]

168. Good. If he wants to talk to Jill Stein it's fine by me. I already know Hillary talks to Trump. So

what's the problem?

I say he should keep his options open. But I can understand why someone who doesn't support Bernie would love for him to just lay down and let the righties march right over him. Fuck that.

[snowy owl]

195. GOOD ANSWER.

I trust Bernie and I trust Jill. She's got my vote in 2012 when Obama disappointed.

[Scurrilous]

182. Jill Stein is running for Prez again?

What is she...Candidate for Life?

[liberalnarb]

184. Just like Nader. Over and over and over again.

[snowy owl]

196. Good people should keep trying. They should be quitters? Hillary again?

[Deadshot]

200. If this goes through, and the Republican establishment raises their own candidate

if Trump gets the requisite number of delegates, this election cycle is going to be a mess.

I don't see Bernie going for this.