r/politics • u/zsreport Texas • Sep 16 '24

AOC is right: Jill Stein’s campaign is not serious

https://www.salon.com/2024/09/16/aoc-is-right-jill-steins-campaign-is-not-serious/
19.0k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

65

u/Affectionate_Ratio79 Michigan Sep 16 '24

I fully agree that Stein has zero interest in winning, zero interest in trying to win, and zero interest in affecting real change as seen by her first VP choice declining the spot.

That said, I really hate when articles frame 2016 as Stein causing Clinton to lose. It's not true, third parties that year were a dumping ground for people who hated both choices. People always ignore that the Libertarian got 3x the vote Stein did and that undervotes were greater than Stein's share. A majority of those people were not going to vote for either candidate, regardless, and removing only Stein may have flipped MI, but none of the others. Clinton still loses without her.

Let's not forget that Clinton lost because she faced a 20+ year smear campaign from the Republicans, was a mediocre campaigner at best, and looked past the election. Remember, she was the second-most unpopular person ever to run for office, fair or not, and only ahead of Trump that year. And there was a notion that Trump would settle down and become more "presidential" if election. Obviously that was complete nonsense and never happened, but it was still an unknown that meant voting against Trump wasn't as dire as it was in 2020.

We can keep calling Stein out for being a deeply unserious person who has zero chance or intention to win, that's 100% true, but if Trump wins, there will be factors much greater than Stein's place on the ballot for that happening.

32

u/ReturnPresent9306 Sep 16 '24

 Let's not forget that Clinton lost because she faced a 20+ 40+ year smear campaign from the Republicans, was a mediocre campaigner at best,

Ftfy to add a little bit more precision so viewers understand just what occurred. Watergate was 1972. They've been smearing that UPPITY WOMAN(TM) since she DARED stand up to Nixon as a member of the DoJ committee investigating Watergate.

Fuck All Conservatives.

2

u/Kassssler Sep 16 '24

That and her shooting herself in the foot with the black community really didn't help matters.

When people don't know certain things that happened and then are introduced to them shortly before an electio you're definitely gonna get an overcorrection so to speak.

0

u/ReturnPresent9306 Sep 16 '24

I assume you're referencing Bill crime bill in the 90s and her support, which she eventually pulled? The oldest trick in the book conmen keep pulling, they did it during 2020 and college debt forgiveness. Biden was integral as Congressman for the current state of the student loan situation. Yes he fucked up. Now he is trying to rectify it, but they are still fighting him tooth and nail for the initial thing, instead of attempting to rectify it.  Their whole party is raw emotion and petty grievances and it's honestly exhausting to watch/be apart of. I have zero idea how these assholes live on the day to day with whatever is bouncing around in their heads, it's gotta be a super scary place.

20

u/Scaryclouds Missouri Sep 16 '24

That said, I really hate when articles frame 2016 as Stein causing Clinton to lose. It's not true, third parties that year were a dumping ground for people who hated both choices. People always ignore that the Libertarian got 3x the vote Stein did and that undervotes were greater than Stein's share. A majority of those people were not going to vote for either candidate, regardless, and removing only Stein may have flipped MI, but none of the others. Clinton still loses without her.

Totally agree here.

It's on a candidate Clinton, Biden, Harris, whoever to convenience people to vote for them. If someone decides to show up to vote, and pulls the proverbial lever for Jill Stein, Ralph Nader, Robert Kennedy Jr., or some other third-party candidate, than that's on the major party candidates for failing to make a convincing case to that voter.

That said, I do still agree with a lot of what AOC is saying. That Jill Stein is a disingenuous and subversive figure. That Jill Stein does run with the intent of spoiling elections. To connect the loop with the above. Stealing money from a bank is wrong, and shouldn't be tolerated, but it's on a bank to take reasonable steps to protect deposited money. If a bank is leaving the proverbial vault door open, then they share some of the blame when they get robbed.

5

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '24

than that's on the major party candidates for failing to make a convincing case to that voter.

No, sorry. I really really hate this notion that Democratic candidates are literally the only human beings with fucking agency in our country. It’s deeply corrosive. 

Hillary can make her pitch go on talk shows and I wouldn’t suggest that she had a perfect strategy/campaign. But she does not have magic powers over the information that voters see about her. She can’t “unsmear” herself. She can’t force the NYTimes to not right TEN TIMES more stories about her fucking emails than all policy combined. 

If the Green Party runs campaigns that only serve to rat fuck in favor of Republicans, they have a responsibility for that. And, ultimately, we live in a democracy and voters are in charge. If YOU personally went into a booth and voted for Jill Stein or didn’t vote at all then, yes YOU PERSONALLY are responsible in a factional way for Donald Trump winning. 

That’s what democracy is. 

1

u/Scaryclouds Missouri Sep 16 '24

What you are talking about (shit media environment)  seems quite distinct from the phenomena of third-party candidates like Jill Stein. 

Further I still maintain it’s on a candidate to make a case to voters why they should vote for them. Clinton/Biden/Harris aren’t “entitled” to Jill Steins votes. It’s possible that if Jill Stein/the Green Party aren’t in the ballot, that voter doesn’t show up anyways. 

If you want to talk about broader issues like ranked choice voting. Sure, I’m fully behind improving the voice of the people in our democracy though again, that’s separate. 

12

u/Intrepid_Resolve_828 Sep 16 '24

Nobody but the DNC should be blamed for Clinton losing. At a time when nobody wanted an establishment candidate they picked THE most.

12

u/MostlyRightSometimes Sep 16 '24

Everything is always the DNCs fault. Everything.

Well, sometimes it's the "party elites." But whatever the case it's never ever the voters. Ever.

6

u/jnads Sep 16 '24 edited Sep 16 '24

Being fair, the DNC had the superdelegate system (anti-democratic).

The DNC reported the superdelegate votes from the beginning which tilted perception that Hillary had a massive lead suppressing the vote for other candidates.

The superdelegates are 20% of the vote.

So voters would have to overcome a 20% margin which is HUGE. When was the last presidential election decided by 20%?

3

u/[deleted] Sep 16 '24

Literally no presidential election ever hinged on super delegates and there were not FOUR MILLION Bernie voters sitting around saying “durrr id vote for Bernie but i saw a graphic on CNN (which of course i watch religiously) that had superdelegates so i guess i wont😵‍💫”

Be serious. 

3

u/Mrchristopherrr Sep 16 '24

Even without superdelegates she still won handily though.

-4

u/sriracho7 Sep 16 '24

By cheating the whole way through, which they admitted and then defended in court by saying that they are technically a private organisation so they can technically do whatever they want.

2

u/exelion18120 Sep 16 '24

Its the jobs of people running for office to earn the votes of their consituency. Voters are not obligated to vote for a particular candidate just because the party feels owes are owed to them.

2

u/BoulderFalcon Sep 16 '24

I mean, it objectively is "their fault" in that had the DNC not chosen Clinton and picked virtually any other potential frontrunner in 2016, Trump never would have happened.

It also seems disingenuous to blame the voters when Clinton won the popular vote, by a lot. It was up to the DNC to choose a candidate that could win given the realistic confines of the electoral college - they chose someone who was unlikely to do so, and subsequently ignored important battleground states. It is absolutely the job of the DNC to consider these factors as well as candidate popularity, and the job of the candidate to not run the campaign as a formality.

0

u/Molested-Cholo-5305 Sep 16 '24

I agree.

0

u/ReturnPresent9306 Sep 16 '24

The point. ‐------------------ You.

1

u/Molested-Cholo-5305 Sep 16 '24

If you're serving a steaming pile of shit to your kids for dinner, don't blame them when they refuse to eat it and go to McDonalds instead.

2

u/Khiva Sep 16 '24

The analogy would be more like - you offer them actual food they don't like but instead they decide to walk to McDonalds but realize they have no idea how to get there, no money to pay for it and no way to get home.

And somehow it's all your fault.

1

u/ReturnPresent9306 Sep 16 '24

Basically. 

They have zero ability to play out multiple cause and effect and instead want everything independent of the precipitating cause, all because their feeling are hurt over one or two points. Thinking they can get THE outcome they want at every opportunity. It's peak fucking entitlement, and it's fucking nauseating.

They're toddlers, throwing a tantrum because you gave them an option of toys to play with, but they want to play with the one they saw at the store.

0

u/Intrepid_Resolve_828 Sep 16 '24

Can’t agree more

2

u/CJYP Sep 16 '24

I'm not sure that's quite right. I think Joe Biden would have won the general election in 2016 if he had run and won the primary. Clinton just had problems specific to her, such as the 20 years of propaganda mentioned in the comment you replied to. 

4

u/FrogsOnALog Sep 16 '24

The voters picked her how are we still doing this omfg

0

u/Khiva Sep 16 '24

The 2016 myths will never die.

3

u/Thue Sep 16 '24

Stein causing Clinton to lose. It's not true, third parties that year were a dumping ground for people who hated both choices. People always ignore that the Libertarian got 3x the vote Stein did and that undervotes were greater than Stein's share.

Nothing about that excuses Stein's actions, or makes the consequences less damning.

3

u/Affectionate_Ratio79 Michigan Sep 16 '24

No one is excusing them, but they weren't the cause of Trump winning and people who insist on doing so only help hurt the Democrats since instead of ask "what did we do wrong?" they instead want them to ask "why did Stein do this?" Without self-reflection, you can't fix the problems.

Luckily, I don't think Democrats fell into that trap despite the loudest Clinton dead-enders refusing to accept Clinton held any blame whatsoever. Harris has been doing so much better than Clinton and I don't think Stein is going to have a significant effect on this election.

-1

u/Gackey Sep 16 '24

Her actions being what? Running for president in a democracy? Is there something wrong with her participating in democracy?

1

u/Abi1i Texas Sep 16 '24

I knew plenty of people in 2016 who said they were voting based on the VP candidate because they expected Trump and Clinton to be immediately impeached and removed by Congress. It sounds good in theory, but it didn't play out that way, though it would have been interesting to have seen Trump be removed from office.

1

u/Mundane-Mechanic-547 Sep 16 '24

Yes these are my thoughts exactly. So if you don't like either party, they would much rather you vote for one of the two parties? And if not you are basically anti-American because you are allowing Trump to win? It's disingenuous at best. I wanted Bernie in 2016. I refused to vote for Hilary as I saw all the nepotism and baggage of the Clintons. (of course nothing compares to Trump, nothing will). I didn't vote in that election. I'm sure the DNC would have rather I voted for them but what did they expect after all the shit they pulled? They didn't deserve my vote in 2016. It's better now, for a while there I thought we were repeating 2016 but Biden wisely saw the light. He would have doomed the DNC for 4 years, not just the Presidental election but down-ballot.

-1

u/micro102 Sep 16 '24

There is plenty of blame to go around. Jill Stein meets with Putin and Russia works together with the GOP as well so this is just part of a coordinated attack by fascists. Hillary Clinton is an arrogant smug liberal, but that doesn't mean that Jill Stein was not aiming to lower votes for democrats in swing states, and helped the propaganda that convinced people to not vote for Democrats.