Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

liberalnarb

(4,532 posts)
Tue Aug 9, 2016, 12:02 AM Aug 2016

Stein is a pain in the ass, but lets be honest, she is not a threat.

Over the past few days it has been impossible to open Democratic Underground and not see at least a few threads about Jill Stein. Stein is an obvious Nader-wannabe. A selfish, egotistical, narcissistic, opportunist who doesn't give a shit what consequences a Donald Trump presidency would have on our country as long as she gets her name out there. But lets be real, Stein's numbers have dropped from 4% in the polls to, recently, 2% and I don't think that number is going to change very much. I was a Sanders supporter in the primaries and I will be supporting Hillary Clinton in the General Election and so will the 90% of Sanders' primary supporters who are now claiming they will cast their vote for Clinton this November. Look, you can hate Stein, but don't be too worried about her.

13 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Stein is a pain in the ass, but lets be honest, she is not a threat. (Original Post) liberalnarb Aug 2016 OP
Not when Hillary is up big anyway rjsquirrel Aug 2016 #1
Stein won't hit 1% on Election Day. She's Nader without the street smarts. onehandle Aug 2016 #2
Nader admitted he wanted shrub to win? liberalnarb Aug 2016 #4
Nader wanted Gore to lose -- according to Nader's nephew. pnwmom Aug 2016 #9
Yep. In an interview in Outside Magazine from August 2000 onehandle Aug 2016 #11
What a dick. liberalnarb Aug 2016 #12
Yep. progressoid Aug 2016 #3
Gary Johnson is more a ‘threat’—to Donald Trump CobaltBlue Aug 2016 #5
Who? nt Xipe Totec Aug 2016 #6
ANY candidate polling 1% or more is a threat. MohRokTah Aug 2016 #7
Ralph Nader wreaked a lot of havoc with his 2.74% of the national vote. pnwmom Aug 2016 #8
After seeing the video of her in Russia I disagree 100%, that was her Khan moment for me. She ... uponit7771 Aug 2016 #10
Not Stein ... her defenders here are, however. NurseJackie Aug 2016 #13

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
2. Stein won't hit 1% on Election Day. She's Nader without the street smarts.
Tue Aug 9, 2016, 12:16 AM
Aug 2016

She clearly wants Trump to win like Nader admitted that he wanted Bush to win, but does not have the talent to make it happen.

pnwmom

(109,011 posts)
9. Nader wanted Gore to lose -- according to Nader's nephew.
Tue Aug 9, 2016, 05:17 AM
Aug 2016
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-zuesse/ralph-nader-was-indispens_b_4235065.html

In fact, Harry G. Levine, in his “Ralph Nader as Mad Bomber,” reported a personal incident, when, “I was introduced to Tarek Milleron, Ralph Nader’s nephew, the single person closest to him in the whole campaign.” Levine told Milleron, “‘If Gore lost, Nader would have substantial credibility and power within the Democratic party. By holding back in a handful of states now, he could demonstrate his capacity to cause real damage in the future, and gain much in the short and the long run.’ Tarek did not disagree with that at all. Instead, leaning toward me, with a bit of extra steel in his voice and body, but without changing his cool tone and demeanor, he simply said: ‘We are not going to do that.’ ‘Why not?’ I said. With just a flicker of smile, Tarek said: ‘Because we want to punish the Democrats, we want to hurt them, wound them.’” Levine went on: “In Tarek’s unforgettable phrase, Ralph Nader wanted to hurt, wound and punish the Democrats. This was much more than indifference. Nader was not simply opposed to helping the Democrats, he actually wanted Gore to lose. ... But his supporters were not being told this.”

After Nader’s victory in 2000, however, Nader became bolder about letting the public know his true motivation. On 4 March 2001, Dick Polman headlined in the Philadelphia Inquirer, “An Unrepentant Nader Sticks To His Plan He Wants The Green Party To Run Up To 80 Congressional Candidates. That Could Drain Votes From Democrats.” Polman described his interview of Nader:

“In a long conversation at his office the other day, he said: ‘I’m just amazed that people think I should be concerned about this stuff. It’s absolutely amazing. Not a minute’s sleep do I lose, about something like this - because I feel sorry for them. It’s just so foolish, the way they have been behaving. Why should I worry?’ ... Nader is mapping new mischief with the potential to gladden the hearts of Republicans everywhere. He is working with the Greens to run as many as 80 candidates in the 2002 congressional elections - twice the number that ran in 2000. If he succeeds, Nader could drain liberal votes from Democrats in tight races, and severely impede the Democratic effort to wrest the House of Representatives away from the GOP. He is not coy about his motives. ... As he put it, ‘The Democrats are going to have to lose more elections. They didn’t get the message last time.’”

Nader repeated his strategy (to “wound and punish the Democrats,” as Tarek had put it, much more clearly) during the 2004 contest. On 9 September 2004, some prominent members of the Green Party went public sharing the conclusion that he was out to damage the Democratic Party and to help the Republican Party, and they issued a group press release, which opened: “Greens for Impact, a committee of elected officials and Green Party leaders, is dismayed to see that Ralph Nader’s campaign schedule for September consists almost completely of battleground states, where his presence could aid in re-electing George W. Bush.” They detailed six separate points of Nader’s “Rhetoric” on this that were at odds with the clear “Reality,” and concluded: “Taking all of these inconsistencies and hypocrisies together, one can only conclude that Nader’s commitment to defeating Bush is a ruse.” Finally, these suckers recognized the fact.

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
11. Yep. In an interview in Outside Magazine from August 2000
Tue Aug 9, 2016, 07:26 AM
Aug 2016

[img][/img]

Ralph Nader 2000 Campaign Interview:
Will Ralph Nader become Al Gore's worst nightmare?


Of more immediate interest, at least to Al Gore, are Nader's respectable poll numbers: 7 to 10 percent in California as of June, 6 percent nationally. If California tips Green enough, Bush could win the state and the whole damn election.

Which, Nader confided to Outside in June, wouldn't be so bad. When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: "Bush."


http://www.outsideonline.com/1837851/ralph-nader-2000-campaign-interview

Nader flew back and forth between California and Florida, finally spending the most of the last few weeks in Florida, and fulfilling his goal of a Bush Presidency.

progressoid

(50,000 posts)
3. Yep.
Tue Aug 9, 2016, 12:17 AM
Aug 2016

I think we (Democrats) are probably going to lose more to Gary Johnson than Stein. But unless something drastic happens between now an November, it really doesn't matter. Hillary has it sewn up.

 

CobaltBlue

(1,122 posts)
5. Gary Johnson is more a ‘threat’—to Donald Trump
Tue Aug 9, 2016, 12:30 AM
Aug 2016

Candidates outside the two major parties are like Alternative Republicans or Democrats.

If we had an electoral map in which the Libertarian and Green Party nominees carried one state each…the Libertarian would win a state which is normally a part of the Republicans’ base, and the Green nominee would win a state which is normally a part of the Democrats’ base. (See Elections 1912, 1948, and 1968 for examples.)

Given that Gary Johnson and Jill Stein poll no more than a combined 15 percent of the U.S. Popular Vote, I would guess Johnson and Stein—with their one-state carriages—to win a single-digit electoral-vote state. So, perhaps Johnson would one of Idaho, Montana, Utah, or Wyoming. Let’s also suppose Stein would win one of Hawaii, Rhode Island, or Bernie Sanders’s home state Vermont. I think that would be the limit—that is, if neither hits 15 percent individually in the U.S. Popular Vote. In a Top 10 populous state, a four-way race would require a Libertarian or Green to hit around 20 percent nationally—and that is at a minimum—in order to individually eke out a win in a Top 10 state.

The structure is not there. The money is not. Here in 2016, the candidate outside the two major parties polling best is Gary Johnson. He would not be taking more votes from Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton; he would be taking more votes from Republican nominee Donald Trump.

I think people who feel truly threatened by Jill Stein—when the polls show a trajectory of a national shift toward Hillary Clinton (and the Democratic Party)—are talking themselves into feeling troubled.

pnwmom

(109,011 posts)
8. Ralph Nader wreaked a lot of havoc with his 2.74% of the national vote.
Tue Aug 9, 2016, 05:03 AM
Aug 2016

And Stein is following in his pattern of targeting the swing states. She is a threat.

uponit7771

(90,367 posts)
10. After seeing the video of her in Russia I disagree 100%, that was her Khan moment for me. She ...
Tue Aug 9, 2016, 06:31 AM
Aug 2016

... defined herself in that video as an out of perspective asshole.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Stein is a pain in the as...