OPDENY270.ORG
Submitted by the_poorly_educated on Wed, 10/05/2016 - 7:22am
Time to stop talking and start organizing our voting strategy. We all know the faults of both candidates and finding new faults is a waste of time and energy. More faults is not going to change our minds. The website opdeny270.org has the plan. Go there and read the plan and spread the word. Convince HRC supporters in states like California to vote Jill Stein because we need more political parties to choose from. HRC doesn't need their vote in California. Get as many people as you can to vote Jill Stein in states like CA. Read the plan , it's a good one.
Comments
Wed, 10/05/2016 - 10:01am —
Wed, 10/05/2016 - 10:01am — HenryWallace
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/187189#comment-187189
This is only in two states, where write-ins are counted and where Stein has little support but Bernie had lots, so that this does not harm Jill's campaign. Otherwise, I wouldn't be supporting this either. But if people write in for Bernie rather than holding their noses to vote for a corporate Party candidate 'who can win', there's a step in the right direction.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Not sure why everybody's so hostile to this.
It's mostly just organizing to get people to vote Jill (isn't that what we want?) and the Bernie write ins can only hurt Hillary in states she needs.
I'm happy to convince my fellow Californians to vote for Jill.
What am I missing?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
It makes it less likely Jill will get to 5%.
because it takes votes away from her in seven states. And we're likely to get Hill at the end anyway. If we were very very lucky we'd get Trump, but looking at the composition of the House, and the attitude of the Republican powerful (donors and bigwigs) I don't think we would.
The House choosing the President would end up being another part of Hillary's Great Realignment. Bush Republicans and Third Way Democrats welcome! Food and wine available for a mere $30,000 a plate.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Please follow the plan and stop spreading FUD.
I'm starting to get suspicious.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
Listen the_poorly_educated...
I too am starting to get suspicious. You wagged your finger at duckpin in your last essay and now you're wagging it at CantStoptheSignal. I suggest you read more before pointing fingers at solid members here.
Everyone who disagrees with you is not a shill or a plant. I suggest you try a different tact.
It's a trade off...
Are you more likely to convince people to vote Jill or write in Bernie?
Especially in Vermont and other northeastern states, I'd say you will peel off a lot more Hillary voters by promoting a Bernie write in, and if that keeps Hillary out then I'll take that over the small hit in Jill's numbers.
Besides, the write in states are tiny compared to the Vote Jill states, the difference is easily made up by promoting Jill in big states.
It's not a bad strategy IMO. Certainly not something to get into a big flap over.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Wed, 10/05/2016 - 9:28am —
Wed, 10/05/2016 - 9:28am — CantStoptheSignal
Was the plan changed from Vermont (where Jill has only 15% support) and Oregon where her support is/was also low, in order to 'take votes away from her in 7 states'?
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
Me either.
As you can see from my post below, I think it is worth listening to. Who has a better idea? Who is going to create a third party before November? This group is supporting Jill Stein and has an organization to support her in place. They are recruiting people to work the phones.
The so-called left really does get the government it deserves.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
We are still slaves to an ideological, top down mentality,
the idea that there needs to be one right strategy and that any minor deviation is cause for rejection of the whole project.
We need a better appreciation of coalition building. We'll all never agree completely on every policy or strategy, but if people are willing to organize for the cause, we shouldn't discourage them because their plans are not exactly what we would choose ourselves.
We can all march in the same direction without all following the same path.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
That's not how any war was ever won.
When's the last time a war was one based on soldiers going off on their own path?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
You do realize...
I'm supporting you?
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
i actually, literally, laughed out loud ;-)
(as much as i wanted to not comment in this thread, that made my day, worth breaking my silence, thanks NHK)
Battle in Seattle, 1999
This is what democracy looks like (Seattle 1999 WTO)
Many more inspiring words at the end I think it is worth watching.
Thanks
Write ins for Bernie will do zero for Bernie or the 99%, but
will lessen the likelihood that Greens get 5% if the popular vote.
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/187189#comment-187189
The Greens WILL get 5% if Bernie's revolution was as big
as we thought it was. The race is close and VT could be the difference whether either candidate gets 270.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
IF IF IF is all you seem to have. It's not good enough. Besides,
over 3/4 of Bernie's supporters are now supporting Hillary, at his request. You saw the chart that was posted. What part of that are you not getting? Besides, your plan will do nothing for nobody. Having this go to the House is a pipe dream and, if it does, the House will pick Hillary or Trump anyway. Meanwhile, we will have screwed any hope of helping the Greens. Ja
A plan that, in practical reality, can only help the duopoly and hurt the Greens. NO THANK YOU.
Got a link for 75% that doesn't belong to
NTY, WaPo, CNN or MSNBC?
I just did a survey from Gallop, and it was all about third parties. They had Johnson and Stein in it. I can't wait for the results.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Got a link to a poll that shows Jill easily clearing 5% of the
popular vote with room to spare? Because that's really all that is relevant to my point, not from where she gets those votes. My reply was framed that way only because poorly educated's post was framed that way.
Point is, unless she definitely gets over 5% of the popular vote this time, the Greens will not get ballot access next time. And why? For a goal that is not going to happen anyway, except in someone's dreams.
As far as the number, I got it from the chart on this thread, as my prior post said.
since he doesn't cite a link
I would imagine that he is using a recent post that said "of those who donated to Sanders, and have made subsequent donations to other candidates, 75% donated to HRC, 10% to Jil, etc ..."
Which, since it didn't give total numbers, basically could mean, "Of 100 people who donated to Sanders, since then, 10 people have made additional donations, with 7.5 of them donating to HRC ..."
There were many problems with that chart
in any case, it was about donors, not supporters or voters.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I used the chart that was just posted on
and only because of the way the post to which I was replying was framed. For me, the issue is doing my best to try to ensure that Stein gets 5% or more of the vote. Whether those votes are from Bernie or not is important to that goal. However, I don't agree that she will easily get 5% even if people write in Bernie because Bernie's support was so strong. That was the claim I was replying to, right after I happened to notice the chart on this thread.
75% of Bernie voters are NOT going to vote for Her Heinous
they'll either go Green, go Libertarian, or stay home.
Irrelevant. The issue is 5% of the popular vote.
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/187223#comment-187223
Denying 270 electoral votes to either candidate not irrelevant.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
It's a pipe dream. Hurting Greens is the ONLY thing that it can
do.
Like hell it's irrelevant
if enough people go for other options, denial of 270 can happen. Unless the DNC plans on stealing the GE, anyway. And if you expect to see honest poll numbers showing anything TPTB deem "irrelevant", you're kinda dreaming, from where I sit...
Similarly, if you think Hillary won't get 270, you're kinda
dreaming from where I sit. I didn't say I expected to see honest poll numbers, so I am not sure where that's coming from. And yes, it is irrelevant where Jill's votes come from, as long as she gets them. As long as she gets 5% from somewhere, it's irrelevant if they came from Hillary, Bernie, Trump, Johnson or the Constitution Party candidate. Same for any other candidate.
Unless the DNC plans on stealing the GE, Unless I am mistaken, you think the primary was stolen. Is there a point in stealing the primary from someone who could have defeated Trump (according to head to head polls and sanity) only to have Hillary lose the general?
I don't know why anyone would assume it is more likely for this plan to work than it is for an election to be stolen.
What plan?
Writing in Sanders?
Look, I'm voting for Stein, that's always been my plan. And I have no quibble with what you're saying about "writing in"--that much, you are correct about. It won't count toward "Green Party viability". But repeating that goddamned trope about 75% Sanders support goes to Her, when there is nothing substantial, let alone honest, about that number, is bullshit. It's also seemingly quite unnecessary to your point, so why make others think you're just repeating Clinton talking points, when you don't have to?
Some may go Trump.
I hope not, because I hate to see decent people taken in by a con job.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
3/4 ???????
Really? Are Bernie supporters that wimpy. They all just went to HRC? Well then maybe we don't deserve to win if we're that wimpy.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
The only relevant issue is 5%. Oh, and *we* do deserve to win.
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/187223#comment-187223
Don't know about anyone else.
Why are surprised about the number anyway? did you not see the chart?
The chart was about donors, not supporters or voters.
The chart did not incorporate that month's data from the Greens unless it was entered manually.
Those are only two of the problems with the chart.
It's being circulated as proof that 75% of Bernie's supporters now support Hillary. It doesn't prove that.
Nonetheless, I agree with your overall points--it's just not a trustworthy piece of evidence.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Nope, they're not that wimpy
Remember when he told us all not to listen to him if he told us who to vote for? Ya, me too. There is no way in hell 75% of Sanders support is going to Hillary. It's a pipe dream at best...
Again, irrelevant where votes come from, as long as Jill gets
them.
Actually, I didn't--and I followed the primary relatively closely--but I recently saw the video on this board, including, the context, his affect, etc. I thought all he meant was make up your own minds (which is the responsibility of every citizen). Maybe you saw it differently. However, IMO, if Bernie is playing a game of that sort with Americans, counting on them to have seen that and to know he is lying when he tells them to vote for Hillary, he's delusional. I have a higher opinion of the man than that.
Jane Sanders retweeted it last Friday.
That retweet seemed pointed to most.
Anyway, Bernie's old movement was unusually politically independent, probably b/c a lot of indies, like me, joined the Democratic party for the sole purpose of supporting him.
Indies are not generally into letting politicians, party leaders, etc., tell them what to do.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Wed, 10/05/2016 - 10:45am —
Wed, 10/05/2016 - 10:45am — lunachickie
If you'll pardon an interjection, isn't it actually more like 'It's propaganda at best...'?
Edited to finish the end of a word... if only I could sleep enough to ever freaking wake up properly...
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I just don't believe this
as this crazy election season is all over the board and the mainstream polling from places that are nothing but Killary propaganda outlets is a joke. If this was the case why are the Clinton's and the establishment going full bore freak about 'protest' votes? Perhaps their internals are telling a different tale. Every time the Clinton's let it rip and reveal what they are really about my real life friends who were all mostly Bernie supporters go a little softer in their support for Killary. Bernie's full throated fear mongering is wearing thin. Trump is getting progressively more over the top rhetorically and it's hard to believe he's not a ringer. So I take the polling with the same dubiousness as I do any information that comes out of the in the bag media right and left. One thing is clear nobody with unwashed a brain their head likes either of these candidates.
A Bernie write in campaign...
depresses Hillary's vote count.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
So does voting for Jill and writing in Jill will be reported and
will count toward the critical 5% of the popular vote the Greens need to for ballot access next time. Writing in Bernie will be reported nowhere and will only hurt the Green's chances at ballot access in 2020.
Frankly...
Hurting Hillary in states she needs is more important to me than promoting Jill to the exclusion of all else.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Why doesn't voting for Jill in those states hurt Hillary as much
or more than writing in Bernie?
Because there's a better chance...
of convincing people in the northeast to write in Bernie (whom they've already voted for) than vote for Jill.
Just the way it is.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
I'm in the Northeast. I donated to Bernie all the law allowed,
did fundraising and volunteered. I just didn't go to those debate watching events. No way I am using my vote on a write in vote for a Democratic candidate that won't even get reported anywhere.
Why do you assume that I or anyone would rather use a vote that way than help get the Greens automatic ballot access next time? Maybe Vermont, for purely sentimental reasons, but it has really few electoral votes and this plan is not limited to Vermont.
So don't...
But you need to realize not everybody shares your view.
The current working assumption appears to be that our Shroedinger's Cat system is still alive. But what if we all suspect it's not, and the real problem is we just can't bring ourselves to open the box?
Well,
your post stated there is a better chance of gettng Northeastern voters to vote for Bernie than for Jill. Because I am a Northeastern voter, I responded with a post about me and my experience. I also asked the basis for your assumption. That was it, the extent of my post. I don't understand how that said to you that I assume everyone shares my view.
Nothing against Jill, but I
Nothing against Jill, but I aint that big on the green party, to much baggage. Deny Hill the victory, then move to a whole new third party, or a left wing tea party to fix the dems.
It' not about Jill or the Green Party. She will lose. It's about
using your vote to (1) say that you want candidates to the left of the Democratic Party's candidates; and (2) help disrupt the duopoly and make newer parties--not just the Greens, but any newer parties--seem more normal and viable. With the short time before election day, this is the most we can do. After election day, we can talk about which party might be best.
And this plan is not going to deny Hillary a victory. If it does, I will sign over the deed to my home to you, free and clear--no mortgage, no taxes due. Bookmark this post so you can be sure to collect or at least shame me into leaving the board. I'll bookmark it, too.
A vote is an endorsement.
Sorry, But I believe that a vote is no different from endorsing that which the vote is for. I will write in Bernie on my Utah ballot. I really couldn't give two flying flips for whether or not the Greens make the Federal funding line, a line that will surely be pushed out further by congress the following year if she makes it anyway.
Above all, you should not do anything that violates
your principles. Peace.
Oh for cryin' out loud
don't overdo it?
You know, there really is such a thing as "trying too hard".
OK.
There are two questions being conflated here: one, should one cast a vote for Stein & the Green Party this election? and two, Through what vehicle should we do our mid- and long-term organizing?
I agree with you that we should not consider the Green Party our mid- or long-term political home. But--
The idea that somehow the Green Party is so imperfect, has such a bad history, has so much baggage--when only 32% of the population even knows who the Green Party candidate is--that voting for Stein is a bad choice? Strikes me as being a little like saying "I don't care for pasta puttanesca," when the other options on the menu are a turd, an arsenic-buffalo chips omelette, and Rocky Mountain oysters.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
I find
that conflation to be....curious.
Not sure who you are addressing BUT Green Party is long term
solution along with short term. There is no other party who identifies with Bernie supporters. Vote Jill Stein if you disagree with opdeny270.org otherwise vote Bernie in VT, NH, RI and Jill Stein everywhere else. Simple enough?
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
disagree
Stein in RI period.
Good point CSTS
I'm not writing in Bernie for 2 reasons. I looked up the Oregon policy of tallying write ins. It's confusing but tI think they tally them but unless the write in candidates tally is not larger then the official candidate they do not count as far as getting any electoral college votes. On the do write ins count? page they even joked about tallying votes for Micky Mouse every election.
Even though Bernie won OR hands down every Democratic elected official here has endorsed Hillary and they are pushing Trump fear big time. Even Merkley and our crooked governoe Kate Brown is a full blown Hillbot. I do not trust the Sec.of State here to not mess with the results of the write in process. This is a solid Democratic voting state but the party itself is freaking corrupt and bent on every level I'll take my chances and vote for Jill as she is on the ballot.
The second reason I'm not writing in Bernie is that even if he was threatened by the Clinton's he is now a Hillary supporter and I doubt that he would allow himself to be elected by the House even if they chose him. He is a firm believer in the two party system. If he had of been interested in winning he would have not thrown in the towel before the convention and he would have contested the totally bogus rigged primary. Even though he won here the Democratic voter registrar's pulled dirty tricks. Ask Dammit Janet about this.
Personally I don't want him as president for many reasons. Sure he's better the the two abominations running but his neocon 'foreign policy' is unacceptable. His running around calling the Clinton's nasty ass neoliberal and Democratic Third Way'ers policy progressive makes me thoroughly distrust him to be his own man. I'm not saying I'm angry at him or resent him but his vaunted integrity just might make him unable to accept and if he did why would he not still be under the Clinton's thump and complicit in pushing what he calls progressive . So no write in for me.
Strategically speaking I want to take them all down and barring that cause as much damage to the Democrat's as possible. This election is a bust but getting third parties on the ballot and empowering people to vote third party instead of believing that their votes are binary and do not count is a good place to start a real political revolution. The Greens may or may not become a viable vehicle but once again it's a starting point. Down ballot I'm voting against every damn crooked Demo on the ballot including even judges and our horrendous Democratic city government.
At this point I think our best bet is to play it as it lays and use the 4-8 years to organize and form a viable cohesive opposition party. I am also a believer in civil disobedience and protests and coalitions between the horizontal movements like BLM , ,#NoDAPL and other movements global and local that will no doubt evolve from this freaking nightmare. People will really have motivation once they cram the Clinton's down our throats.
Not writing in Bernie assures either HRC or Trump will win.
That would be really good for HRC. Hillary would LOVE you.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
why Bernie?
First of all, in Oregon we have Jill Stein on the ballot so we'll vote for her. Why would we want to write in Bernie? Why not do what we can to have Jill win Oregon? (she won't but we can try, right?)
Writing in Bernie would guarantee that neither Jill nor Bernie would win the state. Suggesting that we write in Bernie is really good for HRC and thus....
Go to OPDENY270.ORG
If you live in OR you vote for Jill Stein. That is the plan.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
so Bernie in New England because he could win
he can't but that's the theory. Then what? His name is included in the House vote which elects Trump?
It'd be the same if Jill were to win a state.
The current plan is Bernie in VT, NH, RI. Everywhere else , JILL
The theory goes that if Bernie wins enough votes to deny either a electoral victory then the REPUBLICAN house will PUBLICLY vote on the winner. If they pick HRC they're toast. If they pick Trump, the Republican party is toast.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
The House vote that elects Hill,
but otherwise yes.
There's no fucking way they would choose anyone but Hill, unless you think the Tea Party is going to see a massive, bigger-than-2010 surge this year and take over the House.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Curious
I have an annoying habit of looking up WHOIS info--it's not as straightforward as it used to be (because a lot of people wised up in the last ten years)--but it can still be somewhat illuminating from a research standpoint. Anyway, I found it kind of curious as to why a Hollywood producer is shown as the admin of the site opdeny270.org?
I want to stress that this all seems on the level--I just would like to know more about this org than is even on the website, because there's not a lot there.
The thing that gets me is, write in votes for Bernie will not
even get reported, let alone defeat Hillary. As a strategy vote, it's one hand clapping in an empty forest. If someone wants to vote for Bernie on principle or even out of sentiment, great. But it's not a strategy vote.
In the sense that writing-in
In the sense that writing-in Bernie is the same as simply not voting for $$Hillary, it can contribute to the defeat of $$Hillary, depending upon the state. Most of the Busters are people that would be voting Dem against the Duhnald, if the DNC hadn't backed such a sickening candidate.
I'll be backing Jill, even though I find her online supporters to be some of the most annoying assholes I've ever encountered.
They seem to me to be overcome with resentment that they must rely on lowly Bernie supporters to reach the 5% threshold, and it drives them to be patronizing shitheads.
Jill is cool, it's her minions I can't stand.
Thank you!
http://www.troll.me/images/trololo/why-thank-you.jpg
[video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=32UGD0fV45g]
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
The issue is not only writing in Bernie, though.
There issue is: writing in Bernie, who ran in the primary and lost/was robbed or whatever one believes versus writing in or voting for Jill. Both help defeat Hillary, so that alone is not a reason to write in Bernie rather than Jill. Hence my question.
If anything, writing in a Green is more of a slap in the face to the DNC than writing in someone who chose to run as a Democrat and, for whatever reason, has endorsed and is campaigning for the Democratic nominee.
Meanwhile, writing in Bernie instead of Jill in a number of states lessens the chances that the Greens will have automatic ballot access in 2020. That would not only be a second slap in the face to the DNC while helping the Greens, but it might start cutting against the duopoly, against the idea that duopoly parties are the only ones that get automatic ballot access. I am not telling anyone for whom to vote (and it wouldn't matter if I did).
But most of the the reasons being given to write in Bernie apply equally or more so to Jill. Either that or they are based on the belief/claim that writing in Bernie will get him to be President. It won't. It's not going to the House and, if it does, the House will choose Trump or Hillary, not Johnson and certainly not Bernie, who will not be in eligible for their votes.
Two people said they wanted to vote for Bernie rather than Jill on principle; and that I can understand. Most of the reasons I can't understand.
Agreed.
This much I agree with
but please don't be helping the Trope-meisters who keep shoving that bogus 75% number at us all, because that (and other standard talking points we've heard from Team Clinton over the last year) sort of takes away from the ability to really listen/read what you're saying. People see that, and they'll simply discount your thesis altogether, because they'll think you're shilling for Hill to win, in the end.
I guess you didn't read the post at the link? My framing was
only because I replied to poorly educated, whose post used a certain framing. All over this thread except for that one post to poorly educated, all I said was 5% for Jill gets the Greens automatic ballot access next time. If you think this issue is important enough to want to warn someone--and I don't because as I have posted several times, it's irrelevant where votes come from-- why not warn the person who posted the chart?
The point is, I am not comfortable that Jill has 5% now or that she will have it by election day in terms of people who actually show up at the polls.
You keep repeating that
And people will keep repeating back to you whatever their point is, because it appears you may be talking past anyone pushing back on you at all, while not actually addressing a thing they say.
It's been pointed out to you more than once that the bigger goal for many is defeating Clinton. Period. So what they plan to do isn't irrelevant--and if you keep insisting otherwise, you'll never convince them of anything.
Not to mention that, at least around here, minds are pretty much made up anyway. IMO? Her Heinous can go fuck herself and so can all her little minions and props and spinners and media whores, and anything else keeping her a threat to this country. I don't care how she loses, as long as she loses. By hook or crook, people are going to find ways to ensure she gets as few votes as possible. It'll be a cold day in Hell before she gets mine, unless people help her steal all of Stein's actual votes.
That's probably a great closing thought, actually--anybody writing in Bernie Sanders won't get him elected, but I'll bet anything that write-in votes can't be stolen.
And you keep saying that.
I have replied to you on this point several times. I am not sure what your issue is. To review:
This is all I said or meant: No matter how Bernie's supporters votes in 2016, if Jill gets 5% of the popular vote, the Greens get ballot access in 2020. Thus, it's irrelevant if her votes come from Bernie's supporter or from undecideds, or from Hillary or from wherever.
This is a simple concept. It's true. It's not even a little controversial. I would not even have mentioned the source of votes, except that I replied to one post framed in terms of source of votes. My only point in that reply was that we cannot count on Jill getting 5% of the vote if several states are carved out. I never said a thing about the source of her votes being irrelevant for any purpose other than ballot access and you should know that because I've posted that to you before.
If you want to speculate about where Bernie's support went and where it will go on election day, as to those of his supporters who make it to the polls, that is certainly your privilege. However, I was posting about getting 5% of the popular vote for ballot access. When someone replies to me I assume someone replying to me is replying to me about something I said and not some new subject they would prefer I address. Since the source of the votes is irrelevant to what I was posting about, and I assumed you were replying about that subject, I said so. If you want to prove the source of Jill's votes will be relevant to ballot access for the Green Party in 2020, I'd love to see your post. Otherwise, at this point, we've gone around this circle more than once; and, as much fun as it is being berated by a fellow poster repeatedly for making an accurate statement about ballot access, this is my last response on this subject. Enough is enough.
As far as stealing votes, I don't know why a write in vote for Bernie is any harder to steal than a write in vote for Jill, but neither will defeat Hillary or put this in the House of Representatives. Even if it does, the House has to vote for one of the top 3 vote getters and Bernie will not be in the top 3. Those will be Clinton, Johnson and Trump.
That said, people should and WILL vote however they want; and anyone who wants to vote for Bernie just because he or so wants to vote for Bernie, or out of love or principle or whatever will get no pushback from me. They can post however they want as well, unless an admin or a mod says otherwise. However, if someone states a reason for voting a certain way that seems factually or strategically wrong, unrealistic or illogical, I may well respond to the reason they give. If I am doing something for a reason that doesn't hold up, I'd want someone to point that out to me. And I can only respond to the reasons people post because I am not a mindreader.
This is not aimed so much at
This is not aimed so much at Jill supporters, who are being encouraged to vote for Stein - it's more for those in Vermont and Oregon (who'd mostly not vote Green anyway) seeking an excuse not to hold their noses to vote for a Dem or Repub corporate candidate but would consider writing in Bernie (who did well among voters in these states) if only on principle, since he won the Dem nomination - and did not concede or release his delegates to Her Royal Cheater.
Psychopathy is not a political position, whether labeled 'conservatism', 'centrism' or 'left'.
A tin labeled 'coffee' may be a can of worms or pathology identified by a lack of empathy/willingness to harm others to achieve personal desires.
I agree that an organized strategy from the left would be nice,
but as you can see from comments, Putin is more likely to get elected than the left is to organize.
Those states that overwhelmingly voted for Bernie and can write him in should vote for Bernie if that i what they want to do. They worked their asses off to achieve not just wins, but statements. The rest should vote Green for no other reason than to make another statement. Jill Stein can't win, but Hillary and the DNC and the Third Way can lose.
Thanks for posting this here. I hope one day "the left" will stop quibbling and starts focusing on seizing power. Until then, we will get the government we deserve.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
Best comment since this site started.
Thanks for posting it.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
DK, I'm happy to organize.
But it's not quibbling to say that the House of Representatives is very likely to choose Hillary.
However, since that's just my opinion based on what facts I know, I do still have one friend in DC I might call, who used to work in the House and has since moved on, who might be able to give me more insight.
I just don't want people to pour energy and labor into something that results in Hillary. That's a disgusting feeling, and having it once was enough.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
What does that matter?
Sorry for poking you, but what does it matter? We may go down for the count, but it gives voters one more chance to sock Hillary and Trump in the nose. Headline: "Hillary and Trump so unpopular neither win enough delegates." Or, First time Third Party candidates get enough votes to......................."
If we can't win first place, how about second or third? Something -- anything. I am tired of losing EVERYTHING all the time.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
That's another way of looking at it.
So we're not trying to actually prevent Hill from "winning" but we want to make her look like shit (not hard) in a way the MSM can't cover up (harder). Denying her the legitimacy, or appearance thereof, that she craves.
That's an appealing notion, and I can understand why some people would want to do it. I don't know whether it's more important than trying to get Jill to 5%, but I guess I'll make my decision on that sometime in the next couple weeks.
Thanks for the clarification. I was responding to this as if it were a strategy aimed at influencing the final electoral outcome, when it's actually an optics exercise attacking Hillary Clinton's supposed "mandate."
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
If the left votes for ANYone other than Hillary, it makes
Hillary look crappy. It's arguable that voting for Jill, someone who did not spend Sanders' millions on a primary, makes Hillary look worse than does voting for Sanders, another "Democrat" who is campaigning for Hillary. In four years, if the Greens have ballot access, the duopoly gets socked in the jaw. In four years, heck in a week, no one is even going to know how many votes got written in for Bernie because write in votes are not reported anywhere.
You will do it by voting for Jill.
The Bernie people are still out there. It will be really hard to convince them NOT to vote for Bernie no matter what you say. I've tried. They don't care if they are spitting into the wind. So instead of fighting about it, embrace it. Roll them into the strategy. Besides, have you seen any suggestions any better than this one? I joined the FB page for this group to learn more. This may be coming from the original group that put together Bernie or Bust, which actually accomplished something beside conversation.
I think we need to open our minds and explore all possibilities. We need to be felt if we are even going to become a force to be reckoned with. This means we do what's feasible to make contact and leave a scar. We had victory in our hands with Bernie. They stole it. Are we going to let them get away with it, or are we going to find a way to smack em for it? A vote for Jill Stein is one, but it is one vote. If we can add them all together to make a statement, it is what we should do.
"Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich."--Napoleon
I'm in New Hampshire,
and even tho i donated many times to Bernie and we gave him a barnburner of a victory here, i see the validity of casting a vote for Jill.
Trump will take this state anyway, i believe, so i would like my vote, for once in my life, to accomplish movement towards a people's party.
Bernie moved on and so will i.
I will happily cast a vote for Jill.
Making her heinous scramble and sweat seems like fun to me.
That's you're right. But the plan says write in Bernie in NH
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
Remember the phrase "Divide and Conquer". DNC doing good
job at doing exactly that to 99%. They create doubt and fear. That's what they do.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
The likelihood of that happening is remote. The only thing
likely to happen is making sure the Greens won't get to 5%. Who wins then? The duopoly.
The size of the states where opdeny270 says write in Bernie
are small. VT, NH, RI. If every other state votes Jill Stein she will easily get 5%.
"Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies." - Groucho
Irrelevant. Jill has been having a very hard time getting to 5%.
She needs every vote she can get. Meanwhile, write in votes for Bernie will accomplish absolutely nothing.
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/187189#comment-187189
68% of the electorate doesn't know her.
So there you have it.
OTOH, 63% doesn't know Gary Johnson, and he's having a lot easier time. Billionaires like him, maybe?
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
He seems to be the candidate the Koch brothers prefer.
Did you see the interview he gave where he talked while biting his tongue? I have to wonder why politicians think things like that are a good idea, like Hillary barking during some small gathering or other that got televised. It was probably supposed to be a rally.
.
http://caucus99percent.com/comment/187189#comment-187189
The national data is similar
I posted this a few weeks back:
Nationally it's more like 2% switching with about 20% going to Stein.
The point of voting Green is not to win - that isn't going to happen this time around - but to make the next round easier. They had to spend all their cash and time just on ballot access. At least this resulted in the most successful year ever for the Green party's presidential campaign. By removing that step from the next elections, they can focus on actually campaigning right from the start.
We can’t save the world by playing by the rules, because the rules have to be changed.
- Greta Thunberg
Not sure I believe that number, anyway, but even if it's true
If that 73.47% turns out and pulls the lever I'm a Rotarian.
"More for Gore or the son of a drug lord--None of the above, fuck it, cut the cord."
--Zack de la Rocha
"I tell you I'll have nothing to do with the place...The roof of that hall is made of bones."
-- Fiver
Pages