Spoilers
The flaws in the "spoiler" narrative have a lot of "tells".
The first tell is that candidates on the right and center are never, ever accused of being a spoiler.
Only leftists can be "spoilers".
When a "flaw" only goes in one direction, then it's not a flaw. It's a scam. Every time. A transparent and amateur scam at that.
The second tell is the hyperbolic rhetoric.
They’re spoilers (the Daily Mail); they’re the reason we’re in this mess (the Week); their deliberate unreason (Kathy Griffin, seriously) is a threat to us all.
The third tell is reassuring, superficial statements that sound good, but simply aren't true.
However, those who insist on voting for third-party candidates are often actually voting against their own preference.
When I say 'simply not true', I mean the facts are known, but are just ignored.
You have to assume that almost all of Stein’s voters would have gone to Clinton. But both pre-election polls and the national exit poll suggests that a lot of them wouldn’t have voted at all, if they’d been forced to pick between the two major candidates. The breakdown might have been something like 35 percent Clinton, 10 percent Trump and 55 percent wouldn’t vote. That doesn’t wind up netting very many votes for HRC.
The fourth tell is to try to convince you that everything you know about the world is wrong. For instance, spoilers Tulsi Gabbard and Jill Stein can't win because everyone who voted Democratic now want war with Russia.
But Democratic attitudes have changed since Trump took office. Liberals who once encouraged diverse primaries are now deeply suspicious of alleged spoilers like 2016 Green Party candidate Jill Stein, who has faced questions about her ties to Russia; a party that has traditionally prided itself on skepticism toward military adventurism has since embraced a more muscular, anti-Russia foreign policy.
Which leads us to lies, by guilt from association, based on more lies.
Gabbard is an interesting case, because she does have some foreign policy objectives that align with Russia, so it would make sense that a candidate who is known as an Assad apologist is seeing favorable tweets and headlines from some sort of Russian apparatus.But even her denial of being a Russian asset was somehow confusing because people believe Greenwald—given his work with Edward Snowden—is a Kremlin propagandist himself.
All of this builds into a false narrative in which Gabbard and Stein are actually spoilers for the MIC and their regime change policies more than the Democrats.
Like Sanders and Warren, Gabbard is acutely attuned to the left’s frustration with endless wars. What she’s offering, however, is a fatalist view starkly different from the optimistic global vision of progress they’ve been pushing into the national conversation.
The final tell is when the public just flat-out ignores the entire narrative and does what they want anyway.
But the party grew by roughly 40,000 members between 2016 and mid-2018 — and now, as more and more voters become disillusioned by the two major parties, the Green Party is poised to once again play its biggest role: spoiler.
Comments
But the party grew...
...by roughly 40,000 members between 2016 and mid-2018
I'm one
#DemExited2016
" In the beginning, the universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry, and is generally considered to have been a bad move. -- Douglas Adams, The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy "
the Green Party grew by about 20%
The GP grew by more people than almost the entire DSA.
But you never hear about that.
Some people have no shame
let's work backwards here. Snowden is in Russia because the Obama Administration pulled his passport, stranding him there. Snowden did not choose to be stuck in Russia.
So Greenwald's "favorable" (i.e., honest) reporting on Snowden has nothing to do with Russia.
Thus, anything Greenwald writes about anyone, such as Gabbard, has nothing to do with Russia.
This is simple, so simple that either the writer is an idiot or else is deliberately spreading propaganda. Either one is pathetic. I would think it's the latter, too, which is why I say some people have no shame. Anyone who's not a psychopath would be embarrassed to lie like that.
Not really mutually exclusive
Orwell: Where's the omelette?
Then there is this quote
"the optimistic global vision of progress" = regime change wars.
"fatalist view" = acknowledging the reality that our "optimistic global vision of progress" has killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, bankrupted our nation, made the U.S. a pariah, and backfired in every way.
How can someone write something like that.
Am I an Assad apologist?
Basically my Middle East policy is that I hate the guts of virtually everyone there and don't think the whole flea-bitten region is worth one drop of American blood.
Does that make me an Assad apologist?
Clarification: I have known and enjoyed the camaraderie of US immigrants from Turkey, Iran, Lebanon and Israel. I don't hate everyone in the ME from racism or religion.
Just returning their hatred and their G.D. governments. Every last one of their governments with particular hatred for Saudi Arabia.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Gee, why would you hate our good and dear friend.
Remember, George H.W. Bush said they were.
"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
They need to arrange for MbS to pass Michelle a candy or sumpin’
at the next international wing-ding state funeral.
Get some PR experts on the case. Hill and Knowlton would be good, they came up with the famous fake news story about “incubator babies” for their royal Kuwaiti clients.
Hah! I feel the same way about HIM!
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Ross Perot
I was thinking back to Ross Perot and I seem to remember people claiming he was a spoiler who siphoned votes from Bush. But you know the funny part? I’m pretty sure I heard that from Dem leaning folks, not Republicans!
At any rate, you don’t hear Republicans still talking about Perot like Dems do Nader. Not that they’re anymore welcoming of third parties, but they seem to have figured out that putting up a candidate their people want to vote for works a lot better than shame and blame when they have a dud. Maybe the Dems could think about doing the same?
Idolizing a politician is like believing the stripper really likes you.
You are correct
Perot was the spoiler for Bush The Elder.
But that was the last time I heard Repubs whine about spoilers. 27 years ago.
Dems whine about spoilers every election.
That's because Democrats have nothing to offer.
They usually can't run anyone who will appeal to the majority of their constituents. 2008 was an exception.
This has, of course, only been true of the Democratic party of the last 50 years. The Democratic party previous to that was often able to run a candidate that appealed to most of their membership. Even that asshole Harry Truman was able to persuade people to support him the first time, against the odds too.
"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
Truman integrated the Armed Forces
and proposed universal health care. That's more than Jimmy Carter did.
In fact from Carter on, ALL of the Presidents make even Richard f-ing NIXON look better! And that is some accomplishment.
I've seen lots of changes. What doesn't change is people. Same old hairless apes.
Spoiler talk just means "Get back in line"
But the DNC knows if they announce that they will not be fielding any progressive candidates this season, they won't get any
suckerindividual contributions.It's all about the money. And apparently even THAT is considered unacceptable to point out, so fuck em.
I do not pretend I know what I do not know.
don't fuck 'em
I wouldn't fuck 'em. Cat alone knows what you'd bring home!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
An acute case of oligarchitis.
"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 see 3 scenarios, the Democratic Party doesn't survive any.
1. Bernie is the D nominee - the corruptocrats will try to blame the Greens for "their loss" but Bernie will ruin their plans by winning. President Sanders tries to complete his reform of the Democratic Party; their refusal to reform causes a voter revolt and the Ds disappear or the corporate (fascist) wing disappears, probably taking the name with them.
2. The corruptocrats cheat Bernie and he accepts the Green nomination - The Ds finish third so badly they cannot avoid the obvious fact that they spoiled Bernie's chances - that is if he doesn't win anyway. (see 1912) The D party is unable to field a candidate in 2024.
3. The corruptocrats cheat Bernie again and he doesn't run - Trump's second term is followed by a christofascist/fascist coalition regime that doesn't even pretend to be a democracy. It will be unstable and violent, but will probably last until the US ends in a mass extinction in the early 2030s.
On to Biden since 1973
My guesses
1. Bernie is cheated out of the nomination in an obvious way.
2. Or a not so obvious way.
3. Or the vitriol from the Dems can't be overcome as Russia Gaters convince enough people that Bernie can't win.
4. Bernie is nominated and both Repubs and Dems work against him, like the Lamont race, and Trump is re-elected. That result is more to the Dems' liking.
I'm betting on 1 or 2.
I see no reason that they would ever allow him to run in the general--unless they knew that he was so cowed that he would betray every campaign promise he ever made and every policy--bar the imperialistic ones--he ever supported.
In that case, yeah, they might run an altogether cowed and co-opted Sanders in the general, as a kind of Obama 2.0. But it would require a bit of fancy footwork for them to do that now, after they have heaped so much ire on Bernie, including suggesting that he's a Russian tool.
Most likely, they'll just cheat him and then take that as more proof that he's intrinsically incapable of winning.
"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
By my reckoning
1. My sources say that Bernie will not be allowed on the final ballot. Period. If he's thinking about running as a Democrat, forget about it. He won't become the nominee and the Dems will lose as a result. But they would rather lose that allow Bernie to become President. That's a fact.
2. If Bernie wants to run, he should use the Democratic Primaries to build his following. Then, just before the primaries end, jump ship and run as an independent with his New Party set up and ready to go. I don't know how the ballots would work, but his people can quietly put that in place. Then it's constant rallies up to election day. He should qualify for the final debates.
3. The Left will always be a spoiler, politically, because the US has only two right wing Parties. Really, it's always been that way. Think about it.
4. Left-minded voters should grow up and stop clinging to Democratic Party. They should just call themselves the American Left, rent headquarters everywhere and invite the American people to join. Go bold. Choose the Lion as a mascot, gold as a color. Create a specific vision for the future of America that electrifies the People. Occupy the empty space where the Left belongs. They will come and build a utopia — because it's really the only choice that humanity has left.
5. An Independent Executive Branch is a very good thing. More checks and balances. An entirely new balance of power. Teach Americans a thing or two about how a government can work. Other Independents from the American Left can run for office in the mid terms and grow the party organically. No muss, no fuss. By the end of the first term, there will be independents in all branches.
The Left should be a monumental spoiler. No more billionaires. That's an economic atrocity that corrupts and destroys nations. Excess capital should flow throughout the economy, readily available for use in building a sustainable infrastructure to benefit the American people.
If Sanders would run with
the New Party (and I wished it would happen),
I wonder who of the folks from the 'old' Democratic Party' would try to change their party affiliation and try to follow Sanders. I foresee a lot of 'old' Democrats falling apart and break into pieces and going home to take care of family business. What they should have done long ago. It's so embarrassing to watch old folks not being able to let go of their 'political ambitions, jobs, and harlequin role plays'. (Biden being one of the harlequins as an example of a specialty glib and slick ... he such a nice uncle ...you might have a pity with him... not ... but it's hard to say something nasty like 'go home' to a nice uncle.)
Sigh. Sanders, Tulsi, Warren, AOC and ilhan Omar should conspire to become the 'awesome five musketeers'.
Arghh, nonsense pipe dreams of an old naive. I am already tired of myself. Go on, nothing here.
https://www.euronews.com/live
deprecating yourself
I really wish you'd stop deprecating yourself, mimi. Your comments are quite cogent and make far more common sense than a lot of the crapola we see from the mainstream media!
And in your second language, to boot! I guarantee you I'd make far less common sense in German!
So enough with the self-bashing, please!
"US govt/military = bad. Russian govt/military = bad. Any politician wanting power = bad. Anyone wielding power = bad." --Shahryar
"All power corrupts absolutely!" -- thanatokephaloides
I know I do that, but I am really
not good in my own research capabilities and stamina. And for that I am not happy, so I try to say it indirectly by adding something that makes me small. Self-navel-gazing has its limits too.
But ok, aye, aye Sir, I will stop doing it to the best of my capabilities.
It's Sunday morning here with sun shine, what could be better? Have a wonderful one as well at your corner of the world.
https://www.euronews.com/live
You can't spoil what's already rotten.
Kudos on a great comment, though.
"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
@Pluto's Republic
If Bernie wants to run, he should use the Democratic Primaries to build his following. Then, just before the primaries end, jump ship and run as an independent with his New Party set up and ready to go. I don't know how the ballots would work, but his people can quietly put that in place. Then it's constant rallies up to election day. He should qualify for the final debates.
That's what I hoped he would do last time. When he didn't, and instead became a Hillary supporter and a Democratic recruitment officer, I figured they had intimidated him out of the idea--not that I suppose he ever had that idea, given that I don't think he ever believed he'd gain enough support to lay a finger on her.
"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 agree...
Something smells rotten
or spoiled. The real spoilers are the jack-offs trying to bury Bernie, Tulsi, any progressives that want to help the people instead of themselves. This is why we can’t have nice things.
"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11