Jill Stein has invited Sanders to join her on the Green Party Ticket. http://www.democracynow.org/2016/6/9/jill_stein_to_bernie_sanders_run The Democratic Party elitists and Clinton machine stole the election from Sanders - and Sanders and his supporters know it. Clinton is the antithesis of everything Sanders has fought for his whole life - and a Clinton win in November is a defeat for Sander's agenda and goals. Most notably, MILLIONS of young people, particularly college educated, support Sanders. Revolutions always start with young people. Sanders could start an evolving revolution that NEVER will happen in the Democrat Party. In fact, via Clinton and the super rich the Democratic Party just ran to the radical right of the Republicans on war, shipping jobs overseas, Wall Street and big bank control of government, closed and secret government, massive corruption and bribery and more. No, the Green Party won't win this time, but if Sanders shifts his MILLIONS of HIGHLY POLITICALLY ACTIVE young people to the Green Party he literally MIGHT break the two-party political system that is TOTALLY controlled by elitists and super rich - leading instead to a coalition government in Congress - which is FAR more difficult for elitists to bribe and control. Should Bernie Sanders join Jill Stein on the Green Party ticket? Or should he just crawl away defeated?
I voted yes because the 3 other options are stupid. I would prefer Jill Stein over Sanders because of his support of Liberal interventions in Kosovo, Syria and Libya. But he would get more votes than Jill. I don't think Clinton stole the nomination. She won more states in the open primaries than Sanders so the shame is with the people who voted for her. The fact that most voters dislike both Clinton and Trump show how out of touch the two parties are. But they won't relinquish their stranglehold over democracy without a fight.
Sanders doesn't suck, but I don't see how joining a hard left environmentalist would help his chances. Hillary is a horrible candidate, but fortunately for her Trump is going to be her opponent. She SHOULD be able to take him in the general, assuming that her other scandals don't sink her first. Actually Trump has scandals too, so who's to say he'll be there in November.
I also voted yes....... for different reasons because I am Canadian and I want to see the control over agriculture that Monsanto has ...... broken.... . and this seems like the best way for that to be accomplished. Brilliant sales people at Monsanto..... could well do such a good job of earning commissions...... that more than half of the nations in the world will not allow North American non organic produce and meat to cross their borders????? http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/466314-russia-says-no-gmo-seeds.html Russia Says No to GMO Seeds I hate to admit it....... but on the issue of GMO seeds........ Russia is far ahead of us and they deserve credit for this stance!
You made this statement on June 22..... do you still feel the same way under these new set of circumstances? http://www.politicalforum.com/lates...-bernie-supporters-will-not-vote-hillary.html Is the Rabbi correct that one third of Bernie supporters will NOT vote for Hillary? ....
Then they only have about three choices because they're not going to vote for Donald Trump. They can not cast a vote at all for president (a write-in vote is the same as a non-vote for president). They can vote for Jill Stein that will only be on the ballot in less than 37 States according to information I've read from the Green Party. Jill Stein has no way of winning the presidential election. They can vote for Gary Johnson, a Republican that's the Libertarian candidate, that will be on the ballot in all 50 states. Johnson can't win the Electoral College but he represents a potential threat of preventing Clinton and Trump from winning the 270 Electoral College votes turning the election of the president over to the House of Representatives where he has a medium chance of being elected president by many Republicans and all of the Democrats that oppose Donald Trump. Speaker Paul Ryan would probably support Johnson over Trump in a House vote and he could carry a lot of Republicans with him.
I did and I stand by it. Jill Stein is a third-party candidate. Bernie will not win if he ran with Jill Stein and would make Hillary lose cursing us with a Trump victory. Let me put it to you this way. 1/3 of Sanders supports won't vote for anyone but Sanders. So if Sanders ran with Stein, he would get 1/3 of his supporters for sure. Estimating maybe 1/5 of Sanders supporters were lured over to Hillary, Sanders would get maybe 70-80% of his previous voting base. Jill Stein has a fair amount of supporters but not enough to combine to make their ticket a strong one. Now, if Sanders runs with Stein, he will lure away a portion of Hillary's voting base. This makes Hillary drop in the polls. However, it does not effect Trump at all. So Trump holds 50% about of voters and Sanders and Hillary combined hold 50%. So they will both lose to Trump in the end. This is what happened to Abraham Lincoln and why he won. There were four candidates, Lincoln and a bunch of Democrats. The three Dems had fairly equal votes, and combined had more than Lincoln. But Lincoln had the most total votes out of any candidate, so he won. The majority of the country was against anti-slavery and Lincoln's policies, but they spread their votes over three different candidates and led to a Lincoln victory. Same basic principle here. Also, factor in Bernie's supporters and who exactly they are. They are young and angsty and highly optimistic about human nature, idealists at heart, and think the country runs more simply than it does. Why do you think they are causing such an uproar? Because they are not mature voters and don't see that dividing the Democratic party will lead to a Trump victory. So if Bernie runs with Stein, you get Green Party tree-huggers and a bunch of teens, who are going to screw things up, and give the media a heyday, from which they will over-hype the story, and divide the Democratic party and lead to a Trump victory. Yes the Rabbi is right, but I doubt that those people will vote for Trump to spite Hillary because they are highly against him. The Dems have the upper hand in that the Republican party is divided and Trump is an oompa loompa fighting for the rights of orange people while committing treason to the country. So they really shouldn't waste it by dividing their party as well. Anyways, that's my two cents, other people may disagree, but I think the historical reference and the logic is solid.
Republicans are actively promoting Jill Stein and hope she will take away votes from Hillary in the hope that this will insure a Trump victory. Trump is a corporate puppet and will further entrench Monsanto into political/economic power.
Sanders best furthers his agenda by supporting Clinton. He has sparked an enduring movement, and would squander his influence and relegate himself to the sidelines by aligning with a fringe candidate.
No kidding. 85+% of Bernie's people will vote Clinton. A vote for Stein, in a contested state, is a wasted vote.
, Mine is not a contested state. It makes sense for me to vote for Stein alongside the rest of the Bernie or bust supporters. There is virtually no risk to Trump winning my state. I might as well try to move progressive candidates a little higher in visibility whenever I can. Progressives have to play the long game here. The idea is stay registered as a Democrat so that you retain your power to influence primaries, move your registration to the Green party after the primary and never give a dime to the DNC or any moderate. Incrementally move polling numbers and money to progressive alternatives either in or outside the democratic umbrella in local elections and vote Green every time there is a margin of safety in any general election. Do the same thing in Presidential races as you would the governor or legislative races. Of course there will be times when the moderate like Clinton will need your vote to hold of a conservative or when you simply cannot stomach the more progressive candidate, depending on your state and the specifics of a contest.. Don't be too stubborn or shortsighted to provide it.
Bernie has already stated that the #1 priority is defeating trump. Joining a 3rd party ticket would be the opposite of that stated goal. This is just another right wing fantasy to detract from the fact that the republicans regret their choice. Sorry, trump is exactly what you asked for. This post if further proof that even the right doesn't believe trump can win on his own merits.
No one can deny that Sanders, who was financed through private donations, mounted an impressive effort. Especially considering the adversity coming from within his own party. To assume Sanders will fade back into obscurity is political folly. Sanders in 2020 may emerge as a 3rd party candidate. Much to the chagrin of the DNC.
If you are progressive, and you live in an blue state with say and 8-12 percentage point lead, it makes no sense to give a moderate like Hillary, a greater margin and deny Stein the visibility and increased gravitas that breaking past the five percent level may offer. Why give the Moderate Dems anything you don't absolutely have to?
That's all true and a 2020 bid is certainly a possibility. However, Bernie clearly understands the damage a republican administration could do to the country.
Then you may not be using your vote to its highest potential. I believe in acting tactically with respect to my money, my vote, my time and what my views are to be perceived to by as reflected in public polling and party registration. Its all one package.
Correction. Bernie Sanders is a political Independent and is not a Democrat but he ran for the Democratic nomination. He's very much like Gary Johnson that's a Republican that is running as the Libertarian candidate. The Libertarian Party selected Gary Johnson, a Republican, because he's qualified to be president while no other Libertarian is actually qualified currently. Libertarians just don't have the experience in high levels of government, from being a state governor, member of the US Congress, or of holding high positions in the Executive Branch, that would qualify them to be president. Gary Johnson is qualified and "libertarian leaning" because he's a fiscal conservative/social liberal candidate which is what makes him acceptable to me based upon that fact. He's not my ideal candidate but he's acceptable. Hillary Clinton is a qualified progressive social liberal candidate which makes her acceptable to Bernie Sanders. There's not really any difference because they're not ideal candidates but they're acceptable candidates based upon similar political ideologies.
In short you address life and your politics pragmatically and with this I agree. As many should know my current preferential candidate is Gary Johnson but it's not because I support 100% of his political ideology. He's a Republican with some libertarian ideologies but that conflicts with his "Republican" ideologies and there is much disagreement between us on those issues. It's the same reason that Bernie Sanders is supporting Hillary Clinton. For me the pragmatic reality is that I live in Arizona that would be accurately described as a "pink" state. It leans Republican but only by a very small margin. For example we have four House members that are Democrats and five House members that are Republicans. When it comes to the Presidential election generally political analysts consider Arizona to be a Trump state but that's only by a very slim margin. Neither Trump or Clinton is popular in Arizona but similar to national polls Hillary's disapproval rating is less than Trump's disapproval rating and many believe that will make a difference in November where our 11 Electoral College votes will go to Clinton. It all depends upon the "independent" vote that wasn't reflected during the primaries because independents can't vote in the Arizona primaries. Independents, that really can't stand either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump, represent the largest voting block in Arizona. Pragmatically my vote will be effected and it really hinges upon one factor. If Gary Johnson is included in the Presidential Debates, and not politically censored by being excluded, then I'm voting for Gary Johnson. He's not my ideal candidate but he's far superior to either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump. I will do that pragmatically because of the "independent vote" in Arizona where the vast majority oppose both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump which gives Gary Johnson enough support to win a plurality of the vote and capture the 11 Electoral College votes. On the other hand if Gary Johnson is politically censored by being excluded from the Presidential Debates, which also denies him equal press coverage, then I have to decide if I will vote for Johnson or vote for Clinton because Trump is not just unqualified but he actually represent a serious danger because he's completely ignorant on all of the issues confronting America. If I see it as being a close race then I'd pragmatically have to vote for Clinton even though I highly disapprove of her because I disapprove of Donald Trump far more. If it doesn't appear to matter one way or the other or if there's a realistic chance that the "independents" will select Gary Johnson then I'll unquestionably vote for Gary Johnson. Not my ideal candidate, just like Hillary Clinton isn't Bernie Sanders ideal candidate, but the best possible candidate on the ballot based upon comparative political ideologies.
It sounds as though you gave this a lot of thought. Any well reasoned and honest process that gets you to the polls is a good one. But we have to be just as studious with what we do down ticket. In many ways that is where we can make the most difference in elections.
Absolutely true so "all things being equal" the political statement is very important but the ultimate election results take precedent to just making a political statement.
I am sure that you.... believe that what you just wrote is basically true...... but I personally believe that Bernie is seriously considering going Independent and taking Green Party Leader Jill Stein up on her offer....... Secretary Clinton....... would do well to not underestimate Bernie's desire to accomplish something greater with his life....... than simply assisting her to continue more of what we saw over the past eight years........ (Which on some levels was better than what the mainstream G. O. P. leadership might well have done in 2008 and 2009.....IF... they had had the power at that time to do what they believed was wise and ethical)?!
