After the 2016 disaster of an election, I was hoping that the Democratic party had learned its lesson and its leadership would become aware of potential problems along the party's fringes which, in the politics of our time, can be fatal to election campaigns, as the Green Party candidacy of Dr. Jill Stein did to Hillary Clinton. I still have trouble understanding what this fringe, third party thought they would accomplish by investing in the nomination of a candidate who undermined the only major party candidate in the election that would have actually addressed their interests. It's not inaccurate to say that the Green Party's nomination and support of Jill Stein caused a decisive defeat of their own interests.
It would have been insane, literally, for anyone to think that Stein would get enough votes in any state to carry it, not even close as it turned out. However, her presence on the ballot in at least three states, possibly four, was all that Trump needed to pick up the narrow margin of electoral votes he needed to win. What would have been in the best interests of the Green Party would have been for Stein and the party leadership to recognize where things stood in August or September of 2016, and then call a press conference and get as much media attention as possible while ending the campaign and endorsing Clinton. There's no question that Clinton represented the best chance for any of the Green Party's political goals to be achieved, electing Trump was a bigger defeat for them and for their perspective than it was for the Democrats.
"No Labels" Appears to Help, Rather than Hurt, Biden's Re-election Chances
The recent inaccuracy of polling data when compared with election results keeps me suspicious of polls, but there is data which shows that a "No Labels" party candidate, someone along the lines of West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, would take far more votes from Trump than from Biden. The GOP fringes are much more desperate to shed their potential nominee than Democrats are when it comes to their desire to see the President get a second term.
But "No Labels" is not on the far left of the Democratic party. The main problem that particular group has politically is figuring out exactly what it is they support and what constitutes their platform and reason for running. Just to be a generic political party is not enough. And since most third parties have no chance at all at winning, and they know it, their goal is to impact the election of one of the major party candidates. Given Manchin's position in the party, and the manner in which he has conducted himself as the senate's "swing vote", it is easy to see why far more Republicans, especially the half of the party that is disgusted with Trump, might lean in his direction. He's given few, if any, Democrats reason to support him.
Am I correct in assuming that the Democratic National Committee has people who stay on top of all of this and have the political savvy to figure out plans to neutralize stuff like this, or is that a false impression? Some of where the money is coming from suggests very strongly that the Trump campaign itself may be involved in helping make the No Labels party a reality, thinking that it may be able to pull of a Jill Stein scenario.
Turning the Tables
Surely the thought has crossed the minds of more than myself and a few other people that this kind of political strategy works both ways. Dissatisfaction with Trump among the GOP runs at 15%, at least, and that's probably a low ball number, given their tendency not to answer those kinds of questions. That's a lot higher figure than the percentage of votes Stein took from Clinton. There's got to be someone, even one of the announced Republicans in the field, who would agree to long-term support in exchange for running third party to siphon off votes from orange hair.
Democrats need to start thinking this way. Whatever the party is thinking now, the favor won't be returned by the other side, those days are over and gone. It might be kind of fun to see some reasonably conservative Republican with appeal to traditional Republican values and who hates MAGA, pull a Jill Stein in reverse. It might also be just as effective.
Which Party is Most Likely to Accept any Liberal, Democratic Values?
Everything that the Green Party stood for, politically or practically, lost itself after 2016. Trump was the one candidate in the election who openly identified, and pointedly hated the Green Party. It wasn't just that he wasn't going to help them out, it was that he intended to suffocate them, deny them anything and hope they died out before they got going. He was their worst enemy, and I still have trouble seeing why they were willing to shoot themselves in the foot rather than take their chances with Hillary Clinton.
But this is the Democratic party's advantage and strength. It represents a broad diversity of opinion and perspective. And if we can get past the thought that everybody should get everything they ask for, we can work together to make sure we are not facing a Jill Stein in a critical election like 2024. We can't afford it, nor can the potential third party groups, who get nothing at all if the President doesn't get re-elected.
Are you listening to this, DNC? Pulling everyone together, including the Bernie Bros, Green Party along with moderate Independents and even a few moderate Republicans needs to be a priority and those of us out here in the "grass roots" are perfectly fine with doing whatever we need to do politically to make sure there are no more Jill Steins in presidential politics.
No comments:
Post a Comment