At the national level, yes. The only thing they are is a spoiler party in federal elections. Hopefully that changes in the future, but to do that we need to get away from FPTP, and those 3rd parties need to go local first to get recognition.
Local level is an entirely different territory, and there are quite a few third parties in offices.
But in a federal election? Yeah, they are only a spoiler, nothing else.
But see you are doing exactly what I said, applying criticism of the Green party to all third parties. Its the green party that doesn’t participate in local elections. I don’t mind third parties trying different strategies. For better or for worse, whatever the green party is doing at least gets it talked about a ton, which has to be worth something.
No, I’m applying it to all third parties at the federal level, with zero/minimal representation at the local/state level.
That makes them spoiler candidates.
And its specifically for the worse in a presidential, because they are spoiler candidates.
If Jill Stein wanted better for the US, she would have dropped out, said she wants better for the country, and put her support behind a candidate who can win and isn’t running on a platform of christian hate.
But she didn’t. Like she didn’t in the two previous presidential elections.
There isnt only one valid perspective that is “better for the US”. The only ones we know are wrong are the current one, because clearly bad shit happens as a result.
While you think she’s a spoiler, I don’t think she thinks that. I think she thinks she is helping America, truly. Its one thing to disagree with her methods or policies, but quite another to throw shit on her for sitting at a table with Putin once. I don’t think she is selling herself out.
I am sure she won’t win, but I think that it helps broaden the discussion on what politics can be in the future, even if its just a bunch of people from different corners arguing about it.
At her own events her supporters didn’t say the quiet parts out loud. For example, at a Jill Stein Event, Kshama Sawant said:
We are not in a position to win the White House, but we do have a real opportunity to win something historic, we could deny Kamala Harris the state of Michigan. And the polls show that most likely Harris cannot win the election without Michigan.
She wasn’t hiring Republican consulting firms
She didn’t hire Trumps former personal lawyer, Jay Sekulow, and Michael Dean, who was part of the effort to overturn the 2020 election.
She didn’t use long standing republican firms to collect signatures, like she did with Synapse Group in NH.
She wasn’t targeting specifically the battleground states to appear on their ballot while ignoring others
At best, she’s working to republican advantage. But with everything else…
She’s not broadening jack, she’s there to get Trump elected. There are far too many items that show as much.
So no. I’m not going to sit here while someone “hurr durr good conversation”. Bullshit. Complete bullshit, she has one purpose, and one only, or she wouldn’t be doing the things shes doing.
Still, a lot of people are seemingly treating all third parties the same as they do the Green party, which then affects all of them in public opinion.
At the national level, yes. The only thing they are is a spoiler party in federal elections. Hopefully that changes in the future, but to do that we need to get away from FPTP, and those 3rd parties need to go local first to get recognition.
Local level is an entirely different territory, and there are quite a few third parties in offices.
But in a federal election? Yeah, they are only a spoiler, nothing else.
But see you are doing exactly what I said, applying criticism of the Green party to all third parties. Its the green party that doesn’t participate in local elections. I don’t mind third parties trying different strategies. For better or for worse, whatever the green party is doing at least gets it talked about a ton, which has to be worth something.
No, I’m applying it to all third parties at the federal level, with zero/minimal representation at the local/state level.
That makes them spoiler candidates.
And its specifically for the worse in a presidential, because they are spoiler candidates.
If Jill Stein wanted better for the US, she would have dropped out, said she wants better for the country, and put her support behind a candidate who can win and isn’t running on a platform of christian hate.
But she didn’t. Like she didn’t in the two previous presidential elections.
Want to know why?
Tap for spoiler
SHE IS A SPOILER CANDIDATE
There isnt only one valid perspective that is “better for the US”. The only ones we know are wrong are the current one, because clearly bad shit happens as a result.
While you think she’s a spoiler, I don’t think she thinks that. I think she thinks she is helping America, truly. Its one thing to disagree with her methods or policies, but quite another to throw shit on her for sitting at a table with Putin once. I don’t think she is selling herself out.
I am sure she won’t win, but I think that it helps broaden the discussion on what politics can be in the future, even if its just a bunch of people from different corners arguing about it.
I would agree if, and only if:
At best, she’s working to republican advantage. But with everything else…
She’s not broadening jack, she’s there to get Trump elected. There are far too many items that show as much.
So no. I’m not going to sit here while someone “hurr durr good conversation”. Bullshit. Complete bullshit, she has one purpose, and one only, or she wouldn’t be doing the things shes doing.
You can lie to yourself and others, but I won’t.