Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently made headlines for calling perennial Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein “predatory” and “not serious.” AOC is right.
Giving voters more choices is a good thing for democracy. But third-party politics isn’t performance art. It’s hard work — which Stein is not doing. As AOC observed: “[When] all you do is show up once every four years to speak to people who are justifiably pissed off, but you’re just showing up once every four years to do that, you’re not serious.”
To be clear: AOC was not critiquing third parties as a whole, or the idea that we need more choices in our democracy. In fact, AOC specifically cited the Working Families Party as an example of an effective third party. The organization I lead, MoveOn, supports their 365-day-a-year efforts to build power for a pro-voter, multi-party system. And I understand third parties’ power to activate voters hungry for alternatives: I myself volunteered for Ralph Nader in 2000, and that experience helped shape my lifelong commitment to people-first politics.
Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
Exactly this. That woman is always vapor until an election year.
So glad that AOC is really dealing with the issues that matter…
Stein syphons off votes from the dems, AOC calling her out on her bullshit does kind of matter in context.
John Oliver convinced me that Jill Stein is a dumbfuck back in 2016: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU
First past the post duopolies are not serious democracies.
She should change to democrat so people start taking her seriously and unceremoniously dump her vulture ass along a lonely highway
Also AOC('s party): “wE’rE wOrkInG tiRElessLy on a CeaSefiRe dEAL…” sends $20B in arms to Israel
Since the start of Israel’s war with Hamason October 7, 2023, the United States has enacted legislation providing at least $12.5 billion in military aid to Israel, which includes $3.8 billion from a bill in March 2024 (in line with the current MOU) and $8.7 billion from a supplemental appropriations act in April 2024. source
I’m planning on voting for the party for socialism and liberation in November and you can too!
They’re running Claudia de la Cruz on a platform of Palestinian statehood and an end to arms shipments to Israel.
Classic bloodfart. Ending genocide one poor at a time.
I don’t understand what you mean here.
Autocorrect effed me. I corrected it. It was meant to be a compliment
lol, lmao.
Yeah, miss me with that
Jill Stein is there so that people who want to vote, but are mad as fuck at the dems, have someone to vote for. Basically, she’s there to scare the dems (working, obviously). Will they be scared enough to adopt some better policies, and get those votes?
The spoiler effect is based on geometric proximity, not the quality of policy. They’re a waste of a vote, because they have no chance of winning.
If the greens want to do something they should work at the local level where they actually have a chance.
Absolutely nobody considering a vote for Jill Stein thinks she is going to win. This is a slice of the electorate that the dems haven’t won over yet, but could.
This is a slice of the electorate that the dems haven’t won over yet, but could.
If we’re just repeating things, then I guess that’s what we’re doing.
The spoiler effect is based on geometric proximity, not the quality of policy.
You seem to be saying that the voters are irrational. That may or not be the case, but it’s largely irrelevant to converting them.
You seem to be saying that the voters are irrational.
Some are, some aren’t. Either way, saying “just have better policy” is ignorant at best.
“Don’t bother asking for better policies!” is a great slogan for the party lol.
That’s not what I am saying though.
If we want to actually change the DNC for the better, that means voting in their primaries and especially at the local level with a heavy preference (not seeking perfection) for truly leftist candidates.
The DNC needs to be taken over. Nagging will never do anything.
Does policy not largely define the “geometric distance” between candidates?
I included the qualifier “quality” to my statement.
Unfortunately the Democrat, and Republican parties, are both Traitors to the Republic. As much as I’ve liked her positions on issues I care about. AOC needs to sit down and shut up. She’s in a party of Traitors.
At her peak, Jill Stein broke just above 1%.
Bernie Sanders was not able to change the system from the inside after spending his entire life compromising with Democrats. It is hard to take these “progressive” Democrats seriously.
Let me quote just one line from the Wikipedia entry
Sanders is credited with influencing a leftward shift in the Democratic Party after his 2016 presidential campaign
You can also look at his legislative history to see that he’s been pretty successful pulling progressive Democrats along, regardless of not changing the electoral system or getting nominated
Can I get some examples or what he “shifted left”? I honestly don’t even understand what that means anymore in the US political environment. Rights? Healthcare? Basic competent legislation that isn’t banning or removing something?
I don’t consider right-wing “conservative” anymore with the whole immigration/border and increased law-enforcement funding that would be needed for all their draconian ideals. “Progressive” is just trying to catch up to the rest of the world at this point that’s leaving us in the dust while we argue about the same shit for 100 more years. (sorry rant over)
I followed your advice and looked at his legislation since 2016 (link 1,2), what am I looking for? I see a new “national heritage area” (another national park designation for some reason), dropping methane regulations deemed necessary from the EPA (uk is doing fine with it). Maybe I should be looking at only introduced legislation for a better picture, not what’s past?
I’m quoting Wikipedia, and that Wikipedia entry has such a list
No, you quoted wikipedia then said “You can also look at his legislative history to see…” denoting a separate action. You just linked an entire like 50 page wiki article, what am I looking for?
While he has consistently advocated for progressive causes, Politico wrote that he has “rarely forged actual legislation or left a significant imprint on it.” (link)
I was a Bernie voter in 2016, this comes from someone who has campaigned for him and researched him extensively. His performance the past decade has been subpar and I keep seeing him become worse while magically he’s making the Dem party "Better"TM.
Look, I’m just quoting Wikipedia. It seems like you have an argument with them.
Your quote is followed with
According to The New York Times, “Big legislation largely eludes Mr. Sanders because his ideas are usually far to the left of the majority of the Senate … Mr. Sanders has largely found ways to press his agenda through appending small provisions to the larger bills of others.”[146] […] Nevertheless, he has sponsored over 500 amendments to bills,[148] many of which became law.
Bernie Sanders would have been president in 2016 if it was possible to change the party from the inside. There is a shift to the right in the Democratic party. Not to the left.
Why would anyone vote 3rd party? They can just stay home and continue their nap.
Because y’all claim to live in a democracy, so let people voice their opinions as votes.
“I refuse to make any compromises” is the OPPOSITE of democracy.
Look, if people feel very strongly about something, let them voice their opinion on it through a vote, as intended. That’s what democracy is for. If your democracy doesn’t work and always makes you vote strategically, making you disregard your own positions as a voter, then maybe your democracy isn’t really a democracy and you should start working on that. A strategically cast vote won’t magically repair your broken system. Anyway, compromises are for political parties and politicians, not for the average voter that just wants to voice their opinion.
What the fuck are you talking about, compromise and strategic voting are fundamental cornerstones of Democracy. Not some kind of failure.
Exclusively getting everything you want all the time is called autocracy.
I’d rather be able to vote for more then just the two parties. But I am also realistic and letting trump win so you can vote for someone who will never win is foolish.
Because to some their eternal purity is way more important than anything that could actually happen as a result of their actions. To throw your vote away in a protest that no party has ever cared about keeps your hands clean of any individual aspect of that party you don’t like and you can claim the moral high ground by “trying” to enact change, but at what cost to everything around you?
It’s like the cartoon of the people living in a cave after climate change ruins everything saying “at least for a short time we made a lot of money for shareholders.” except it would be “at least I didn’t vote for Genocide Joe.”
Our of curiosity, and because I couldn’t immediately find anything. Is MoveOn actively trying to change the voting system itself?
Even if Jill was elected, all she has is ablism and transphobia
So she’s running hard mode Republican?
Yes
This thread is sitting on the front page of Lemmy for a while now so I’ll share my thoughts.
I will only ever vote for a 3rd party. I made that promise to myself after 2016, so I don’t really care if people think that means it’s effectively a vote for Trump. Because I wasn’t going to vote for the Democrats anyways.
A slow slip into facism doesn’t appeal to me.
This behaviour of yours is more likely to cause a fast slip to fascism.
Yeah let’s crash into fascism instead. Nice try, now go back to your handler for some better lines.
Removed, civility.
