Browse By

Jill Stein Says The Democratic Party Wants Donald Trump To Win

Jill Stein lost the 2012 presidential election, earning absolutely zero votes in the Electoral College. This year, Stein is running a presidential campaign even more anemic than the one she cobbled together 4 years ago.

Stein has taken a bit of time today, however, to reprimand the Democratic Party for not trying hard enough to defeat the presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump in the general election. According to Stein’s reading of the political situation, the Democratic Party is actually hoping that Donald Trump is elected as President in November.

Jill Stein wrote today that, “If the Democratic Party really wanted to defeat Trump so badly they’d offer up someone less corporate than Hillary. Their outrage is fake.”

The outrage of Democrats against Donald Trump is fake?!?

I’m no Democrat, but the holes in this argument are too big to ignore.

According to a poll cited by USA Today, Hillary Clinton is leading Donald Trump by 13 points in national polls. It seems that the leader in the race for the Democratic nomination is actually very firmly positioned to defeat Donald Trump in the general election.

What is Jill Stein’s suggestion? That if the Democrats wanted to defeat Donald Trump, they would nominate Stein instead?

“58 percent want a new party,” Stein writes. In the abstract, that might be true, but concretely, Jill Stein couldn’t even gather the support of 1% of voters in the last election. Very few Americans approve of the Green Party as Jill Stein has shaped it.

According to the latest available polls, the total amount of support for all presidential candidates other than Hillary Clinton (if Bernie Sanders should lose the Democratic nomination, which he will) or Donald Trump is somewhere between 1% and 7%. Jill Stein only enjoys a fraction of that tiny amount of public support.

If Jill Stein is such a genius about what it takes to defeat Donald Trump, why isn’t her campaign picking up enough strength to take on Trump herself?

It’s fine to criticize the Democratic Party. I do it myself. However, To claim that the Democratic Party wants Donald Trump to win the general election is absurd.

Will the Green Party ever find a presidential candidate who can simply hold to promoting strong liberal policies without sounding like a kook?

13 thoughts on “Jill Stein Says The Democratic Party Wants Donald Trump To Win”

  1. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    History of the Green Party in Presidential Elections

    2000 Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke 2,882,955
    2008 Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez 739,034 (INDEPENDENT)
    1996 Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke 685,297
    2012 Jill Stein/Cheri Honkala 469,627
    2004 Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo 465,151 (INDEPENDENT)
    2008 Cynthia McKinney/Rose Clemente 161,797
    2004 David Cobb/Pat LaMarche 119,859

    2000 Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke 2.74%
    1996 Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke 0.71%
    2008 Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez 0.56% (INDEPENDENT)
    2004 Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo 0.38% (INDEPENDENT)
    2012 Jill Stein/Cheri Honkala 0.36%
    2008 Cynthia McKinney/Rose Clemente 0.12%
    2004 David Cobb/Pat LaMarche 0.1%

    As shown above the Greens haven’t managed to replicate any of the numbers or percentages of Ralph Nader’s runs in 1996, 2000, 2004, or 2008. You could give them some slack in 2004 and 2008 for having to compete against an Independent Ralph Nader, but 2012 was really bad compared to Ralph Nader’s runs for the Greens and they didn’t have Ralph Nader also running as an excuse. The numbers and percentages speak for themselves.

  2. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    I forgot to do some more math for combined totals for 2004 and 2008

    Greens and Ralph Nader combined numbers by year

    2000 Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke 2,882,955
    2008 combined numbers 900,831 (COMBINED)
    2008 Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez 739,034 (INDEPENDENT)
    1996 Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke 685,297
    2004 combined numbers 585,010 (COMBINED)
    2012 Jill Stein/Cheri Honkala 469,627
    2004 Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo 465,151 (INDEPENDENT)
    2008 Cynthia McKinney/Rose Clemente 161,797
    2004 David Cobb/Pat LaMarche 119,859

    2000 Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke 2.74%
    1996 Ralph Nader/Winona LaDuke 0.71%
    2008 combined numbers 0.68% (COMBINED)
    2008 Ralph Nader/Matt Gonzalez 0.56% (INDEPENDENT)
    2004 combined numbers 0.48% (COMBINED)
    2004 Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo 0.38% (INDEPENDENT)
    2012 Jill Stein/Cheri Honkala 0.36%
    2008 Cynthia McKinney/Rose Clemente 0.12%
    2004 David Cobb/Pat LaMarche 0.1%

    Factoring the combined numbers, 2012 was actually the worst year for Greens. 1996 and 2000 were high water mark years for the Greens. In 2004 and 2008, the Green Party proper did bad, but at least there was an Independent Green in Ralph Nader to have numbers for votes for a Green candidate out side the party.

    2000 2,882,955
    2008 900,831
    1996 685,297
    2004 585,010
    2012 469,627

    2000 2.74%
    1996 0.71%
    2008 0.68%
    2004 0.48%
    2012 0.36%

    With the above simplified stats, rather than being better than 2004 and 2008, it’s actually the worst year ever for Greens (2012 that is). Jill Stein didn’t get 2.74, 0.71, 0.68, or 0.48, but she got 0.36 perecentage points. She didn’t get 2,882,955, 900,831, 685,297, or 585,010 votes, but she got 469,627 votes.

  3. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    If not Jill Stein, then who should the Green Party nominate?

    http://gpus.org/committees/presidential-campaign-support/2016-candidates-seeking-gpus-nomination/

    William Kreml?
    Kent Philip Mesplay?
    Sedinam Kinamo Chrisin Moyowasifza-Curry?
    Darryl Cherney?
    Jacob Patrick Amoroso?
    Willita D. Bush?
    Elijah Manley?

    I only listed the ones with websites. As mentioned on the site though, the Green Party only recognizes William Kreml as an official candidate that isn’t Jill Stein.

  4. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    I scrolled down the site listing all the recent polls.

    http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/7714a05b-515f-4ad3-bdaa-e72a6e5f8e61.pdf

    At least 11% want a specific third party candidate and another 13% are other candidate of undecided. That’s 4-16% for a specific third party candidate and 5-22% other candidate or undecided. 24% is the combined number with a range of 9-38% among various demographics. Party affiliation, gender, age group, race, and state are the demographics looked at.

    Let’s assume Jill Stein is a specific other candidate in the data. She would be polling at 1% with a range of 0-3%.

  5. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    There actually was one recent poll showing Doanld Trump two points in the lead of Hillary Clinton, so it could be possible for Jill Stein to be right about her logic.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/trump_41_clinton_39

    Rasmussen Reports polling has Trump at 41% and Clinton at 39%. It came out a few days before the CNN/ORC polling that you quoted with Clinton at 54% and Trump at 41%. GWU/Battleground has Clinton at 46% and Trump at 43%. All the earlier posts were earlier when the Republican nomination was more uncertain. These polls were when it was near certain or certain that Donald Trump was going to be the Republican nominee even if some were before Cruz and Kasich officially dropped out.

  6. Peter says:

    Jill Stein’s campaign is not picking up enough strength to take on Trump, or any other corporate candidate, obviously because the media ignores her. How are most people going to know about a candidate if they are not on television? The Greens have a lawsuit alongside the Libertarians that would allow them into the presidential debates if they win.
    Jill Stein’s campaign has a good chance of making history this year, do not discount that.

    1. J Clifford says:

      It’s not because the media ignores her, Peter. She hasn’t even been using the media available to her for free. Her social media presence is anemic, her web site is not updated most days. Jill Stein is limping along. You can’t blame The Media for that.

  7. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    Jill Stein isn’t polling at 11%, much less the needed 15%. I hope either the 15% is reached or the 15% rule gets overturned, but I’d personally like both to happen just to be safe.

    http://www.monmouth.edu/assets/0/32212254770/32212254991/32212254992/32212254994/32212254995/30064771087/7714a05b-515f-4ad3-bdaa-e72a6e5f8e61.pdf

  8. Christine Kroll says:

    The Green Party is a lot more than just numbers. They offer people a way to vet the issues in ways that the duopoly refuses to, and to hone their outlook about green jobs, climate change, deficit spending, homeless, TPP and so much more. What Dr. Stein is bringing out is the fact that the DP can do a lot more to support these progressive issues in the form of their progressive candidate, Senator Bernie Sanders. The GP does not endorse BS but embraces at least a few of his domestic proposals. So as for gender-baiting, it really all depends how you interpret the context. People, not numbers.

    1. J Clifford says:

      Sorry, Christine, but no. We can talk about the issues without the Green Party. Besides, take a look at Jill Stein’s campaign for 2016, and you’ll see that she hardly talks about the issues at all. Really, most days she simply isn’t even using the media available to her to campaign. She just seems too tired.

      People, not numbers???? When we’re talking about numbers of people, that little excuse makes no sense, because in democracy, numbers of people matter.

  9. Dave says:

    I kinda wonder if Bernie will end up as the VP candidate at the convention. Maybe he’s angling for it but who knows.

    Will the Green Party ever run a candidate who holds to sound liberal policies without sounding like a kook? Not likely. The nation is much bigger with a lot more going on than the Green Party understands. Notice how big-winning candidates focus on what voters fear the most. Greenhouse gas is fearsome to some, but job loss, illness, unfair taxes, etc., are more fearsome to more people. It’s numbers. Obama threw billions into green initiatives with little to show for it. People want to provide for their families, and if Stein wants a bigger audience she probably should talk 99 percent of the time about what is foremost in people’s minds.

  10. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    Watching the Hawks and RT America will have third party debates which may help her campaign.

    https://www.rt.com/usa/342090-3rd-party-primary-debates-preview/

    Lots of other third party news related links on the side all via RT America. Question More! RT America! Watching The Hawks!

  11. Stephen Kent Gray says:

    Stein at two percent in four-way general election poll

    The first national general election poll this year to include Green Party candidate Jill Stein as an option has Stein at two percent.

    The Public Policy Polling survey has Democrat Hillary Clinton at 42%, Republican Donald Trump 38%, Libertarian Gary Johnson 4%, and Stein 2%. The survey, conducted May 6-9, has a margin of error of +/- 2.8%.

    A recent Monmouth University poll that did not include Stein as an option had Johnson at 11% against Clinton and Trump. Johnson received 0.99% of the vote in 2012, while Stein received 0.36%.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Psst... what kind of person doesn't support pacifism?

Fight the Republican beast!