Jill Stein Says Her Campaign Can Be “Plan B” for Sanders Supporters

Jill Stein

From Peter Orvetti at Green Party Watch:

On its website, teleSUR interviews Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein about her campaign.

Stein told teleSUR, “The Democratic Party is not going to allow Bernie Sanders to squeak through, so where would we be if we don’t have a Plan B? When Bernie gets knocked out of contention, there would be no place for people to go if not for our campaign. The difference between our campaign and Bernie’s is that we’re not looking for the Democratic Party to save us. We are establishing an independent base for political resistance where we can continue to grow, because there is no relief on the horizon and we need to get busy right now building the lifeboat we’ll need to rescue ourselves and our children.”

26 thoughts on “Jill Stein Says Her Campaign Can Be “Plan B” for Sanders Supporters

  1. Andy

    I am not a supporter of Bernie Sanders or Jill Stein, but even so, I’d say that this is a smart move by Jill Stein. There is a lot of overlap between her supporters and the supporters of Bernie Sanders. Sanders is not likely to win the Democratic Party’s nomination, so it is a good strategy for Ms. Stein to court the supporters of Sanders for votes.

    I suggested that Libertarian Party candidates do the same thing with Ron Paul supporters back in 2008 and in 2012.

  2. Andy Craig

    It might be a move which she has no choice to make, but I don’t know that I’d call it “smart.” To me, it reads more like an admission that her target audience isn’t rallying around her campaign.

    Both Bob Barr and Gary Johnson, tried to pitch themselves as the fallback option for Ron Paul. I’m not that sure it got either any votes that they wouldn’t have got anyway, and in Barr’s case of course the whole plan backfired rather spectacularly. Johnson ended up winning a likely majority of Ron Paul’s 2012 voters, but without Ron’s endorsement or support.

    Better, I think, to keep it more generic. “I’ll be the only candidate bringing [instert-ideology] views to the general election.” That’s a compelling argument, and keeps the focus on the candidate making it. Not “I’m the consolation prize for when [insert-candidate] loses the major-party primary.” Also, it’s much better to make such a case after that candidate has actually lost (like Johnson at PAUL Fest), vs. when they’re still actively running and their supporters will take any suggestion that they won’t win as an insult.

  3. Andy

    “Andy Craig

    November 5, 2015 at 12:24 pm

    It might be a move which she has no choice to make, but I don’t know that I’d call it ‘smart.’ To me, it reads more like an admission that her target audience isn’t rallying around her campaign.”

    I’d say that it is smart. Bernie Sanders is obviously a higher profile candidate that Jill Stein. There is also overlap between their supporters.

    “Both Bob Barr and Gary Johnson, tried to pitch themselves as the fallback option for Ron Paul. I’m not that sure it got either any votes that they wouldn’t have got anyway, and in Barr’s case of course the whole plan backfired rather spectacularly. Johnson ended up winning a likely majority of Ron Paul’s 2012 voters, but without Ron’s endorsement or support.”

    Bob Barr failed immensely as a fallback choice to Ron Paul, because a lot of Ron Paul supporters thought that Bob Barr was fake.

    Gary Johnson did a better job of courting Ron Paul supporters, which is one of the reasons why he received over 1.2 million votes.

  4. jim

    Jill Stein should do what Bernie Sanders isn’t doing: Calling Hillary Clinton an unmitigated liar and crook. The email (classified info+lying about it), plus her lying about the involvement of the video in the Benghazi case amount to blatant misconduct. Further, she ran the Clinton Foundation as nothing more than a slush-fund, hiding behind the label of being a “non-profit”: In reality, it was a bullpen for keeping her political supporters employed and close. (Read: Not motivated to talk about the Clintons.).

  5. Andy

    “jim

    November 5, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    Jill Stein should do what Bernie Sanders isn’t doing: Calling Hillary Clinton an unmitigated liar and crook.”

    I agree.

  6. Deran

    I know this is the talk among the Steon campaign, but two things. I have seen nor heard any evidence that her supporters are dogging Sanders leafleting or whatever Sanders supporters proposing her as such. I have heard/seen talk from Sanders supporters saying that the Greens are played out and in a cul d’sac and that the Greens are not in any sense democratic socialists. Although I personally think of Sanders as more of a social democrat/neokeynesian. So in that sense I do think his supporters are more ideologically inline w/ the GP than they think.

    I think if they used the name Progressive Party rather than Green they would do better w/ the Sanders supporters.

  7. jim

    Deran said: “I think if they used the name Progressive Party rather than Green they would do better w/ the Sanders supporters.”

    The Green Party has long used the deception of calling themselves “green” (implying an environmentalist group) while actually being socialist-communist. Remember that by the time the Greens were formed (1970’s) the credibility of Communism around the world had been totally shot.
    And remember the old joke about how the Greens were like watermelons: “Green on the outside and Red on the inside.”

  8. Steve Scheetz

    I’m no supporter of hers or Bernie for that matter, but she is saying: “When Bernie fails vote for me.”

    I agree with others who said this is not the smartest choice possible.. maybe thinking about alienating Bernie Sanders supporters after the election would be a wiser choice… Yeah maybe not…

    Sincerely,

    Steve Scheetz

  9. paulie

    The Green Party has long used the deception of calling themselves “green” (implying an environmentalist group)

    In what way are they not an environmentalist group?

    actually being socialist-communist.

    A few of them are. A few are actually pretty libertarian-leaning. Most are progressive (modern “liberal”) to democratic socialist. The more heavily socialist-leaning ones have a disproportionate influence on the platform, because they are more organized and committed than they are numerous. Neither the GP platform, nor especially most of their members or supporters, are for nationalizing most of the means of production, if that is your definition of socialism.

    And remember the old joke about how the Greens were like watermelons: “Green on the outside and Red on the inside.”

    Well, it’s definitely old – you got that part right. I don’t think it’s particularly funny or true but YMMV.

  10. jim

    Paulie: You quoted and said:

    “”actually being socialist-communist.””

    “A few of them are. A few are actually pretty libertarian-leaning.”

    Then the ones who are socialist-communist must be seen as being insane, by the libertarian-leaning ones. By definition, the libertarian cannot support the the theft of money, called “taxes”, which is the mechanism by which most socialists use to implement their dirty work.

    “Most are progressive (modern “liberal”) to democratic socialist.”

    Then they are also nuts. Greens claim to be “non-violent”. But to rob people of things called “taxes”, there must exist an underlying threat of violence if the target of that theft (called: “The Taxpayer”) wishes to resist. So, the nutty Green/Socialist must simultaneously both believe in, yet reject, the concept of “violence”. Therefore, they must be nuts. Or, they have hypnotized themselves into believing that threatening to commit violence against a taxpayer amounts to no violence.

  11. paulie

    Your reply presumes that private property is unconditionally legitimate. There’s a range of agreement and disagreement on that between different people, from those who say all private property is theft from the community to those who say any taxes are theft from individuals. Most people, most Greens, and most likely even most LP members are somewhere in between those two extreme positions, with Greens tending to be somewhat closer to the position that “private property is theft” and LP members tending to be somewhat closer to the position that “taxes are theft” than most duopolists. Some LP members and some Greens are all the way at those extreme positions, but we are a minority even within our respective parties, much less the country or world as a whole.

  12. jim

    You said, “Your reply presumes that private property is unconditionally legitimate.”

    The PRINCIPLE of there being private property is unconditionally legitimate. If you don’t agree with that, you cannot possibly be a libertarian.

    ” There’s a range of agreement and disagreement on that between different people,”

    Thieves disagree, of course.

    “from those who say all private property is theft”

    And they cannot be libertarians, who respect the idea of an individual’s right to property from which he can exclude others.

    “From the community to those who say any taxes are theft from individuals”

    Those are libertarians. Pretty soon, you’ll catch on to reality.

    . “Most people, most Greens, and most likely even most LP members are somewhere in between those two extreme positions”

    I laugh at your assertion that “most LP members are somewhere in between.”

    , with Greens tending to be somewhat closer to the position that “private property is theft”

    I don’t see any basis for Greens to believe “private property is theft”. Rather, I suspect that a more accurate statement of their position is “some forms of theft are okay”, specifically taxation. Although, they probably don’t want to admit that taxation is theft.

    .

  13. paulie

    The PRINCIPLE of there being private property is unconditionally legitimate. If you don’t agree with that, you cannot possibly be a libertarian.

    That’s a matter of how you define libertarian, but it should have been clear that I was talking about all people, not just libertarians, so that’s not all that relevant anyway.

    Thieves disagree, of course.

    The point was that there is general lack of agreement about who the thieves actually are, i.e. who the legitimate owners are: individuals, or the community/society at large. Some people believe it is strictly one or the other, but most people believe both to at least some extent.

    And they cannot be libertarians, who respect the idea of an individual’s right to property from which he can exclude others.

    Depends on how you define the word, and irrelevant, since I was talking about people, not just libertarians.

    Those are libertarians

    Well, yes, but see the rest of it.

    Pretty soon, you’ll catch on to reality.

    I already described reality. You seem to be having a hard time with it for reasons that are hard to understand. Either that, or more likely you are just seeing what kind of reaction some statements will get.

    I laugh at your assertion that “most LP members are somewhere in between.”

    And I laugh at your naive assumption. You can start with the most dedicated LP members – say, those attending a national convention – and do a survey of how many believe all taxes are theft in all circumstances. I don’t believe you will get a majority, especially if you do a few followup questions to see whether they really mean it. If you happen to be in a position to get a state data dump of LP dues payers, try surveying them in the same manner. Or, try a state list of registered LP voters in a state that has that option. I would bet you won’t get close to a majority that believe all taxes are theft in all circumstances.

    Now, *I* do happen to believe that all taxes are theft. I’m just not naive enough to believe that this is a majority belief even in the LP. I’ve been to six national LP conventions since 2000, dozens of state LP conventions and hundreds of state and local LP meetings in many different states since 1997, so I know better. We’re a minority even in the LP. Laugh all you want, but it’s true.

    I don’t see any basis for Greens to believe “private property is theft”.

    It’s irrelevant whether you see it or not. Some, but not all and I don’t believe most, of them do believe that. I’ve talked to a lot of them, and attended national, state and local GP meetings as well, so I know.

    Rather, I suspect that a more accurate statement of their position is “some forms of theft are okay”, specifically taxation. Although, they probably don’t want to admit that taxation is theft.

    So you think that they all secretly accept the most extreme libertarian definition of what constitutes theft and are just consciously immoral or amoral? I don’t think that describes any significant percentage of Greens. That’s a caricature in a few people’s minds, a mirror reflection of the communist propaganda image of sadistic capitalists.

  14. jim

    Paulie: You said, “So you think that they all secretly accept the most extreme libertarian definition of what constitutes theft and are just consciously immoral or amoral?”

    I don’t think there is “the most extreme libertarian definition of what constitutes theft”. That is, I don’t accept the idea that anyone could legitimately use the term “extreme” to refer to that. Since you are presumably familiar with the Noland Chart and the WSPQ, a libertarian can be simply described as a person who believes in all the economic freedoms, the ones that conservatives tend to claim they do, and can be described as a person who believes in all the social freedoms, the ones that liberals claim they do.
    So, there is nothing “extreme” about either position. Libertarians, at most, can be described as people who believe in an UNCOMMON combination of rights, but not “extreme” at all.

  15. paulie

    Since you are yourself presumably familiar with that chart and quiz you know that the libertarian quintile represents a range of opinion, not just the 100/100 dot at the very extreme end of the diamond. And furthermore that even that dot just represents answers to ten questions only, and that the tax question is “Cut taxes and government spending by 50% or more.” If you want to only count the people that say cut it by 100% you would have to go beyond even the 100/100 folks on the quiz.

    Now that is not saying that extreme is bad. I am an extreme libertarian myself, and I don’t see that as a bad thing at all. I just don’t claim that anyone who is not an extreme libertarian is not a libertarian at all. As for the quiz.. I have administered it personally to tens of thousands of people. No exaggeration. So yes I am “presumably” familiar with it LOL.

  16. jim

    Paulie: So what kinds of force does Phillies claim would be acceptable? You didn’t even try to answer that.

  17. John

    I am a supporter of Bernie, and thought of plan B a few weeks ago. Yesterday I heard that I’m not alone, that plan B has legs already, I was so excited that I sent am impulsive message to the Jill Stein campaign just to celebrate.

    Here’s why it makes sense: Bernie is our hope of changing the system from within, but it might be true that it just won’t happen. Jill represents a third party that would change the system from without in ways that are just as good. All of us together might not amount to enough votes to elect either of them, but we will be heard like never before. This might only have the effect of having to suffer another Republican presidency, but it would be only marginally worse than a Hillary presidency anyway. We would be ignored in all the usual ways but the DNC will know they ignored us one too many times. My hope, in that scenario, is that they will be just as devastated as the Republican Party is now, because the two parties are just the left and right wings of a predatory eagle trained to impoverish the many for the wealth of the few.

    For the Primary election, I would ask that Green Party people consider banding with us in our efforts to have Bernie as the Democratic nominee. I realize that would pit him and Jill against each other in the General, but if we want to at least make strides in this election cycle, I think my proposal has merit.

    Oh, the reason for my excitement is that I think there is a real chance that we may actually get our first female President and simultaneously bitch-slap Hillary Clinton. And there’s all those good policies too!

  18. paulie

    Oh, the reason for my excitement is that I think there is a real chance that we may actually get our first female President and simultaneously bitch-slap Hillary Clinton.

    You believe there is a realistic chance Stein will win the general election? That would take at least about 100 times as many votes as she got last time. Why do you think she will do that much better this time?

  19. John

    Paulie, the underlying thought of my post is a desire to change a rigged system, or to at least make greater strides toward that in this election cycle. My point is that I and others (without knowledge of how many others) are willing to vote for the greater good this time instead of voting once again for the lesser evil. That is something I’m sure the DNC is once again counting on us to do.

    That said, I’ll venture a ways further down the road of hopeful success. I’m encouraged with your estimate in the ballpark of 100 times what Jill Stein got in 2012. Would you agree with me that Bernie’s supporters are at least 100 times what would have been expected? How much larger is his organization than Jill’s? That is a true question, because I don’t know. We are not true Democrats, we are progressives to the point of embracing Democratic Socialism, we will not vote for Hillary in the General election. I’m sure that statement would be wrong if it needs to be 100% accurate, but please know it’s not intended to be, it doesn’t need to be.

    Now consider my proposal that Green Party enthusiasts do what will amount to no harm to their agenda. They register as Democrats only for the primary process, hopefully boasting it to the DNC, they vote with us for Bernie. Will that eliminate Hillary? I’m obviously thinking it will. They then register as they currently are and shower off real good knowing they have just helped advance the cause of democracy.

    That advancement will likely result in Jill being given a voice that is currently being denied because I believe Bernie will insist on her having one, I don’t see that either of them are frightened by or antagonistic toward the other. In fact, Bernie is not a fan of the two party system, he is operating within the reality that third parties cannot at this time get traction. Between him and Jill we are seeing a revolution, how big it gets is up to us.

    Suppose, as I alluded to in my first post, that all this ambition to change the system only results in one of the Republican idiots getting elected instead of Hillary, because we interfered with the DNC’s plan. Will you feel a lose? I won’t. Will the DNC? My turn to say “piss on them”.

    I’m still a Bernie supporter until he either loses the primary or is bested by Jill, but the final sentence of my first post, which you quoted, also contains another good point. There are many people so desirous of breaking the glass ceiling that they are willing to vote for Hillary because she appears to be the obvious person to do it. Jill is 100 times the woman, would she have their vote if it didn’t look like a “waste”?

    Bernie is running within the Democratic Party, I stated that I and others that I know about will not vote for Hillary, but do you think true Democrats will abandon Bernie if he is the nominee? I think only those described in the previous paragraph will. I even think a fair amount of Republicans will vote for Bernie or Jill when that vote is no longer considered a “waste”.

    The bottom line in all that I’ve said is that this revolution is big, we will indeed be heard like never before, a Libertarian can’t like that anymore than a Democrat or Republican does, but yes I do think so. I don’t pretend to think I’ve covered all possible scenarios or even been 100% accurate with the ones I’ve discussed, but I am celebrating power to the people because there are two wonderful candidates and a hunger for what they propose.

  20. paulie

    Would you agree with me that Bernie’s supporters are at least 100 times what would have been expected?

    Seems like an overestimate to me. And a lot of them are only his supporters because he is running as a Democrat; they would never support him as anything else in a general election. Some would but many would not.

  21. Kathy Gray

    Jill you are my plan B, I only wish there were a way to have you run as Bernie’s running mate.

  22. Pingback: Bernie or Bust: Won’t Leftists Profit From the Desperation of the Sandernistas?

  23. Pingback: Won’t Leftists Profit from Berniacs’ Desperation? - NationofChange | Progressive Change Through Positive Action

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.