Howie Hawkins Secures 2020 Green Party Presidential Nomination

According to a Twitter post from union leader and Green Party co-founder Howie Hawkins, Hawkins has earned the requisite number of pledged delegates to secure the Green Party’s 2020 presidential nomination.  Through primaries and state conventions, Hawkins has attained 182 bound delegates, which is enough to win the nomination on the first ballot at the 2020 Green National Convention on July 11.

Hawkins, who is also the presidential nominee of Socialist Party USA, has selected 2016 Socialist Party USA vice presidential nominee Angela Walker as his running mate.  The party is not bound to select the presidential nominee’s choice for vice president but it seems likely that it will.

According to Wikipedia, former Youngstown Board of Education member Dario Hunter is currently second to Hawkins in pledged delegates with 72.5.

15 thoughts on “Howie Hawkins Secures 2020 Green Party Presidential Nomination

  1. Justin Kahm

    He takes bad lines on Syria and Russia, I agree with him more on domestic policy but I’d vote for Jorgenson over him.

  2. JamesT

    Why do many greens hate him? Because he is reasonable on guns? That’s the only thing I’ve ever heard him say that isn’t typical far left.

  3. paulie

    I’ve heard grumbling about his views on Russiagate, Syria and also about alleged party-campaign insider dealing or favoritism.

  4. SocraticGadfly

    @Paulie: I’ve blogged about Howie and Russiagate. (I also heard him in Dallas; pic in the post is mine.)

    I don’t totally agree with him; the Russian meddling was not necessarily meddling FOR Trump. For instance, here in Tex-ass, the IRA or related people created BOTH a pro Black Lives Matter FB group and some wingnut group and basically got them to square off.

    Howie has never, though, IMO, gone down the Hillbot route and claimed Putin directly colluded with Trump.

    https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2019/09/howie-hawkins-versus-nutters-on.html

    I’m unfamiliar with him on Syria. IF he promotes the line that Assad did all chemical weapons attacks, I disagree. I’ve been reading Robert Fisk for a decade-plus, and he’s among those who say White Helmets allies are behind some of them.

  5. paulie

    I don’t totally agree with him; the Russian meddling was not necessarily meddling FOR Trump.

    I’d have to disagree. While it’s true that they forment conflict more generally, there’s also plenty of evidence of specific and ongoing, decades long collusion with Trump specifically.

  6. SocraticGadfly

    I’d have to disagree. While it’s true that they foment conflict more generally, there’s also plenty of evidence of specific and ongoing, decades long collusion with Trump specifically.

    Oh, Trump WANTED the help, Paulie. No doubt. IMO, Putin is too smart to have given it. He wouldn’t trust a flighty weathervane like Trump. And, for people who point to “action X” in his administration done by Trump, I’ll point to others, like selling arms to Ukraine, which Obama wouldn’t do.

  7. SocraticGadfly

    That said, Paulie, I do think that some of what I call the “alleged outside-the-box stenos” (Maté, Levine, Mark Ames, Taibbi, Max Blumenthal, etc.) have done various degrees of pooch-screwing on this issue.

  8. paulie

    IMO, Putin is too smart to have given it.

    Not really. They work with people like this all over the world. They have gotten an excellent return on investment. They have failsafe strategies in case things go bad.

    I’ll point to others, like selling arms to Ukraine, which Obama wouldn’t do.

    I think he would have eventually, and it was dictated by congressionally passed appropriation in a larger bill Trump wouldn’t have vetoed.

  9. SocraticGadfly

    @Paulie: We’ll probably agree to disagree on any direct action by Putin on Trump’s behalf.

    That said, Ukraine was the weakest cause for impeachment, Bolton’s book aside, and was surely done in part to protect Biden.

    IMO, the strongest Constitutional grounds was the Emoluments Clause, and Dems didn’t even consider that. Probably because some of THEIR grifting would have popped up.

  10. paulie

    We’ll probably agree to disagree on any direct action by Putin on Trump’s behalf.

    I guess so. On one hand, way too much evidence of many different kinds; on the other, not something I want to invest time in debating.

    Ukraine was the weakest cause for impeachment

    It shouldn’t have been. That was blatant abuse of presidential power – conditioning US government money on a foreign government interfering in the upcoming US election.

    IMO, the strongest Constitutional grounds was the Emoluments Clause, and Dems didn’t even consider that. Probably because some of THEIR grifting would have popped up.

    There, we agree.

  11. SocraticGadfly

    That all said, Paulie, to my degree of analysis, even, let alone yours, I am trying to figure out the “end game” of the alleged outside-the-box stenos I mentioned. (If there really is an “end game.”) I am sure none of them are Russian agents or other nonsense.

    But, is it just a knee-jerk “eff you” to foreign policy establishmentarianism? Something more?

  12. paulie

    I’m sure there is a mix of motivations. Hawkins seems like a capable candidate though. I did not get that impression from other people seeking their nomination. They can, and have, done worse.

Leave a Reply

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