A new poll suggests that Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is drawing more voters from former President Donald Trump than from Vice President Kamala Harris.
According to a Noble Predictive Insights survey released last week, Harris holds a narrow lead over Trump in a hypothetical three-way race. With Stein on the ballot, Harris’ lead expands, pointing to a potential spoiler effect similar to what many Democrats blamed Stein for doing to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
For Trump, the emergence of Stein as a potential spoiler may be a critical factor in battleground states, where even a small shift in votes could determine the outcome. For Harris, Stein’s candidacy could paradoxically provide an unexpected advantage, drawing votes from Trump and narrowing his pathway to victory.
This week, Stein received an endorsement from David Duke, the former Ku Klux Klan leader. Duke, a known white supremacist, endorsed Stein over Trump, citing her criticism of U.S. policy on Israel as the reason. Stein has unequivocally rejected the endorsement, calling Duke a “racist troll” in a social media post. Nevertheless, the attention surrounding the endorsement has cast a shadow over Stein’s campaign and added a controversial layer to an already-complex race.
You heard’em, start campaigning for Stein if you want Kamala to win.
I don’t listen to polls anymore. I’ve already voted, I don’t give a fuck about who’s leading who.
Without looking at any statistics or polling, I think the spoiler effect is not as prominent and is over stated for one reason.
If I’m going out of my way to not vote for the Democrats or Republicans and voting third party that would mean that I dislike my options so much that I’m giving a fuck you to the two party system.
What people can gather from this is if you said there was only two options I would just sit out and therefore it wasn’t going to affect either candidate regardless.
I’m open to be convinced otherwise but I think candidates blaming spoilers should look at the electoral college and themselves when every 4 years they are ready to blame single digit candidates for their losses.
It sounds like your interpretation of the spoiler effect centers on people voting third party due to dissatisfaction with the 2 unfortunately omnipresent parties, which would be the same as not voting. Have you considered that some people who were going to vote no matter what might vote for a third party candidate because their listed policies actually resonate with them?
Democrats will still blame Stein if they lose, and even though their explicit strategy is to pick off disaffected Republicans, they’ll never blame Chase Oliver. It’s just like in 2016, when Hillary used the exact same strategy, and they blamed Stein, even though Gary Johnson took home a much higher percentage of the vote in most swing states. They don’t care about spoiler candidates; they just want to punch left, especially when they need a scapegoat for a loss.
What’s wild to me is that they actually put out attack ads targeting the Green party, which tells me they’re believing their own propaganda.
This. As long as they have a base big and dumb enough to buy any and every excuse to go further right (and blame progressives for it), they’ll keep doing it.
MRW when @univeralmonk was right
deleted by creator
Do you think all of those people who have been saying that third-party voters are going to destroy the US will be apologizing in the comment section here?
First past the post is a terrible design. Let’s rank choice and move on.
lol, pie in the sky right?
deleted by creator
Regardless of outcome, you’re playing with fire in our current voting system. Even if a few states did actually elect a third party, you could see no candidate reach 270 electoral votes and then it goes to the even more arcane vote done in the house of representatives (which each state gets a vote)
A very blue district in Hawaii sent a Republican (Charles Djou) to Washington in a special election with less than half the vote, because the two Democrats in the race refused to back down. If there were a ranked choice or other voting system than “plurality takes all”, he wouldn’t have won
Oh geez, really tightening up the narrative now. 3rd party voting in non-swing states is getting demonized.
Cripes. My point was our current system means your vote for the perfect candidate can put the candidate you disagree with most into office when one with much closer views to yours could have been elected instead. It has happened, and in a place where it really shouldn’t have.
That system should be changed for that reason, and until it is you should be very aware of unintended consequences of that vote.
So now that you’ve identified the problem I can only hope you’re actively building grassroots support to replace the current system instead of just posting online about how people should vote blue no matter what, right?
I see lots of problems in the world. Our voting system is flawed, income inequality is bananas, people still think Donald Trump won the election 4 years ago, our cities are very car-dependent, and plenty more. If I built a grassroots program for every issue I point out to every yahoo on the Internet, I wouldn’t have time to change my toddler’s diaper. If my posting online tells people to keep the cart behind the horse or reconsider their points of view (glad you seem to agree with me what the problem is!) I’ll call that a win on a smaller scale.
I understand juggling the current political hellscape with a child is nightmarish but building a movement behind a better political system would be the first step in allowing people to vote for better options and resolve the myriad of issues you’ve listed - until then saying to “keep the cart behind the horse” only means we’ll continue bickering in the backseat while the obviously broken two-party state drives us all off the edge.
And I get that between work and family finding time to be politically active can be challenging but I would hope you can find an hour or two a month to join your local RCV advocacy group and help create a better political environment for yours and everybody else’s children.
I know people who have small children and are still involved in socialist organizing.
Cool. Am I supposed to do that for every cause I believe in or just the ones you say I should?
Dem mental gymnastics are going into overdrive rn
Libs will still blame leftists like blue maga wants them to.
Jesus, bucketing everyone together and then throwing out crazy labels. Sounds like you live by the MAGA playbook.
Alright I’ll bite. I don’t understand this. The word liberal has two meanings: the classical and the colloquial. The latter is indistinguishable from leftist, so I assume you are using the classical form.
Classical liberals will still blame leftists, like … blue maga wants them to? Who exactly is blue maga? Jill Stein supporters?
Classical liberals also span the left-right spectrum right now, with many identifying as libertarian. I struggle to see what you are getting at regardless of who blue maga represents, but maybe there is a good point here.
No it’s not indistinguishable from the left, as issues like this show very clearly. That’s just a fiction you’re taught by liberals to fool you into thinking they’re on your side.
Words can have different colloquial meanings. There is a really crass meaning of liberal that would identify Marx as a liberal, yes, and this is the most popular one in America, but there’s another colloquial meaning (more popular in other anglophone countries, but gaining traction in America) where liberals are basically centrists (in capitalist societies) who might pretend to be progressive but are ultimately moderates to their bones. This came from the proclivities of “Liberal” parties, along with centrists understandably claiming the name of whatever the ruling ideology is, and here it is of course liberalism.
Among leftist circles, “liberal” is sort of an unmarked term for the moderate definition and the Lockean definition both, like how “guys” can refer to both a group of males and a group of mixed gender, despite “gals” only referring specifically to a group of females (I’m using those terms because they apply to children also, not just men/women).
So the comment is saying, in translation: “Democrat aligned people will still blame socialists (etc.) like their Democrat ideological cult wants them to.” Does that make sense?
“Blue MAGA” are the Democrats who think their shit doesn’t stink and love to insist that any vote that doesn’t go to Harris is a vote for Trump.
Classical Liberals are right-wing. Yes, this includes the Democrats and non-Socialist Libertarians.
deleted by creator
You mean because I am asking reasonable questions to learn? I have heard the phrase blue maga but am not very familiar with what it means. Meanwhile your post history is nothing but frothing at the mouth vitriol and online angst just like all of Reddit. Why exactly are you somewhere else? I would think because you got tired of that crap just like the rest of us. So let’s try to do better here.
This is a sentence with words, but the arrangement makes no sense. You sure you didn’t generate that from ChatGPT?
“I have no reading comprehension skills” isn’t the own you think it is.
I think it’s funny that someone with “Locke” in their name would seemingly not distinguish between liberals and leftists.
You realise that you’re not using the word liberal as Locke would either right?
That’s true, they are (and I guess I am, by extension) using it in a narrower sense than is represented in Locke, who encompasses both the red and blue team, but the Lockean sense would still distinguish between liberals and modern leftism.
? Do you disagree? Isn’t blaming leftists what blue maga is currently priming their voters for if/when they lose?
This is a sentence with words, but the arrangement makes no sense. You sure you didn’t generate that from ChatGPT?
I won’t believe a single poll until this election is over. There is so much incentive for misinformation out there it is unbearable. Just get out and vote.
Literally the maga line in 2020 lmfao. Like word for word.
And then in 2022 and in 2024, Republican funded sources started releasing new data just a few weeks before the election to make it look like the Republican candidate had already won, trying to trick people into staying home on Election Day.
Times have changed, and if you’re not up to speed with the Republican playbook, today is a good day to start.
not even remotely relevant, but hilarious af. upvote
Bullshit.
I’m struggling really hard to see which voter is on the fence between Trump and Stein. Wouldn’t it be more likely to be on the fence between Stein and Harris, or Stein and the couch?
People who don’t like Trump but are too anti Democrat to vote Harris
One could still be pro Democrat or pro democracy, and still do not like Harris. Many things can be true at the same time.
Don’t those people usually vote Libertarian?
They vote anti establishment in general, which is the green party.
I just personally hate anyone who tries to argue somebody doesn’t have a right to ruin for presidency, they might not win but that’s not the point. If you’re a democracy, any citizen who meets the criteria has he right to run for an elected position.
Not as many people hate Harris specifically as hated Hillary, but a lot of people (for good and bad reasons) hate the Dems and also Kamala to some extent.
I think Trump draws a lot of broad support from his ‘anti-establishment’ rhetoric so it kinda makes sense for folks to look to other anti-establishment candidates as an alternative to him. There’s a tendency to look down upon Trump voters as only right wingers, conspiracists etc and not really understand that a lot of his support is superficial and based on limited information.
In a way it’s not so much that Stein or other left candidates are spoilers for the establishment Dems but more the case that figures like Trump are spoilers for progressive alternatives to the establishment.
Jill Stein is providing spite voters an option to not vote for Donald Trump.
Hillary took a lot of friendly fire in 2016 from the Bernie Bros who were not too happy.
It’s a fun thing to tell yourself, but more Sanders voters voted for Clinton in 2016 than Clinton voters voted for Obama in 2008.
I don’t know the exact math you are referring. but I do know that Obama won and Hillary lost.
Did Obama win over more right wing voters than Hillary left wing voters?
Obama was remarkably good at getting young voters out in record numbers at that time. My state went Democrat for the first (and last) time in 30-something years and when I looked at the county breakdown the newly turned blue counties were all counties with a major public university or multiple smaller universities.
Nobody hurts
likeIf the democrats lose it will be because their entire campaign is “we are not Trump, also if we lose the election it’s Russia’s fault”
Her word salads and accents are legendary. Could they have not picked someone else?
what’s better for the establishment than a candidate that functions as an empty suit?
I mean, you are right. She is a puppet. Could not risk losing all the big money Biden donators had already shelled. They want their cake too. Hence no Primary.
Watched her on a number of instances, it is all woke rhetoric and 'Vote for me, I am not Trump" messafing. Over and over.
Previous, better Candidates actually stood for something on their own. Rather than not much at all or just reminding you, constantly, of who they were not. Obama and Sanders could actually stand in a room and engage with it and with at least what sounded like their own opinions and rational ideas.
Worldnews@lemmy.world about to lose their minds with rage.
most don’t pay attention; so they wouldn’t notice.
What’s with .ml obsession with stein anyhow? Is it the links to Putin? I don’t get it.
Little known fact. The .ml server is run out of an old Soviet bunker in Leningrad, powered entirely by burning copies of the Victims of Communism leaflets in a converted T-34.
This has to be bait. You can’t possibly think people think that way, right? .ml people disagree with NATO-sphere liberals about a lot of things to do with Russia, but that’s not the same as being mindless Russian chauvinists.
Like, do you really think whatever meetings she had with Putin or whatever it is you blue rags gossip about would be a bigger factor than her opposing the genocide in Gaza, to say nothing of having better climate policies, better immigration policies, and so on?
“But she won’t win”
Obviously, but her shaking Putin’s hand won’t change that. His apparent trick of buying a miniscule number of highly-targeted Facebook ads isn’t gonna do much for her, so we need to accept that assumption either way.
I’m voting for PSL, not Greens, btw.
I love the assumption that .ml people have to take a purity test with political leaning check boxes and receive a manual of how to think while using the instance. Not, you know, just a larger instance that’s popular that anyone on the internet can make an account on. Also love how lemmy has a more progressive stance on calling out bigotry in all it’s forms, but somehow popularly encourages instance bashing with upvotes.
Green party is the most progressive party that has access to 400+ electoral votes. Anyone that wants to participate in the farce would want to vote for them. And Dr Stein pisses off right wingers like no one else, which is a plus.
Why do Right wingers get pissed off at Stein? I do not get it. The main attack ads I have seen towards the Dr. come from the Democrats. Who try to sell her as a Spoiler candidate who is seemingly pro Putin – although no serious proof is given outside insinuations-- and also as proxy vote for Trump, because she takes away possible Dem votes.
Is it right wingers who dislike Trump?
Democrats are right wing.
Ah, fair.
