• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

"The US Green Party cost *us* the 2000 and 2016 elections"

A

Antiwar

Green Party progressive
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 4, 2020
Messages
27,138
Reaction score
4,772
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
"The US Green Party cost *us* the 2000 and 2016 elections."
 
Antiwar said:
"The US Green Party cost *us* the 2000 and 2016 elections."
Click to expand...

Florida, 2000, official count:
Bush: 2,912,790
Gore: 2,912,253, for a difference of 537
Nader: 97,488

Wisconsin, 2016:
Trump: 1,405,284
Clinton: 1,382,536, for a difference of 22,748
Stein: 31,072

Michigan, 2016:
Trump: 2,279,543
Clinton: 2,268,839, for a difference of 10,704
Stein: 51,463

Pennsylvania, 2016:
Trump: 2,970,733
Clinton: 2,926,441, for a difference of 44,292
Stein: 49,941

Shift WI's, MI's, and PA's Green vote to Hillary, and she wins 2016. Shift even a fraction of Nader's 2000 Florida votes to Gore, and we would have never heard about hanging chads. And likely not a war in Iraq.
 
Perhaps if they actually made themselves palatable for green party voters (especially robot Hillary), they could've won.
 
ChickenTendies said:
Perhaps if they actually made themselves palatable for green party voters (especially robot Hillary), they could've won.
Click to expand...

The best description I've ever heard of the Green party is that they're really the Watermelon party: Green on the outside, red on the inside.
 
ChickenTendies said:
Perhaps if they actually made themselves palatable for green party voters (especially robot Hillary), they could've won.
Click to expand...

The thread and quote are because Phys251 made that claim in another thread.

Notice how he said they cost *us* the elections.
 
Phys251 said:
The best description I've ever heard of the Green party is that they're really the Watermelon party: Green on the outside, red on the inside.
Click to expand...

You stealing the T**** supporter "commies" line?
 
Antiwar said:
"The US Green Party cost *us* the 2000 and 2016 elections."
Click to expand...
I don't accept this argument.
Sure, some of those who voted green party, maybe even enough to win, might have voted for the Democrat.

But IMO, the issue isn't the voters, it's the party and candidate incapable of drawing their votes.

Green party didn't steal shit, they just appealed to those people more than the Democrats.

IMO that's on the Democrats.

Edit: FFS there are plenty of Democrats who agree with some of what the Green party wants, make a ****ing alliance or something.
 
Antiwar said:
"The US Green Party cost *us* the 2000 and 2016 elections."
Click to expand...
Your point?

Yes, had there not been 3rd party candidates in those races, the DNC would have most likely won.
 
Antiwar said:
The thread and quote are because Phys251 made that claim in another thread.

Notice how he said they cost *us* the elections.
Click to expand...
He is right. He proved it. They did.
 
He didn't say "steal".....he said "cost". Big difference.
 
NolanVoyd said:
He is right. He proved it. They did.
Click to expand...
The logic is backwards.

If a third party "steals" votes, that shows me that the "main two" party wasn't good enough.
They have the superior position in both money and practice at politics, at least generally speaking.
Not to mention being one of the main two.
 
Antiwar said:
The thread and quote are because Phys251 made that claim in another thread.

Notice how he said they cost *us* the elections.
Click to expand...
You probably should've quoted the post in question, since I dont think anyone understood the original post without context.
 
NolanVoyd said:
He didn't say "steal".....he said "cost". Big difference.
Click to expand...
It means the same thing here.

Steal means they lured those people away.
Cost means they lured those people away.
Whereas IMO the reality is that those people were looking for a better option because the Democrats didn't do enough of what they wanted.
 

Its a wasted vote and puts someone ion power who is less likely to carry out the policies they'd like to see.

Shooting themselves in foot, self-righteously.
 
ChickenTendies said:
You probably should've quoted the post in question, since I dont think anyone understood the original post without context.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you can do that without getting points for breaking a forum rule.
 
Antiwar said:
"The US Green Party cost *us* the 2000 and 2016 elections."
Click to expand...

I would alter it to argue that liberals and left wingers alike couldn’t be grownups and vote for someone who would at least get a plurality of the votes.
 
j brown's body said:
Its a wasted vote and puts someone ion power who is less likely to carry out the policies they'd like to see.

Shooting themselves in foot, self-righteously.
Click to expand...
The people that vote 3rd party in POTUS elections don’t care about the outcome.

Their vote is very much a symbolic thumb of the nose and they know that when casting it.
 
j brown's body said:
Its a wasted vote and puts someone ion power who is less likely to carry out the policies they'd like to see.

Shooting themselves in foot, self-righteously.
Click to expand...
That's one argument.
And with Trump in play I could agree with it, to a degree.
But I won't kid myself that Biden was anywhere NEAR my preferred choice, since there were at least 5 candidates I'd have preferred. Including the current VP.

It was definitely a lesser of two evils pick, and only the very real threat I saw in Trump made me happy to vote for Biden.
Our system is, for one reason or another, designed around two main parties or coalitions.
It's simply easier to get elected if you pick one and go, rather than trying for a third party or independent option. Almost always it requires a seriously bad candidate or local party to lose to third party or independent, at least until or unless the voters in that area see the independent or third party candidate as a better option. And especially if they win once and get the incumbent advantage.

------------------

No, it's not a wasted vote.
You can only say that if you're stuck thinking that only the two main parties count, and anything that helps or hurts the main enemy can only be viewed in that light.
A vote for a third or main party is a vote that the two main parties failed to draw, and since they're the powerhouses of the conflict I put the majority of the blame on them.
 
NolanVoyd said:
He is right. He proved it. They did.
Click to expand...

He hasn't proven anything. Correlation is not causation.

Even if the elections had been thrown by Green voters (they weren't), it doesn't prove anything except that Democrats think that they're entitled to govern (hence *us*).
 
Antiwar said:
He hasn't proven anything. Correlation is not causation.

Even if the elections had been thrown by Green voters (they weren't), it doesn't prove anything except that Democrats think that they're entitled to govern.
Click to expand...
Are you telling us that you truly think Nader or Stein were actual, viable candidates for POTUS?
 
BirdinHand said:
Are you telling us that you truly think Nader or Stein were actual, viable candidates for POTUS?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter.
Their viability has no bearing on this topic.
They were good enough to draw some votes, and the argument that the more powerful and practiced entity was robbed by their presence is bull.
 
The Mark said:
Doesn't matter.
Their viability has no bearing on this topic.
They were good enough to draw some votes, and the argument that the more powerful and practiced entity was robbed by their presence is bull.
Click to expand...
Oh, Nader and Stein fully knew what they were doing.

And their supporters fully knew what they were doing.

And the Bernie Bros who refused to vote Clinton and voted Trump or Stein also knew.

POTUS elections come down to electoral college wins. 2000 and 2016 are perfect examples.

The system is what the system is in the US.

And people casting votes know what they’re doing. Or they’re idiots.

For POTUS elections - you are either voting because you want one of the two main candidates to win/lose or you’re casting a “protest” vote for a 3rd party to make a point - and saying “I don’t care if A or B wins. Neither is my taste and I’m ok with either in the Oval”.



Pretending it is anything else is disingenuous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…