A CNN Presidential poll, dated Sep 7-9, has Stein at 2%. What would it take for her to get, say, 10%? At this late a date?
At this late date, besides pictures of both Obama and Romney dancing with the devil, it would require some sort of galvanizing issue, which represented an imminent threat, and in which there was essentially no hope for a serious response by either Obama or Romney. Furthermore, this issue has to be easily communicated, and needs to elicit a strong, immediate, and emotional response. A response that was so strong, it would take people out of their comfort/lazy zones, enough to GOTV for Stein/Honkala. You need an issue such that there’s a shocking ‘poster child’.
For better or for worse, I believe that there is such an issue, complete with ‘poster child’. While I’m not sure that the pictures are from the rats in question in a recent French study that led to GMO corn being banned in Russia, the GROSSLY, GROSSLY deformed rats that were fed GMO’s must constitute an effective propaganda tool that could be used to jolt Americans out of their typical, sheep-like voting behavior.
Meme Propagation Methodology
Let’s say that Jill Stein agrees with me that horrifying GMO’d rats are a signature issue that, if she succeeded in blasting this message out, would take her from 2%-10% Just how would she educate a sufficient portion of the American public, in under 4 weeks, so as to affect their voting behavior? Not being a corporatist, expensive TV ad campaigns are not an option. (Even if she had the cash, she’d probably find out, just like Ross Perot did, that some major media will not accept your campaign advertising dollars.)
So, how to conduct a shock and awe campaign, that might jolt D’s, R’s and independents sufficiently such that they are eager to take on Monsanto, via pushing Jill Stein for President? But without mass media, and without mega-dollars?
The easiest means of GMO-horror meme propagation, that I can think of, is :
1) prepare a flyer to be downloaded from her website, complete with horrifying pictures, a brief explanation, a challenge to not just vote for her, but to join GOTV efforts, and links for further info.
2) call on her followers to Target SCHOOLS. Get the horrible flyers not only into the hands of a few parents who drop off or pick up their kids, but also get the flyers into the hands of the schoolchildren. To make sure that the flyers end up in the parents hands, the titles should provide the necessary prod(s). E.g.,
Should Parents Feed Their Children GMO Corn That Can Make Their Children Grow Mega-Tumors Like This?
This somewhat muddles the issue – we want laws that ban dangerous GMO’s from even being sold (it’s hard to trust regulatory agencies…) – and don’t want just advisories and labeling laws. I.e., we don’t want parents to think that their responsibility extends only to their own children, but instead everybody’s children (not to mention themselves), which means they need to embrace legal sanctions. Which they can get championed by a President Stein, but not a President Obama, who appointed a former Monsanto VP to head the FDA, nor from an equally corporatist President Romney.
Nevertheless, the point of the flyer is to galvanize the public, and aiming for a parental pressure point is the means to an end. The flyer can easily disambiguate what sort of parental responsibility is being sought – a more universal, spiritual one, that must find expressions in actions that lead to constraints with the force of law.
3) Network, network, network. The #1 Group in meetup.com is stay-at-home Moms. I kid you not – PLEASE go to meetup.com, navigate to your neighborhood, and then search for “stay at home moms”. Say, do you think that Moms want to go through the joys and sorrows of motherhood, only to find out that Junior is developing mega-tumors from GMO corn chips? I’m not going to develop the idea in this diary, but I think the number #1 demographic to stimulate a democratic and civil society renaissance in the US is “stay at home Moms”. Recall that Chris Hedges and Noam Chomsky spoke of the great desirability of having Moms come by, with baby in the baby stroller, to talk politics. Hedges even said this “terrified” the ruling class. Getting vulnerable Moms on board is one reason my new networking, activist tool will forbid – as per terms of service – any law breaking.
It should be relatively EASY to get converts at Stay At Home Moms types of meetup groups. Stein and Honkala being female, and mothers, will obviously make things even easier.
=========================================
To be perfectly blunt about it, I doubt that Stein/Honkala have what it takes to go nuclear, though I welcome them to surprise me. I would happily be the first to admit that I was wrong, and had under-estimated them.
I’m actually not just picking on the Greens, here. Progressives and populists seem almost constitutionally unable to exploit the increasingly alarming and even absurd excesses of the corporate state to mount an effective counterattack. The Greens are just another clueless piece of flotsam and jetsam, thrashing about in a sea of befuddlement. They have lots of company from which to either take the wrong cues from, or else no cues, at all.
I guess you could say that I have no more confidence in the short-term tactical smarts of Stein/Honkala/GP, than I do in their longer-term strategic smarts. And this is equally true of progressives and populists, in general.
=======================================
In the course of googling for deformed rat picture links to write this diary, I read the following, which talks about a new Gary Null film on GMOs.
=======================================
UPDATE: I am posting my “math”, for the potential for “going nuclear”, which I first posted in the diary NPR Debate between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein moderated by Guy Raz of All Things Considered on the economy, health care & the role of gov’t
This is basically good news. However, consider that according to the wikipedia page on NPR, listenership for NPR is only 20.9 million per week. NPR’s highest rated program, Morning Edition, weighs in at 12.9 million per week. 12.9 million is thus a good guess for an upper bound of who caught this debate. I’ll guess that a more realistic upper bound is 1/3 that. (OTOH, NPR has some twitter-connected enthusiasts, but I’ve little idea of how this impacts net audience for this debate, including archived listening.)
Since Stein/Honkala were recently polling at about 2%, if Honkala gets NPR related exposure that’s about equal to less than 1% of the US population, does it not make sense to at least TRY and think outside the box, so that election day marks a turning point in US electoral history, rather than just a confirmation, of sorts, of the futility of 3rd Party runs? Will getting 3% of the vote, instead of 2%, set the kind of stage for 2014 that GP followers can get enthusiastic about?
I have tried to think outside the box in my current diary, What Would it Take for Stein/Honkala to Break Out of the 2% Ghetto? Hint: Go Nuclear. It’s nice to see it in the rec list, but there’s no comments. That’s consistent with my observation that progressives in the US generally show little imagination, nor tactical smarts, nor strategic smarts, nor even common sense, in dealing with their marginalized position. This seems true not only of progressives in general, but also of populists, in general.
While very few Americans listen to NPR, most Americans have a fairly close connection (child, grandchild, child of a first cousin) to somebody in school, K-12.
Let’s do some math. If 2% of Americans will vote for Stein/Honkala, then it’s not unreasonable for .2% of Americans to respond positively to taking 2-3 afternoon of their life to distribute horror-filled anti-GMO flyers to their nearest public school’s students. A student will typically live in a home that has other adults there – older siblings, a parent or two, perhaps a grandparent or two. This link gives average household size as 2.63, but it’s reasonable to assume that, given we are talking about households that already have a dependent child in them, an average household size is more like 3.0.
So, distributing flyers to kids will give you a 3-fer.
If .2% of the population hands out 100 flyers, they might reach .2% * 100 * 3.0 = 60% of the US population.
SO, RIDDLE ME THIS, GREEN PARTY BATMEN: WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE EXPOSURE OF 60% OF THE POPULATION, OR LESS THAN 1%?
Of course, you don’t really have to choose between the two. You’ve already gotten NPR exposure. Furthermore, there’s still 4 weeks until election day, so the GP could still attempt exploiting the public streets next to schools for getting it’s message out.
This morning I read a piece by the famous, non-tribalistic physicist R.P. Feynman, on his experience evaluating math books for the CA school system. What a horror show! Anyway, just like I think American’s should be educated in logic and rhetoric, I also think they should learn math, well, and (as I think Feynman would approve of) start looking at political issues mathematically. Not just mathematically; but, where mathematics could provide insight into practicality, some simple calculations could well help deliver the public from it’c current grossly disempowered state, wherein incumbents have near locks on re-election, in spite of awful approval ratings.
Unfortunately, I don’t expect the Stein/Honkala to have whatever it takes to “go nuclear”, whether it’s lack of basic mathematical ability, no ability to think outside the box, or no ability to intuit superior strategies (nor the common sense to hire somebody who can calculate strategies, objectively, with a track record to prove that ability).
I expect them to cross the finish line at 2%. But, as I mention in my diary, I welcome them to surprise me, and would be happy to admit my error.



33 Comments

I don’t know about the general public but horrifying pictures sure turn me off. Probably why I can’t stand to look at…well, fill in the blank; it’s Sunday after all.
It certainly feels like a ghetto at times, but there’re more than 2% of us here at the Lake. And that’s a good start. Nine miles long that march to Waziristan stretched, peacefully, and they had to barricade the road to prevent them from going all the way. Or what? The world as we know it might have changed. Now, that would be a new normal I could get jiggy about.
well, it seems I have higher ambitions for the Green Party in 2012, and I’m not even a member!
Nuclear may be the way to go, metamars, and it’s a good issue, and one I write about often enough.
My own guess is that getting the pamphlets into the hands of school children might be tough, school authorities being what they are now. And yes, we want the laws and regulations, but the labeling is an excellent step forward. Can’t remember the number of states that have failed passing similar laws. Nope; not coming up with feasible alternatives, but I’m sure there are some, even tailored to different communities.
Good’o on the heads-ups on Null’s new video. If science has found a causal relationship between GMOs and *human* infertility and stillbirth, as far as I know that’s big news. Indications have been there, but nothing definitive, which is an enormous reason that testing shouldn’t be left to Monsanto and other industry servers.
There’s a huge hit piece on Prop 37 at the BBC site; a shame. Apparently more CA newspapers have come out against it, too, but last I’d read support was still strong. I’d imagine that the bulk of the $30 million the industry given toward its defeat has yet to be spent, though.
You doubt they will take you up on your suggestion, but…how would they know of it?
While writing has it’s place, it’s no substitute for mass meme propagation. Companies with fat wallets can depend on commercial TV to spread their side of the story. My suggestion is meant to defeat the ‘constraint’ of not having similar $$$, which is actually more in people’s minds than real.
It’s real enough as long as people collectively engage in “abortive thought processes”, instead of thinking outside the box and being resourceful. I refuse to think inside the box, so find myself more annoyed at hapless progressives than at plutocrats…. They’d do well to remember the line from Shakespeare:
My hope is that what I believe are the many Greens that read FDL will use their Green contacts to forward my diary, accordingly.
Still, you’re question is well put, and prompted me to email Stein at HQ@jillstein.org. So, thank-you for that.
I do have high ambitions for the Greens, sorry if I sounded unenthusiastic, metamars. You are very much entitled to propose what you will, but I really think they will do much better than 2%. I consider with the odds they are facing they have done remarkably well just getting on the ballot in so many states. Also, they have facetime with Amy Goodman as the debates are continuing. She does reach a lot of young people – here I can listen to her program from two college stations plus view and read transcripts online; and actually NPR takes care of a lot of the others – I have daughters who split into both camps.
But I’m not a political strategist, just an ordinary person who goes round about on the web and reads comments. I’m spreading the word in the circles in which I move, and I hope others will do the same.
Thank you for your enthusiasm. My negativity to shock and awe is personal – I tend not to watch the shock and awe campaign commercials with ugly photos of candidates, and while I agree that genetically modified food is one of the horrible things we need to alert people about, I’m enthusiastic about the positive aspects of this campaign. But indeed, that’s just me.
By the way, why aren’t you a Green? Registering Green was my way of indicating support, since I don’t have much ready cash and live in an out of the way place. More registered Greens would definitely help, so do consider it.
Haven’t really given it much thought.
I spent oodles of time developing a tool that could be utilized by political groups to recruit, finally posting what I believe is a showstopper-bug-free version 2 days ago, at occupypublicspaces.org. I honestly think the GP would get much more benefit from embracing the tool, than whatever benefits would accrue by my registering, or even getting involved in campaign activities.
Of course, I have more ideas for more tools in the pro-democracy, pro-civil society area.
Also, in some ways I’m conservative. I’m an outlier who doesn’t really fit in much of anywhere.
Fair enough. I came across this, though (amongst some really good comments about genetic modifications – hope I can sleep tonight) in the comments to links over at nakedcapitalism.com, this from Aquifer:
“…As Stein and others have pointed out, we don’t have a healthcare system, we have a sickcare system – we don’t focus on prevention but on “cure” as if the former weren’t ever so much better and the latter a poor, raggedy, inefficient, insufficient substitute serving more the needs of the “provider” (Big Pharma, et.al.) than the patient. It has seemed to me for some time, after >20 years in medicine, that if we were really serious about healthcare we would be paying more attention to the Dept. of Ag than the Dept of HHS.
I think that’s why i am such a “Stein pusher” – i read how she got involved in politics – through realizing that what she was doing in her Dr.’s office didn’t amount to much when her patients were just going back into the milieu that made them sick. She figured if she just let her Leg.s know what was happening – they would fix it! But she soon was disillusioned of that notion and came to realize we had to “throw the bums” out if we wanted to fix anything. She describes herself as practicing “political medicine” because the current political system is the “mother of all illnesses”. I was pretty bummed on politics after voting Nader 4 times, even a “lover of lost causes” such as i gets discouraged, but this lady, IMO, is too good to ignore – she is coming from where I and many others, ?including you, are, methinks ….”
LOL! Your people skills might need some polishing, my friend. That may be why your plans aren’t being widely read, and it’s too bad. You’ve clearly worked hard to develop them.
Marginalizing comments probably ain’t the way to go. (And I’m not a Green, so I just thought I’d bring the news in my post, and check in with you.)
You’re wrong I think on your choice for going nuclear, cuz almost no one would buy it.
Definitely agree on the following: “Progressives and populists seem almost constitutionally unable to exploit the increasingly alarming and even absurd excesses of the corporate state to mount an effective counterattack. The Greens are just another clueless piece of flotsam and jetsam, thrashing about in a sea of befuddlement. They have lots of company from which to either take the wrong cues from, or else no cues, at all.”
But have some sympathy. The terminal loser-ism of the left and pretend populists is a product of the massive forces consciously fighting for the top class against a basically clueless bottom 80%. Some Green PR gal/guy’s great attention-getting strategy is not going to change this society. At best it increases Stein’s vote into the middle single digits instead of the low single digits. Stein herself is an imperfect candidate, very poorly suited for attracting working class or working poor votes or anything really other than hipster cool college student and professor votes. But even if you found the perfect candidate, some ethical combination of Huey Long and Ralph Nader, that candidate have a helluva hard time getting 10% of the vote in this system.
What comment have I marginalized? What do you mean by “bring the news in your post”?
Are you saying that children and their parents won’t buy that GMO food could kill them? Last I heard, a labeling law posed in a California referendum is polling 2:1 for, so this claim seems doubtful.
Or, are you saying that nobody in the Stein/Honkala campaign would buy “going nuclear” as a strategy? Now, there I’d agree with you, though I welcome them to surprise me.
I would also welcome Stein/Honkala trying the nuclear strategy experimentally, in a county or two, and gauging the results, before they adopted it widely. This would constitute a ‘democratic experiment’, not unlike what standard D/R candidates do with focus polling. The cost of conducting such a constrained experiment would be next to nothing, compared to a national campaign, and if they jumped on it (e.g., made the flyer today, Monday, made it available Tuesday, used outside-the-county volunteers to make sure the test county was well covered) they could judge by the end of the week whether they were incurring a huge opportunity cost by not going nuclear.
Given what I normally see out of progressives and populists, I don’t expect even a low cost, constrained democratic experiment out of the Stein/Honkala campaign. I’ve come to expect, from populists and progressives, what software engineers, by analogy, would call “anti-patterns” – patterns of design that lead to bad results. Since a low cost experiment could yield extremely valuable information, concerning a strategy designed to pull them out of the 2% ghetto, that’s why I expect them not to do so.
Years ago, I worked for a small company who hired a woman who was improperly vetted. (I had nothing to do with her hiring.) We told her to go through the code and put error trapping in. She ended up putting error traps in the next to last line of every procedure, ensuring that the error traps would do exactly nothing. We ended up “letting her go”… We did not expect great results from her, going forward.
.
With only 4 weeks to go, nobody can seriously expect society to change as a result of going nuclear. However, quintupling the expected Green Party results might start them rolling in the right direction.
As I have written previously, if Jill Stein packs her bags and goes home on November 7, her effect on future Green Party election results will be nil, no better than the effect we see, today, from Dennis Kucinich’s runs. I suppose if she goes home Nov. 7, but pulls in 10% of the vote after going nuclear, that might leave a positive legacy.
But really what’s needed is a long term strategy + Jill Stein not going home + and at least a constrained nuclear experiment to see if she can break out of the 2% ghetto. And if the nuclear experiment is as positive as I expect it would be, then it would need to be adopted. All of that.
The 80% that need to embrace populist issues and cooperative strategies include large segments of the population that will never vote Green (think Tea Party, e.g.). I’m not suggesting that the Green Party can become a party of the 80%. However, I believe it could become a major party, capable of throwing it’s weight around.
About 25% of US adults are registered as Republicans. If the GP reached the 25% mark, don’t you think they’d be a force to be reckoned with? And don’t you think that 25% registered Green is possible?
My point is the credibility problem of minor parties on apparent charges on first look seem pretty outlandish. When they say something true but difficult to verify, the mainstream press slams them and with a big megaphone pronounces them crazy.
This kinda thing: … Is there a link-by-link connection between those bloated crazed rats and actual U.S. consumers’ GM food? Did Obama know about the bloated diseased messed-up GM rats beforehand and let that specific variant of GM food go ahead anyway? Probly not and anyway definitely not provable.
“Mainstream press slamming them” is probably a good thing, and inevitable if they start to gain traction. The mainstream press serves the 1%.
Also, a starting point of my suggestion is that Stein/Honkala will not have access to TV – it’s too expensive. And yet, they need to negate that barrier. If they got their voice heard, it may be mainstream media that absorbs another body blow, and not Stein/Honkala.
As I’ve noted, I’m not actually sure about the photos and the French study that led to GMO corn being banned in Russia. However, I don’t think most Americans particularly care. What has GMO food ever done for you? Is it so much better than the non-GMO food of the 1950′s that any serious person can say we actually need GMO’s, and it’s worth the risk?
The fact that GMO’s can create horrible tumors in another mammal is all Americans need to know. BTW, another study show GMO toxins in all fetal tissue samples (umbilical chord) studied. Do you really think the mainstream media wants to pooh pooh this? If so, I say, “Bring it on!”.
A similar argument can be made against nuclear power – if you know that toxic wastes are produced that cannot be purified in a 100 million years, what else do you really need to know? In general, a rational society will educate it’s members as to cost vs. benefit – there’s nothing that’s totally safe.
When the costs last forever, your cost / benefit grid might not fit on your spreadsheet….
To the extent the needle can be moved at all through elections, any movement with any hope of gaining political power in the US requires broad-based coalition building.
The Green Party movement, which is mostly just an excuse to avoid staying home or voting “none of the above”, is the precise opposite of broad-based coalition building. Hence, it’s uselessness either within or without of the political “system.”
Indeed, the Tea Parties have shown the way. And the way to their own ultimate futility, as well. For they are destroying whatever coalitions remain in the GOP, but are gaining enough organised political power to upend party politics up to the level of Senatorial elections.
The future of the Tea Party, like that of any ideologically narrow third party is either to break off into their own third party or continue to destroy the GOP from within, thus creating the opportunity for a new second party, which may occur from the left, as the Democratic Party becomes the new center-right party that was the GOP before Reaganism.
Talk of populist third parties of the left, however, ignore the fact that leftism is not very popular in the US and that populism generally leads to eccentric weirdness in this country, and carries a much higher degree of probability for extreme right wing demagogic movements to succeed.
As we are also seeing develop with our caucasian cousins in Europe.
Did Hugo Chavez pop out of a “broad based coalition”, or moreso as a leader of a specific party, which was not one of the 2 dominant parties in Venezuela when he began his political ascent? I honestly don’t know.
If the latter is true, the assertion of your first line:
is contradicted. Unless, that is, that you are saying the US is a special case.
In which case, you might try actually arguing the point, effectively. I, for one, see little compelling in your assertions. E.g., I have corresponded with jeffroby, who has described his pro-Green efforts in Florida, and he is nothing like your putdown.
Your claim absorbs a bit of validity, by default or osmosis, because reform efforts are almost universally blunted and coopted in the US. A nation of demoralized citizens don’t even need to be befuddled. Some of them may indeed cast perfunctory votes for the Greens, just as surely as millions of demoralized Americans will cast perfunctory votes for the Democrats, hoping against hope that that crime family doesn’t screw them as badly as the Republicans.
I can’t think of any reform group in the US that I have a lot of confidence in, that has an intelligent strategy for amassing political muscle to attack systemic problems. That would include, I expect, most members of your desired “coalition”, who are likely to be, if not veal pen members, then clueless, strategically and tactically.
Progressive Radio Network and the NNU give me a measure of hope, but even they don’t represent a very “happy path” trajectory. Not yet, anyway.
Let’s take a closer look at this “broad-based coalition building” stuff. It is generally a ploy to ensure the dominance of the Democratic Party. You start with who you want in the coalition, then tailor your issues to what is compatible with the organizations that purport to represent them.
So NOW represents women, the AFL-CIO represents workers, NAACP represents Blacks, etc. Of course, these groups are long-time bulwarks of the Democratic Party. So if you want a broad-based coalition that includes these, then you have to tailor what you are fighting for — at best — to what their relatively more liberal elements will support. And they will not support anything that could prove embarrassing to the Democrats. In fact, based on bitter experience, they love to join these broad-based coalitions with the express purpose of keeping them tame and harmless.
And even when they go so wacky far-out as to give lip service to anything that might seem radical, they then work overtime to ensure that this broad-based coalition does nothing tactically that would rock the Democratic Party’s sinking boat.
No, I’m not opposed to broad-based coalitions in principle. But you don’t build the coalition and then figure out what to do with it. You FIRST decide what you are fighting for, and THEN work to build a broad base in support of it. And it ALWAYS starts out small and slow.
So, for instance, the Green Party takes a strong position on insisting that the government actually create jobs, not just encourage (but not fund) education for jobs that don’t exist. The question then becomes, how to strengthen the party in conducting that fight.
It’s not easy, but it’s the task at hand. And by the way, you don’t conduct the fight for jobs with pictures of cancerous rats. 99 degrees of separation logic might work on paper, but fact is, you get what you organize. You fight for jobs by fighting for jobs.
I don’t think your close look is in fact close, or historical.
Study the history of US political parties. Or for a quicker recap look at cmaukonen’s current diary. First, he shows that history refutes that major parties always start out small or slow.
The fact of the two major US political parties being coalition-based on is not even arguable. Its a fact of history as well as present.
As for the rest of your comment, Fine sentiments indeeed, that can be more practically applied to coalition (or movement) building.
Hugo Chavez pooped out of the military if my memory serves.
And yes, the US politically and societally is different FROM THE US. Obviously.
“Special” is your word. There is zero correlation between Chavez and Jill Stein. This is a silly argument, good for silly blog chatter only.
Read Jaango’s recent diary or mine. Better yet, look at the ways in which a coalition of political noobs in Arizona are taking on the repressive conservative GOP-led police state there with some success. Note that they are using the Democratic party as a platform.
If you really want to get literal with your comparison and expose the silliness, lets say some galvanising military figure pops out of the US Army, attempts a failed coup and then subseqquently gets elected POTUS.
In your estimation of practical reality (not progressive fantasy)what is the probability that the successful ex-military officer turned POTUS is a socialist? I’d say less thna 1%.
What percentage he is a Green party? Ditto.
What percentage chance he is a far-right conservative Republican? Certainly better than 50-50% and thats being generous. I’d say 85-15%.
Oops. Typing fast. didnt mean to capitalise and meant to say US is different from Venezuela.
Agreed, but not sure what prompted this. Pictures of grossly cancerous rats are useful for promoting the agenda of a pro-environment party. If the Green Party isn’t pro-environment, well, I guess I know nothing about the Green Party.
Pictures of grossly cancerous rats are also useful for delegitimzing for D and R parties, who allow their finacial relationships with Big Agra to sacrifice the public welfare. This is attractive to me because it attacks a systemic problem – blind loyalty and/or resignation (LTE style) to the D’s and R’s.
However, just like any nuclear weapon, it could be used to blow up a bunch of different stuff! E.g., Monsanto’s influence in other states, as well as the inertia of otherwise unengaged citizens who were anticipating, e.g., seeing their children grow up without tumors the size of bowling balls, or even having to worry about such tumors.
I am completely open to democratic experiments that would yield data that would confirm or disconfirm the veracity of my claim. Certainly, you’re not opposed to at least limited, low-demand experimental runs, are you? I don’t mean you, personally, but rather a relatively small subset of Greens, who focus on a single county or two.
Would you say that the Progressives, of FDR’s era, that forced concessions from him and his Democrats, were the equivalent of veal pen actors? You talk about US history, but your analysis of the state of reform organizations in the US is, ahh, lacking. If the Progressives of FDR’s era were as puppet-like as, say, the AFL-CIO is today, why would FDR have done anything more than toss them a few crumbs?
So, in terms of not being co-opted, I think the Greens probably have more in common with whatever produced Hugo Chavez, and the Progressives of FDR’s day, than dead end, coopted members of your precious Democratic coalition, today.
Although I think it’s not smart to be exclusively 3rd Party, it’s a smarter strategy than trying to get a few crumbs from the Democrats, by being loyal members of a Democratic coalition. I suppose you could present the Tea Parties as counterexamples, but notice that, while they generally (so far) are not as electorally aggressive in general elections as they could be, they have been plenty aggressive in primaries.
People like you generally never urge progressives to be aggressive, even in primaries. You reserve your (verbal) aggression for 3rd Party types, who are rightly disgusted with the D’s and R’s. You therefore come across as at best extremely biased, and at worst a propagandist of the negative sort.
Regarding the futility of party loyalty, once again, I refer to my correspondence with Bueno de Mesquita, whose work for the CIA was twice as accurate as the CIA’s own analysts.
“…About 25% of US adults are registered as Republicans. If the GP reached the 25% mark, don’t you think they’d be a force to be reckoned with? And don’t you think that 25% registered Green is possible?”
Yes, I do, metamars, and I guess I have been behind the eight ball in not hammering home that point from the moment the Greens became viable. They did do the hard work of getting on the ballot, no small thing in these adversarial times, and I think if we agreed with their message we could have made that clear by changing our registration. Today, Tuesday, is the last day to register in my state, so there’s still time, folks!
I don’t agree that Jill Stein won’t appeal to workers – gosh, they are the ones facing the downsizing and the part/time low salary stuff – they know it is all about food on the table and homes and these candidates speak directly to this. What is an enormous hurdle for workers is not style but substance beamed where they can easily pick up on it, which the PTB have fought mightily to disallow. I think the extent to which they have broken through that plutocratic ceiling is admirable. If you want a better candidate, okay, groom one and put him/her/it out there!
I credit her for putting herself out there, and I’m sad at the class/race/education distinctions that are being raised against her. Here are two women candidates, you progressives, for crying out loud. ‘Oh, she won’t appeal to this or that or the other group…’ Well, she is who she is. Look at the other mugs. She’s a ton more appealing than they are and I believe she would represent our country just fine on the world scene.
I think it’s downgrading the American worker to think this isn’t going to be an attractive alternative to the choices the media are ramming down our throats. I’m truly puzzled at the negativity here. Most of that is because the main parties have so polluted electoral politics that we don’t recognize real change.
I’m hoping more of the public is paying attention and will decide to vote for their best interests, which these two ladies represent. After all their effort, can we please not keep saying how they fall short? I can’t see that helps our causes in any way.
Most of your post doesn’t apply to me. You seem to have conflated my posts with other peoples. Where, for example, do I say that Jill Stein is not appealing to working people?
Or, to put it even more clearly, I think she is appealing to working people.
Now, this does apply to what I have said, because I have clearly said that they have fallen short. Jill Stein has not committed to not just packing her bags and going home, even if she loses. She has not brought forth a roadmap for strategic growth which she’s in a particularly good position to push now, as the GP standard bearer. She could leverage her campaign to grow the GP, as a priority, but does not in the ways that I would appreciate. And she is not utilizing the unforseen tactical advantage of truly hideous GMO mega-tumored rats, which only became available recently.
My intention is not to demoralize GP followers, even if some folks do become demoralized. My intention is to challenge, and to get people to think of what the GP could be doing, vs. what it’s actually doing. I am calling it as I see it.
Do you at least concede that the pre-election, lowest-cost options I have laid out, for assessing both of what I claim would constitute smarter strategy and smarter tactics, are at least worth considering?
If you say “No, not even worth considering”, then I would say that I would never hire you for any sort of problem solving job. Or at least, not any such job where you have an emotional investment.
Yes, the Green Party is pro-environment, but there are those who try to stick them with being JUST pro-environment. Stein leads with the jobs and unemployment issue. The choice of Cheri Honkala wasn’t just an administrative slip-up, they wanted a leading anti-poverty activist on the ticket. The Greens they are a’changing!
It’s a major shift to relevance, and to the mainstream, but the left is slow to pick up on it.
Well, OK, but with 4 weeks to go until election day, and polling at 3%, it’s still makes no sense to me not to at least try the nuclear option in a county or two. If people just yawn and say, “Ah, I don’t believe this! What do the French and Russians know, anyway! What I want to know is, ‘When is my kid going to get a job!’”, then a predominance of those sorts of responses would constitute data, which would disconfirm my claim. I would be proven wrong.
While not denying the validity of “just environment” framing concerns, I still want to know what the net/net is. I want to know whether I’m right or wrong.
Also, you don’t have to pursue a 1 track approach with the rat flyers. You could say something like “Today’s Green Party values jobs as much as the environment, but what good is a job if you’re food supply is contaminated?” And nothing would prevent you from adding a link like “The Green Party on Jobs” just underneath the link that says “The Green Party on GMO’s”.
With only 4 weeks to go, to try to launch what you suggest is ludicrous. You proudly set yourself as unconcerned with mere organizational matters. Fine. But then you should accept that, organizationally speaking, I know what I’m talking about and you don’t.
I suppose a better line might be:
Ah-h-h, what I have said is that I have other priorities, which I consider more important that being a GP member or organizer. I apologize to nobody for having made this judgement call. You have some programming chops, but I have not questioned your judgement call in being a GP organizer, rather than using your programming skills to make, e.g., recruiting for the GP easier or more effective.
You say that trying to go nuclear in a county or two is
but if Stein bought in, I completely fail to see what is ludicrous about it.
Why don’t you explain it to me? Again, don’t personalize this. I’m not asking why you would not organize such an effort. I’m asking what’s ludicrous about Stein using her resources to organize such an effort, in a single county of the entire United States.
Let’s say that Stein agreed with me, in principle. What barriers prevent her from setting sympathetic volunteers from conducting this democratic experiment? Doubtless, these barriers are as obvious to you as they are inscrutable to me. Well, then, tell us what they are.
Inquiring minds would like to know.
I just updated this diary, with a copy of my comments in another diary, where I do the math regarding this proposal. I suppose you might argue that a 10% GP supporter compliance rate is too high, but even a third of this – which is sort of a typical response to direct mail solicitations – would get you to a 20% exposure rate, other assumptions being the same.
What I didn’t try to compute is a ‘virality factor’. IMO, there’s no way that children who show such a flyer to their parents will have it’s message propagation end there. Even my brother, who is no Greenie (he’s given some kind of thumbs-up on facebook to Romney) has posted about the GMO rats. He acquired this information because he follows natural remedies for his diabetes, conventional medicine having totally failed him. He’s given up wheat, because GMO wheat has been implicated in obesity.
In fact, without virality of some sort, there is no way that Jill Stein is going to get more than a few percent of the vote. I have assumed what you might call a very limited virality, in that children can be expected to pass rat flyers to their households. But I can’t see it stopping, there.
Anyway, the point of this post, and the diary update, is to motivate you to answer my question about what is ludicrous about running even a limited democratic experiment, in a county or two.
Stein will not buy in, for starters. Nor can she command her minions to such a plan. Nor would the party make available the funds. Nor would I support such a scheme, because I believe it would be an unfortunate shift of political focus. It is a bad plan, politically off, no better than any number of bright ideas “if only,” etc. I haven’t engaged the bad politics of it, nor will I, because it is not going to happen through the Greens.
How about IF the Koch’s decided to throw their money behind socialist revolution? Oh, but they won’t. Would Obama support your plan? Why not, if if if if if.
You can argue anything by throwing in enough “ifs.” But it is also a bad political thrust on the face of it, when the priority issue is jobs.
I agree that Stein will not likely buy in, though for a very different reason that what you apparently think (i.e., detracting from the Greens jobs focus framing). As noted before, I expect the equivalent of anti-patterns from populists and progressives. Democrats and Republicans test their memes with focus groups – the democratic experiment I’ve described is functionally similar. Negative results would mean not proceeding with the plan. It’s precisely because this makes so much sense that I don’t expect Stein to pursue it. Sadly.
However, I also asked you
The form that I would expect this scenario to take is for her to pick a county that she knows that she has plentiful volunteers in, and ask them to pamphlet the schools. Depending on what budget she has, she could send anywhere from 0 to 3 (say) paid staff to oversee, hit schools that no volunteer would cover, etc.
Of course, if no volunteers agree, then the idea dies right there. No need to even make a flyer! So, it’d be better to ask for volunteers first, then make the flyer if she got enough of them.
If the (fossilized?) Party wouldn’t agree for any funding, what of her campaign? Also, no serious funding is absolutely needed. Maybe $200 to create a professional quality flyer, though Microsoft Publisher would probably suffice. I’d be mostly concerned about the photo. If there’s no legal rights, you have to pay a Photoshop expert to make a mockup. Call it $500. The woman is a physician. Of course she can scrounge up $500-$700.
Distributing the flyer, at her end, costs essentially nothing. Most people with jobs can easily afford to print out 100 copies, at their own expense. Most people can walk to their nearest school.
You haven’t pointed out any insurmountable financial barrier that I’m not seeing. So, your argument basically is that neither Stein, nor any useful amount of potential volunteers, would agree to the idea, because they want people to think of the GP primarily in terms of jobs. And you know this, well, because you just do.
Did I get this right?
No.