Tweet
If you haven’t seen the latest polls yet, the Green Party’s candidate for governor in Illinois is at 9%, their candidate for US Senate is at 14%, their candidate for US Senate in South Carolina (when listed as "other," even though he’ll be the only "other" candidate on the ballot) is 9%, and in North Carolina’s 8th district an SEIU-backed independent is polling at 14%.
Here’s the poll for IL-Sen, IL-Gov, SC-Sen, and the other two.
These polls show races that are winnable for third party candidates. In a three way race, only 34% is needed to win with our warped first past the post system (and really if a Green is elected they’re more likely than anyone else to change our voting system for the better). And in Illinois an independent conservative is joining the race, meaning there could be four major candidates for the US Senate seat there, along with the candidates from the Constitution Party and Libertarian Party who are trying to get on the ballot.
Check out this video about the Green and this new conservative from ABC:
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/video?id=7500110
It’s imperative that FDL really be a leader as an organization in supporting these candidates or strong Greens/independents at levels too local for polling or, of course, both. We recognize the harm that the two party system does to us, yet as a group progressives continue to support it. It’s time to really start breaking the two party system down in an intelligent way.
For convenience, the websites of the candidates mentioned:
LeAlan Jones, Green for US Senate in Illinois
Rich Whitney, Green for governor in Illinois
Tom Clements, Green for US Senate in South Carolina
Wendell Fant, the independent running in North Carolina, doesn’t have a website
12 Comments
That link is: http://abclocal.go.com/wls/video?id=7500110
Thanks again rossi. Until left leaning Democrats (and Labor) bring pressure to bear from OUTSIDE the party, nothing will change.
Talk is cheap. No money and no organization = just enough votes to swing New Hampshire to George Bush.
The Greens are worse advocates for progressivism than Glenn Beck. I’ve met plenty of them: Dreamers with a decent grasp of policy who actually think that policy trumps a complete lack of rudimentary political skills and organizing ability, and that their sympathetic neighbors in a liberal urban enclave represent a national trend. Kermit the Frog is more realistic about being green.
You seem to be stuck in the year 2000.
The Illinois Green Party has built up an impressive organization in just 4 years – a grassroots volunteer organization, not a government mafia like the Illinois Democrats. As for money – they’re raising just about enough to be competitive, but they need support from progressives now to continue the current momentum. Jones is easily the best candidate in the Senate race, and Whitney is the best gubernatorial candidate Illinois has had in a long time. Make this the year of progressive revolution:
http://www.whitneyforgov.org/
http://www.lealanforsenate.com/
Does this mean your going to stick with the DLC?
I remember the years 2000-2008. I appear to be in a minority, though.
I can’t stand the DLC. I am impressed with accomplishments of president who in less than 18 months achieved more in health care than Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton combined at the same time that he arrested the progress of the worst recession since the Great Depression. While he was at all this, the same president found time to sign the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, halve the cost of college loans, and initiate the end of Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell.
Oh, and yesterday he and his team finished negotiating the escrow account, separate accounts to compensate rig workers laid off by the moratorium and anyone taking ill on account of the BP/Halliburton Catastrophe, and delay of dividends. OK, Obama had to say that he wasn’t out to bankrupt BP — which I suppose makes him a tool of Big Oil and taints the entire deal. Personally, I don’t see much difference between winning a ball game 10-1 instead of 10-0, but I’m stuck in the year 2000.
But I’m not talking about the 2012 presidential race at all. I’m talking about select 2010 races in which the Democrats are farily bad Democrats and the Greens/independents are fairly good candidates.
At least in Illinois, the Greens aren’t very connected to 2000. They became a party in 2006, iirc. So as appealing as that simplistic logic of “SPOILIER!!!!!!” may be, it really doesn’t reflect reality all the time.
Actually, “spoiler” is pretty much all you’re going to do without money. I’m not saying that you can’t win. I am saying that you can’t win without money and at least a bare bones plan.
Halter had about 13 million and lost. Even our one success story, Joe Sestak, managed to raise 5 million dollars. I’ll repeat the 5/25 rules again: you need to raise at least 2.5 million for an average senate race to have any shot at winning. And that’s with cheap field canvasses in four or five cities, a virtual phone bank and saving all your ads until the final four weeks like Joe Sestak did. I mean, I’ve seen plenty of Democratic Party campaigns go by the wayside because they couldn’t raise enough money…
I’m not saying that the Green Party candidate couldn’t win. I’m just saying that he needs to aim to raise 3 million dollars. The Green Party should have that kind of money by the way…I was trying to get a handle on how many Green Party members were in the United States and the last number I got was about 300000 people nationally. I forgot where I got that number. I know 2 million people voted for Nader/LaDuke.
Here’s a suggestion for the Green Party: How about those 300000 people pay 10 dollars a month so that you could raise 3 million a month or 36 million a year. That way you could contest, for real and not in some imaginery “my issues are good so I’ll win” sense, 5 senate seats and 25 house seats. Doesn’t have to be Green Party by the way. Could be the Pirate Bay party or even the Firedoglake party. I can testify that as a poor person I could afford 10 dollars a month in dues (might even could afford 25) and I would be happy to support you for at least a year…
But don’t tell me the Green Party senate candidate can raise 10 grand and that he’s got a shot because he doesn’t. He has to ask for the money. He has to set that 3 million dollar goal. I really think the money is there from people who used to give to the Democratic Party…
Philip Shropshire
http://fivetwentyfiveplan.blogspot.com/
I can see you haven’t read Firedoglake all that carefully. His health care benefits remains to be seen. In fact, if Republicans control the white house or the house that will be a terrible terrible health care plan. There won’t even be a pretense of price controls, not that there are any now. And, oh yeah, as a poor person I hate those mandates. As far as staving off the recession, well people aren’t going to be happy about 10 percent unemployment come midterms, nor should they be. I like the escrow account but as always we need to take a look at the details. Barry is far more likely to hear the concerns of Joe Barton than Robert Reich…
I don’t disagree with you at all (although I would add the caveat that the two races you cite were two way races, and the Senate race could have 4 major candidates potentially, meaning less votes to win and possibly less money to win). Why do you think I’m being so stubborn about getting FDL to support these people? And why do you think I’m also advocating for supporting Greens in smaller races (hint: less money needed to win)?