Can you give me a source for that? I saw the Breakfast club interview, and as much as I want to believe they have a genuine chance to win many electoral votes, are they not just mostly scrambling to get enough Dem voters to force Dems to make concessions?
To be completely honest, no candidates are likely to beat the Imperialist/Fascist combo of Kamala/Trump.
However, the Green’s have waaaaay over 270 possible electoral votes
Versus the map that the Dems keep sharing
And they’re having AOC campaign against her old party (and acting like she’s never even heard of the Green Party that she took the Green New Deal from)
That, along w/ forcing large lib talk-shows to shit on RFK/Stein/Claudia, makes me think that the dem’s internal polls must be abysmal and they are 100% not winning.
Can we get the libs on board for anything left of “hunting the poors for sport”? Likely not
Edit: To clarify, I would vastly prefer the PSL, but I think the Greens have a genuine shot (albeit, likely very naive of me to think so)
And they’re having AOC campaign against her old party (and acting like she’s never even heard of the Green Party that she took the Green New Deal from)
Tbf If i’m a high level politician with the dem, i would keep a person who betrays her old party on a leash and keep giving them crumbs
The reason why voting Green is productive(ish) is that if they get a high enough % than they get certain rights as a “legitimate” party. Certain federal funds and ballot access are the basic ones. I think if they get a certain amount then they’ll also be included in the presidential debates. If they ever get that far it may just tip their legitimacy enough to make them a viable third-party.
I think if they get a certain amount then they’ll also be included in the presidential debates.
like most things in the us political system this is actually not formalized and afaik is just a handshake deal between the parties and the news networks that put on the debates. I’ve heard polling thresholds bandied about in the past for primary debates but only as a way to exclude candidates, never a consistent number that small parties can actually reach.
Can you give me a source for that? I saw the Breakfast club interview, and as much as I want to believe they have a genuine chance to win many electoral votes, are they not just mostly scrambling to get enough Dem voters to force Dems to make concessions?
To be completely honest, no candidates are likely to beat the Imperialist/Fascist combo of Kamala/Trump.
However, the Green’s have waaaaay over 270 possible electoral votes
Versus the map that the Dems keep sharing
And they’re having AOC campaign against her old party (and acting like she’s never even heard of the Green Party that she took the Green New Deal from)
That, along w/ forcing large lib talk-shows to shit on RFK/Stein/Claudia, makes me think that the dem’s internal polls must be abysmal and they are 100% not winning.
Can we get the libs on board for anything left of “hunting the poors for sport”? Likely not
Edit: To clarify, I would vastly prefer the PSL, but I think the Greens have a genuine shot (albeit, likely very naive of me to think so)
Greens don’t really have any shot to do anything of substance. But voting for them pisses off libs so it’s the best option for voting currently.
God she is such a fucking rat
Tbf If i’m a high level politician with the dem, i would keep a person who betrays her old party on a leash and keep giving them crumbs
The reason why voting Green is productive(ish) is that if they get a high enough % than they get certain rights as a “legitimate” party. Certain federal funds and ballot access are the basic ones. I think if they get a certain amount then they’ll also be included in the presidential debates. If they ever get that far it may just tip their legitimacy enough to make them a viable third-party.
like most things in the us political system this is actually not formalized and afaik is just a handshake deal between the parties and the news networks that put on the debates. I’ve heard polling thresholds bandied about in the past for primary debates but only as a way to exclude candidates, never a consistent number that small parties can actually reach.