Will New Mexico Voters Make The GOP The #3 Party?

How many candidates want to pose for a photo with Trump?

When former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson-- then a Republican, now a Libertarian-- jumped into the state's Senate race last week, Ed Kilgore called him a cranky professional spoiler in New York Magazine. And a "a lovable goofball with serious ideas." Kilgore noted that "It’s unclear what sort of resources Johnson can bring to the race, and what he will choose to say about the current president of the United States, which will help determine which pool of major-party voters he is likely to dip into most effectively. At the time of his interview with Weigel, he was saying Trump’s presidency 'could be the end of the republic as we know it.' It’s also worth knowing that most analyses of the 2016 vote concluded that Johnson drew more voters from Clinton than from Trump (though many Johnson voters would have just stayed home had the Libertarian option not been available to them)."

In 2016, Debbie Wasserman Schultz had fixed it so that Hillary took home 27 New Mexico convention delegates to Bernie's 16, even though the 2 campaigns ran neck-and-neck in the primary, another example of how the Democratic establishment turns off voters. Bernalillo County, setting of Breaking Bad, is, by far the biggest country in the state and includes Albuquerque, the only big city in the state. It was very close but Bernie won it by around a point, a little over 38,000 votes to Hillary's 36,000 votes. Trump won the Republican primary there, but with just over 21,000 votes. Bernie beat the 6 Republican candidates combined!

Martin Heinrich has been a decent U.S. senator. ProgressivePunch rates his record an "A," not as strongly as Tom Udall's, but close enough. He was first elected in 2012, running for an open seat when Jeff Bingaman retired. The GOP put up their strongest candidate, ex-Congresswoman Heather Wilson. Despite being outspent Heinrich beat her 395,717 (51.01%) to 351,295 (45.28%). This cycle Heinrich is going up against Republican Mick Rich, a wealthy contractor. Neither was challenged in their June 5 primaries but Heinrich drew 152,145 votes and Rich drew 67,502 votes. But then the Libertarian candidate dropped out and the party named Johnson as their candidate.

Monday, Emerson released a poll showing that Johnson may wipe out the GOP altogether. Even though Johnson and Rich combined don't do as well as Heinrich, Republicans are split, with 27% voting for Johnson and 25% for Rich. Among Independents, Heinrich polls 32%, Johnson 25%, and Rich just at 7%.


Rich is scratching his head in wonder. "What a crazy, wacky world we live in. [Johnson is] more in sync with Bernie Sanders than he is with Republicans." Maybe the two establishment parties in Washington should spend some time thinking about that.

Can Gary Johnson Really Scramble The New Mexico Senate Race? I Doubt It

Gary Johnson was a Republican in 1995 when he was elected-- and then reelected in in 1999-- governor of New Mexico, a swing state at the time. With a D+3 PVI, the state is pretty reliably Democratic now. Obama beat McCain 56.1% to 41.8%; Obama beat Romney 53% to 42.8% and even Hillary won, beating Trump 48.3% to 40.0%. In 2016, Johnson ran for president as a Libertarian and won 4,489,235 votes (3.27%) nationally. In New Mexico, however, he took 9.34% of the vote, far more than in any other state. After losing, though, he said he would never run for office again. But... it looks like he's going to. This time for Martin Heinrich's Senate seat back in New Mexico. Heinrich has been a pretty good senator and sports an "A" rating from ProgressivePunch. He was universally favored to win reelection in November. Even if Johnson does run, you'd be foolish to bet against Heinrich.

Yesterday I was working with some of the guys putting together the VoteCommonGood road tour and someone suggested Albuquerque as a good place to do an event and I said there was no need because the two important races, Debra Haaland for Congress and Martin Heinrich for Senate were both in the bag. I suggested Los Cruces instead, where we can help Xochitl Torres Small in a much redder district. Luckily, if Johnson actually does run, we can do Heinrich some good down there too.

As of the June 30 FEC reporting deadline Heinrich was way ahead-- $7,164,939 raised, compared to Republican Mark Rich's $689,177-- $198,052 of which came out of his own personal funds-- and Libertarian Aubrey Dunn's $31,226, most of which also self-financed. Dunn is universally expected to drop out in a few days and Johnson's consultant, Ron Nielson, told the AP that Johnson is "strongly considering" breaking his promise to retire from elective politics and give it another try. "He is weighing it over right now," Nielson said. "He doesn't want to get into a race he can't win." Hope springs eternal.



In a 2015 interview (above) he spoke out about how Trump appeals to "racists" he wants nothing to do with. Smearing Trump's supporters is quite a bit different from slamming Trump. To get into the double digits in New Mexico this year Johnson would have to win over Republicans who are not impressed with Trump. In early March he did an interview with Reason.com and criticizied Trump's tone as "absolutely awful," while admitting he admires "some of his policies, such as those regarding regulation and corporate taxes." He also said Hillary "would probably be equally as bad... I think it would be horrible if Hillary would have been president, but I think Trump's got his horrible also." He's likely to take more votes from Mark Rich than from Heinrich.

Libertarians Have Long Been Waiting For A Smart, Respectable Candidate To Represent Their Values... And The Wait Continues

When MSNBC's colossal bore, Chris Matthews, sprung his gotcha question on poor, befuddled Gary Johnson about what foreign leader he admires and looks up to-- is there one YOU admire and look up to?-- he succeeded in getting himself into the next day's news flow. But did he succeed in making a dent in Johnson's 7% national support? Probably not. I'd wager that Johnson's fans like him a lot more than they like the annoyingly shrill get-off-my-lawn asshole Chris Matthews. According to Quinnipiac almost 30% of voters under 35 said they would vote for Johnson. That's gargantuan-- and a very real problem for Hillary.

What Matthews and others on Team Hillary don't seem to grok is that the vast majority of people who are willing to vote for Johnson (or Stein or McMullin), aren't voting for them because they think they should or will become president-- or even necessarily because they want them to be. It's a very legitimate expression among young people that they are dissatisfied with the lesser-of-two evils choice the two dysfunctional careerist mainstream parties are offering. Is that so crazy?

What is crazy, however, is that any Bernie backers would show their displeasure with Clinton and Trump by backing Johnson rather than Stein. Stein basically agrees with everything Bernie stands for. Berniecrats in safe blue states like California, New York, Maryland, Hawaii and safe red states like Alabama, Idaho, Wyoming and North Dakota should vote for Stein. It's a luxury they and the country can afford. Voting for Johnson is a poorly conceived protest that won't do anyone any good at all.
It's not about Aleppo or other gaffes. Is it just because Johnson is a pot head? Is that the criterion? What millennial voters might want to consider before they waste a good protest vote on Johnson is that he's, at heart, just a somewhat stoned Republican who wants to repeal Obamacare, derides Hillary and Bernie for wanting to bring back free college tuition in public universities and, as Colbert pointed out above, is a Climate Change neanderthal. On top of that, he totally backs the Citizens United decision which allows the free flow of dark money into politics, backs NAFTA, CAFTA and the TPP, says private prisons are part of the solution rather than part of the criminal justice problem and-- most Republican of all-- wants to cut federal programs to the bone and cut taxes for the very wealthy. Just scratching the surface shows someone who disagrees with millennials on just about every important issue (but pot).

When really clueless hard-core Republican editorial boards, like the Chicago Tribune or the Detroit News, know they can't endorse Trump and won't endorse Hillary, they go for the implausible Johnson. "Today," crowed the editors of the Detroit News, "this newspaper does something it has never done in its 143-year history: endorse someone other than the Republican candidate in a presidential contest." Yep, every cockamamie Republican since 1873. "We abandon that long and estimable tradition this year for one reason: Donald J. Trump." They actually cite permission from the Koch brothers to do this! And they then went on to tell their readers that Trump is "unprincipled, unstable and quite possibly dangerous. He can not be president." OK, so they then made it easier for that to happen by urging those readers to waste their votes on Johnson and calling it "an endorsement of conscience, reflecting our confidence that Johnson would be a competent and capable president and an honorable one."

The right-wing Chicago Tribube did much the same this morning. "The Republicans," the editorial board whined, collectively, "have nominated Donald Trump, a man not fit to be president of the United States. We first wrote on March 10 that we would not, could not, endorse him. And in the intervening six-plus months he has splendidly reinforced our verdict: Trump has gone out of his way to anger world leaders, giant swaths of the American public, and people of other lands who aspire to immigrate here legally. He has neither the character nor the prudent disposition for the job. The mystery and shame of Trump's rise... is the party's inability or unwillingness to repulse his hostile takeover." They wrote that Johnson's anti-progressive agenda "appeals not only to the Tribune's principles but to those of the many Americans who say they are socially tolerant but fiscally responsible." In other words, someone from the Greed and Selfishness wing of the Republican Party, which is what the Chicago Tribune has always represented. They usually play footsie with the Hatred and Bigotry wing of the party but... Trump just takes it a tad too far for them.

We can't afford a Trump presidency. So voters in swing states like Florida, Ohio, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Arizona, New Hampshire, Iowa, Pennsylvania, Nevada, Wisconsin, Colorado-- and even folks up in the Alagash, down in Lewiston-Auburn or those crazy and wild college students in Bangor, Bar Harbor, Presque Isle and Orono-- just need to get a clothespin and help rescue the country from the MUCH greater and more existential evil. Everyone else: Jill Stein.

Up on the High Wire

Clinton and Trump, on the high wire,
Once side's ice and one is fire,
Putting on a show for you and me.

by Gaius Publius

I'm preparing for a month-long haitus (vacation, finally), and while I'll be reading the news I won't be commenting on it. Ahead of that, I'd like to offer these thoughts.

1. Our "Look Ahead" series will continue as the fall campaign kicks off. The outcome of the election, though, is very hard to predict. Each campaign seems determined to drive its own car into the ditch. Last car with wheels on the road will win this one. Plus there's those ever-present black swans, like this one.

As to what happens after the election, it gets more predictable. Whoever ultimately wins, we'll know enough in the fall to know nearly every player's fate for the next few years — Trump, Clinton, the progressive-hating Democratic leadership, the Koch-bossed Republican Party, Sanders-supporting progressives themselves; all of their Tarot cards will be laid out for reading, up to the moment when the climate throws its own card into the mix. We just have to be willing to look at what those cards say.

If you're interested, the parts so far of the Look Ahead series are these:

A Look Ahead: Neither Party Can Win Without Winning Independents

A Look Ahead: Coming to the Philadelphia Crossroad

A Look Ahead: "Event Risk" and the Remaining Presidential Candidates

2. Clinton is looking more and more vulnerable, according to the latest Economist / YouGov poll (pdf). Whatever you think of the outcome of the Trump-Clinton contest, so far no one has a real lead, and both are playing a high-risk game of High Wire, a tightrope act without a net.

Surprising Poll Results

The following look at some of the poll results comes from poster Vraye_Foi at the Reddit site r/Kossacks_for_Sanders. The poll itself is long and worth a further look, if you're so inclined. My thanks for this summary of just a a few of its findings (my emphasis except where noted):

Pages 12 and 13 of the report [the "enthusiasm" pages] are full of interesting data, some of which I'll highlight -

• 25% of Democrats are either Dissatisfied or Upset [Clinton] is the Democrat candidate for President
• 62% of Independents are either Dissatisfied or Upset that she is the Democrat candidate for President
• 43% of those polled across the board (includes all demographics and party affiliations) are "Upset" that she is the Democrat candidate for President

When it comes to Independents' view of Donald Trump, only 44% are Dissatisfied or Upset that he is the Republican nominee.

Enthusiastic Support for Trump within his party is at 51%. Hillary's Enthusiastic support within her party: 34%. 

The choices for this question are: Enthusiastic, Satisfied, Dissatisfied, Upset, Not Sure. The wording of the most extreme categories is Enthusiastic and Upset. So Trump starts the pre-convention head-to-head campaigning with more enthusiasm within his party and also with independents than Clinton does, by a lot if the poll is right.

When looking at support among women:

And continuing on the theme of "Enthusiastic Support", how about this surprise:

• 18% of female respondents are Enthusiastic for Trump
• 19% of female respondents are Enthusiastic for Clinton

So just an aside and speaking as a woman here, can the HRC campaign cut the shit bout how it's sexist if you don't support or vote for Hillary? Please? Because this poll shows that women are about as enthusiastic and thrilled about Hillary as they are about Trump. ...

On the negative side, when it comes to Hillary being the Democrats' candidate, 12% of the women polled feel "Dissatisfied but not Upset" and 42% are UPSET.

It must be troubling news for the HRC campaign to see Enthusiastic/Satisfied combined numbers (45%) linger behind the Dissatisfied/Upset numbers (54%). A lot of women are not happy that Clinton is the nominee.

We're not saying that situation is right or wrong, just that it is. Now about enthusiasm by age (emphasis in original):

The other shocker is that 49% of respondents age 45 - 64 are "Upset" she is the Dem's candidate. But wait - it gets even more shocking: 53% of respondents over the age of 65 responded "Upset" as well.

Hasn't the narrative been that HRC has solid support from the over 45s and women? This poll raises some questions about that. Just as with the women respondents, the 45 and older crowd's negative sentiments towards HRC's candidacy are HIGHER than the positive ones.

That "over 65" polling number is across all genders and party identifications, but so is the general election.

Gary Johnson and Jill Stein

There's Johnson and Stein polling in the report as well. The reddit poster quoted above notes this (regarding data on pages 21 and 23):

General Election | Johnson Preference

Would you say you are mostly voting FOR Gary Johnson, AGAINST Hillary Clinton or AGAINST Donald Trump? Asked of those who would vote for Gary Johnson

• I’m mostly voting FOR Gary Johnson 38%
• I’m mostly voting AGAINST Hillary Clinton 37%
• I’m mostly voting AGAINST Donald Trump 23%
• Not sure 2%

General Election | Stein Preference

Would you say you are mostly voting FOR Jill Stein, AGAINST Hillary Clinton or AGAINST Donald Trump? Asked of those who would vote for Jill Stein

• I’m mostly voting FOR Jill Stein 36%
• I’m mostly voting AGAINST Hillary Clinton 42%
• I’m mostly voting AGAINST Donald Trump 8%
• Not sure 13%

Page 25 of the poll gives data in general on whether people are voting For a given candidate or Against a given candidate. Those general results are mainly a wash. The split in voting for vs. against Clinton is 28%–23%. The same split for Trump is 23%–20%, with 2% each saying they're voting FOR Johnson or Stein.

But it's the Against Clinton number in the Johnson and Stein polling that should cause worry in the Democratic camp. The Johnson+Stein combined Against Clinton total, as shown above, is 79%. The Johnson+Stein combined Against Trump total is just 31%. In other words, prospective Libertarian+Green voters, as a group, are much more strongly against Clinton than against Donald Trump, at least prior to the start of the fall campaign.

Pages 27–30 are also interesting. The question is, "Would you consider voting for [Clinton/Trump/Johnson/Stein]?" Possible responses are Might, Would Never, Not Sure, with overall totals and cross-tabulated breakdowns by gender, age, and so on. The Might vs. Would Never breakdown for Clinton among Democratic primary voters who prefer Sanders is 59%–38%. The same breakdown  for this group (Democratic primary voters who prefer Sanders) for Johnson is 45%–28%, and for Stein is 44%–20%.

To put that more simply, 38% of Sanders supporters would never vote for Clinton. Where would they go? An even split — 45% would vote for Johnson and 44% would vote for Stein.

Independents Still Control this Election

It looks like it's still true, that this year's "radical independents," people who were attracted to Trump and/or Sanders as a way to raise a "pronounced middle finger" to the powers that be (Norman Solomon's phrase in a slightly different context), are likely to decide this election. They may not know who they're for, but they're pretty sure who, or what, they're against. For far too many voters, there is no good outcome.

 "Le Pendu," the one left hanging, suspended in time and awaiting the outcome (source).

Enjoy the rest of the summer. I'll be back with more in a month.

GP
 

Elizabeth Warren & Bernie Will Back Hillary-- But How Many Bernie Supporters Will Discover Jill Stein?

There may be some Bernie voters who persuade themselves that the way to teach the corrupt and repulsive Democratic Party a lesson is to vote for Trump. There aren't many Bernie supporters that out of their minds though. My guess is that most will vote for Hillary and that some will stay home or skip the presidential race and that others will write in Bernie. I suspect, however that the number of votes Green Party candidate Jill Stein gets in November will be significantly higher than the 469,501 show got in 2012 against Obama and Romney. Agenda-wise, she's a far better fit for Bernie backers than Hillary-- let along the racist, misogynistic xenophobic narcissist the GOP is about to nominate. The mass media has moved to marginalize her campaign of course, and Hillary's campaign will do whatever it takes to keep her out of the debates and any other national exposure. (I wonder when the contemptible David Brocks of the Hillary Sewer will start calling her a sexist for opposing her highness.) That 469,501 votes from 2012 were already more than any other female presidential candidate ever got in a general election. Bill Sher sized her up for Politico readers over the weekend.

Stein talks about continuing Bernie's political revolution but it's extremely unlikely Bernie will risk his status in the Senate by doing anything but endorsing Hillary. (He already buckled to overt threats from Schumer that he would lose his chairmanship if he dared to endorse progressive Senate candidates running against DSCC hacks in Ohio, Pennsylvania and, most importantly, Florida, where Wall Street/Schumercat Patrick Murphy is in a tight race against Bernie super-delegate Alan Grayson.) So the chances of Bernie ecen tacitly backing Stein? Zero.

Many of his backers-- how many is the question-- are, by nature, independent-minded and if Stein can persuade some of them, she can make a significant dent in Hillary's operation. Sher says she's "undaunted by the Democratic coalescing around Clinton. Asked in an interview with Politico Magazine this week whether the Warren endorsement presents a problem for her, Stein suggested that the Massachusetts senator lacks the progressive credibility to sway Sanders voters. She could be right-- about a few Sanders voters, but the bulk take Elizabeth Warren very seriously... which doesn't mean they will necessarily follow her into the Clinton camp.

You may be wondering: The Green Party? What’s that-- one of those European lefty outfits? And do they have a prayer of getting more than a fraction of the vote? As of today, Stein is but a blip. Eighty-seven percent of voters don’t know enough about her to register an opinion in a late May Quinnipiac poll. And Clinton’s lead over Trump appears big enough to weather a little left-wing erosion. But with a recent Bloomberg poll showing that only 55 percent of Sanders voters are ready for Hillary, the conditions exist for Stein to spark a larger exodus–if she can raise her profile and if Democrats can’t unify at next month’s convention.

And while the Greens have been under the radar in America for the past several years, they proudly claim at least 100 municipal officeholders, and from 2007 to 2015 they controlled the mayoralty of the 100,000-person city of Richmond, California. Now, like the Libertarian Party, the Green Party sees its moment in this season of widespread discontent, when both Clinton and presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump begin the general election campaign with record-high unfavorables. Stein’s platform is nearly identical to Sanders’, only more pacifist (the two diverge on the use of military drones) and more ambitious (beyond providing free college, Stein would cancel all existing student debt).

And Stein may be making big strides toward being treated like a legitimate presidential candidate. In her 2012 Green Party run, she appeared on only 36 state ballots. But her campaign’s ballot access coordinator told Counterpunch last week that “we fully expect to get on the ballot in all but three states due to our petition drives” and will then litigate the “onerous” requirements in the three remaining states in hopes of hitting 50.

...She is beginning to register in the polls as well, at least when the polls mention her, hitting 5 percent in a NBC/SurveyMonkey poll and 4 percent in Ipsos/Reuters. Does that hurt Hillary? Maybe. The inclusion of Stein in the NBC/SurveyMonkey poll helped trim a 7-point Clinton lead over Trump down to a tighter four, whereas in Ipsos/Reuters, an already comfortable 9-point lead was bumped up to 10.

Sanders has drawn fire from Democrats for staying in the race despite lacking the delegates to win the nomination, but Stein may be even more politically brash than Bernie. Not only does she lack Sanders’ squeamishness about tipping the race to the Republicans, she is burying the tentative approach to presidential campaigning tried by 2004 Green candidate David Cobb. Following the 2000 election, when many blamed Nader for contributing to Democrat Al Gore’s defeat in Florida, Cobb pioneered a “safe-state” strategy-- hunting only for votes in deep blue and deep red states, thus successfully protecting the Greens from the “spoiler” label. But he wasn’t successful in winning votes, garnering only 120,000 votes compared to Nader’s 2.9 million.

Stein defiantly told Politico Magazine she has a “No Safe State strategy,” because “there is no safe state under a Democratic or Republican future.” She’ll be stumping in Pennsylvania later this month.

Stein’s willingness to antagonize Democrats goes beyond her travel itinerary. She laces into Clinton and the Democratic Party on a regular basis in her media appearances and on her Twitter feed.

“While it's horrifying to hear the draconian things that @realDonaldTrump is talking about, we've actually seen @HillaryClinton doing them,” she blasted last Thursday. On the online show The Young Turks, hosted by Sanders backer Cenk Uygur, Stein characterized Clinton’s record as anti-feminist: “I think it’s an offense to the concept of feminism to say that Hillary Clinton-- and her advocacy for war, for Wall Street and for the ‘Walmart Economy’-- represents feminism.”

But while Stein potentially has a bigger pool of leftist voters to chase compared to four years ago, she also has stiffer competition: the Libertarian Party ticket of former Republican governors Gary Johnson and William Weld.

Stein and Johnson are potentially in each other’s way in the pursuit of the third-party candidate’s holy grail: an invitation from the Commission of Presidential Debates to square off against the two major party candidates, which hasn’t happened since Ross Perot in 1992.

The Commission says it will invite only candidates who average 15 percent in "five national public opinion polling organizations selected by CPD.” But the commission hasn’t determined yet which five it will use or, more importantly, whether it will use three-way or four-way trial heats to gauge support. That would potentially make a huge difference. Johnson just hit 12 percent in a three-way race tested by Fox News (one of the five polls used by the commission in 2012), putting him in striking distance. But in four-way polls that include Stein, Johnson’s number has ranged from 4 to 9 points. The better Stein does, both in polls and ballot access, the harder it will be for polling outfits tapped by the commission to exclude her. In this respect, Stein is a major threat to Johnson’s hopes for a campaign breakthrough.

The appeal to Sanders supporters will be critical for both the Greens and the Libertarians. While the Libertarians are often viewed as an escape hatch for disaffected conservatives, Johnson also has been sharpening his pitch to the Feel-the-Bern crowd. And, so far, he has a bigger media platform than Stein’s on which to make it. Last month he made it onto the coveted set of NBC’s Meet the Press, and he can probably expect the bookings to keep coming thanks to his credible presidential résumé. The former two-term New Mexico governor has more elected-executive office experience than anyone other presidential candidate running, as does his veep. (Stein, conversely, is like the Ben Carson of the left—a citizen-doctor who argues she’s the right person to administer “political medicine.”)

Johnson, in an interview with Politico, hit on the themes that make him a plausible choice for the #NeverHillary left. But he also made clear there are ideological places he will not go, which may limit his appeal.

“We’re the same when it comes to social issues, marriage equality, woman’s right to choose, legalize marijuana, let’s stop dropping bombs,” said Johnson of Sanders. He even offers to solve the problem of “crony capitalism” noting that “government can play a role in leveling that playing field.”

But the libertarian is no socialist. “We do come to a ‘T’ in the road when it comes to anything free,” said Johnson, not even bothering to dance around the subject. “Somebody’s got to pay for what is free.”

And while Johnson sounded critical of the Trans-Pacific Partnership in an earlier Politico interview, in this later one he appeared to support it. “It is my understanding that the TPP does advance free trade,” he said. “Is it a perfect document? Probably not. But based on my understanding of the document, I would be supporting it [though] in a perfect world there wouldn’t be a document like that, there would just be free trade.” The statement makes him the only candidate in the four-person field indicating he would ratify the pact, which may raise his stock with anti-Trump free trade Republicans but muddles his case for the Bernie camp.

Johnson also drew a bright line between himself and Stein: “She is on the giveaway side. She is on the controlling the economy side, which in my opinion, that’s where you get crony capitalism.” Stein shot back that the Libertarian Party believes “there should be no restrictions on your freedom to put your money into the political candidate of your choice. … it will be very hard to end crony capitalism if you can continue to buy your way into whatever influence and position you want with government.” (Johnson has said he believes in “100 percent transparency” but not limits on donations.)

The two third-party candidates are not expending a lot of energy attacking each other, though Stein threw a little extra shade Johnson’s way regarding his campaign schedule: “I don’t know if Gary Johnson is out there doing a campaign actually. I think he’s talking to press a little bit, but I don’t think they hold events.” (A Johnson spokesman said the campaign is “underwater” with media requests but is looking to arrange an event in Washington, D.C., “in a few weeks due to demand from interested voters and media alike.”)

Johnson is also standing in Stein’s way on another big front: the goal of winning 5 percent of the national popular vote, which would give a big boost to a third party by qualifying it for federal public campaign funds in the next presidential election. With Stein presently polling at or just under that threshold, she may conclude a sharper attack is necessary to prevent him from scooping up voters she desperately needs.

Both candidates vehemently reject the notion that they are “spoilers.” But whether or not they end up impacting the final result of the presidential race, they may end up being spoilers for each other.

If Trump were smart-- he isn't-- he would funnel a few million dollars into Stein's campaign as a way of harming both the Libertarians (who will take general election votes from him) and, of course, Hillary. This was Stein explaining what would happen to Bernie 6 months ago:

Will 2016 Be The Year Of The Third Party?

Last night we saw a pretty stark case-- made by Noam Chomsky no less-- for "holding your nose" and voting for the lesser of two evils, especially in swing states like Ohio, Florida, New Hampshire, Nevada, Virginia, North Carolina and-- at least this year-- Arizona and Georgia. He told a radio audience that abstaining from voting or voting for a third party candidate, "just amounts to a vote for Donald Trump, which I think is a devastating prospect." But while Democrats hope to see a vibrant Libertarian campaign by Republican ex-Governors Gary Johnson (NM) and Bill Weld (MA) pull right-of-center votes from Trump, Johnson thinks he can lure Bernie voters away from Hillary. "I side with myself 99 percent of the time, but then the next politician that I most align with is Bernie Sanders at 73 percent," Johnson explained on MSNBC... There's more to agree with Bernie Sanders than to disagree."



So what about Jill Stein? Ideologically, her campaign is the normal home for Bernie voters if he doesn't get the nomination. No doubt someone in the GOP will be smart enough to figure that out and push it-- unless Trump stops them, delusional that Bernie supporters will transfer their allegiance to a racist, sexist, xenophobic lying sack of crrap. The Hill took a little look at the case for Stein this week. Niall Strange invoked the memory of Ralph Nader: "The Green Party suddenly has a chance to make an impact in the presidential election, with polls showing that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are set to be the most unpopular nominees in modern times. The possibility of disaffected liberals going to a third-party candidate sends a shiver through Democrats-- especially those with memories of the 2000 presidential election-- even as it delights the Greens and their likely nominee, Jill Stein."

Stein is making a play for Sanders supporters. In an interview with The Hill, she praised him for “really putting forward great policies.”

She added that there is “an incredible love affair between our supporters and Bernie supporters. You can’t distinguish them; they are already comingled.”

Whether the Green Party can harvest those votes, however, remains an open question.

“The simple reality is that there is no proof that the Green Party can win a national election, especially one with the Electoral College as it is,” said Neil Sroka, communications director for the progressive group Democracy for America (DFA).

“In order to make any sort of argument, you would have to explain how a vote for the Green Party isn’t just a way that Donald Trump wins the White House. Even more importantly, it would potentially throw away the power that has been built over the course of this campaign for progressives within the Democratic Party,” Sroka added.

The DFA endorsed Sanders but has always pledged to back the eventual Democratic nominee. Sanders himself has made the same promise.

Stein, on the other hand, said she would “feel horrible” if either Trump or Clinton were elected in November.

Her argument is not only that Clinton is “the lesser of two evils”-- a phrase that Sanders has used. She also contends that Clinton is a proponent of the same kind of centrist economic policies put forth by her husband. The policies of former President Bill Clinton, Stein said, have led to the wage stagnation and economic malaise that she believes made Trump’s rise possible.

Asked what she would say to a voter who was sympathetic to Green Party policies but feared gifting the White House to Trump, Stein replied: “The first thing I would say is that Trump was created by the politics of the Clintons. Putting the Clintons in power will only fan the flames. Hillary is not a solution to Trump; the Clintons are the cause of Trump.”

She added, “The second thing I would say is, ‘Don’t be talked out of your own power.’… We need a policy of courage, not cowardice. We need to bring that courage into the voting booth. To adopt a position of cowardice in the voting booth is to surrender to a predatory political system on all fronts.”

But that is the kind of claim that brings a combination of bemusement and horror from Democrats who were on the front lines during the 2000 election.

“Is it theoretically a cause for concern? You bet,” said Michael Feldman, a Democratic strategist who was Gore’s traveling chief of staff during the 2000 campaign. But he added, “I think people learned the hard way in 2000 that a protest vote can swing things in ways that are damaging and dangerous.”

Chris Lehane, who was press secretary for Gore’s 2000 bid, said, “2000 made clear that a presidential vote is not an academic exercise, but the ultimate right every voter has to affirmatively shape the kind of country they desire. … The importance of using that vote responsibly is something that 2000 speaks to.”

Independent experts also suggest the mere presence of Trump on the ballot could prompt liberals to come out to back Clinton, even if they are unenthusiastic about her.

Lawrence Jacobs, a political scientist at the University of Minnesota and an expert on third-party politics, recalled that during the 2000 campaign Bush presented himself as the smiling face of “compassionate conservatism.”

This year, Jacobs said, “the conditions are there” for a strong Green Party performance. “But by the time November rolls around, the Democratic Party campaign machine will have framed this election as an end-of-all-life choice between Trump and Clinton.”

Still, Stein is defiant.

“You have got to fix the rigged political system,” she said. “If you only have choices that are funded by the big banks, fossil fuels and the war profiteers, that’s what you’re going to get.”

This is what came back when a took the I Side With poll. Have you tried it yet?

Whether you're a Bernie supporter, a Hillary supporter, a Jill Stein supporter-- or even a Libertarian-- it's essential to replace as many of the garbage congressmembers as possible with serious, values-driven progressives. You can help do that by clicking on the thermometer:

THE RON PAUL BAND WAGON IS ROLLING NOW! GOVERNOR JOHNSON JUST ENDORSED HIM!

Gov. Gary Johnson supports pot and Paul

"I am endorsing Ron Paul for the Republican nomination for President because of his commitment to less government, greater liberty, and lasting prosperity for America. We are at a point in this country where we need to reduce our dependency on government and regain control of our future. To this end, Ron Paul will bring back troops, end the War in Iraq, and will strengthen the U.S. dollar and the economy. For these reasons and more, Ron Paul has my support, respect, and vote."

-Gary Johnson

Gary Johnson was the Governor of New Mexico from 1995 to 2003. More a Libertarian than an actual Greed-and-Bigotry Republican, he's best known for having advocated the legalization of drugs and for meeting with far right New Mexico militia members after the Oklahoma City bombing. Is this Ron Paul's biggest name endorser? Is he bigger than Chuck Norris or that wrestler who came out for The Huckster? The Hill claims that not a single member of Congress has endorsed Paul. Although now that Duncan Hunter, hauled up the white flag, Trent Franks (R-AZ), Bill Young (R-FL), Gary Miller (R-CA), and two of Paul's Texas colleagues, John Culberson and Ralph Hall, are available. These are all Paul allies and Ron Paul supporters should contact them and ask them to endorse him. In fact, some say Duncan Hunter should endorse Paul himself. Minutemen in Iowa and South Carolina have endorsed him. No word from Fife Symington yet... but we'll keep you posted.