Biden Is Better Than Trump On Climate And The Environment

In his Climate speech yesterday, Biden tore into Trump with two well-written questions: "If you give a climate arsonist four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised if we have more of America ablaze? If you give a climate denier four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised when more of America is underwater?" Nice! And Trump earned it!

Before he spoke, 170 environmental leaders, generally part of the Democratic Party establishment coalition urged their supporters to vote for Biden... rather than Howie Hawkins of the Green Party, someone who has no chance but who provides an alternative to backing the candidates of the two corrupt establishment parties-- one which has re-nominated a dangerous and criminal fascist and one which has nominated an unfit conservative, not as bad as Trump, of course, but still bad... and years behind your average Democrat on Climate policy.

The only national Climate group I trust is the Sunrise Movement. Their leaders aren't interested in being invited to Democratic Party cocktail parties or being buddies with Schumer or Pelosi. They're only interested in fixing the Climate Crisis. This is how they explain their strategy:

1- We support candidates who, if elected, would represent a significant break with the status quo.

2- We support politicians who will represent us, not the fossil fuel industry.

3- We have no permanent friends and no permanent enemies.

So different from the corrupted elites in the old fashioned environmental movement! Sunrise endorsed Bernie and I have no idea if they plan to endorse the lesser evil for November. I hope not; it will tarnish their brand. Their 16 current endorsements for House seats include 15 endorsed by Blue America:

• Audrey Denney (CA-01)
• Marie Newman (IL-03)
• Cori Bush (MO-01)
• Ilhan Omar (MN-05)
• Rashida Tlaib (MI-13)
• Mike Siegel (TX-10)
• Jamaal Bowman (NY-16)
• Julie Oliver (TX-25)
• Beth Doglio (WA-10)
• Cathy Kunkel (WV-02)
• Jon Hoadley (MI-06)
• Qasim Rashid (VA-01)
• AOC (NY-14)
• Mondaire Jones (NY-17)
• Ayanna Pressely (MA-07)

And their 3 Senate candidates-- Marquita Bradshaw (TN), Paul Jean Swearengin (WV) and Ed Markey (MA)-- are also Blue America's Senate candidates. I could care less who Sierra Club or League of Conservative Voters endorses; at this point, it's like caring who the DSCC or DCCC endorses.

Biden has emphasized that Trump "has no interest in meeting this moment. He’s already said he wanted to withhold aid to California, to punish the people of California. Because they didn’t vote for him. This is another crisis. Another crisis he won’t take responsibility for. The west is literally on fire." He also said that, as a nation, "We stand with families who have lost everything. The firefighters. The first responders, risking everything to save others... People are not just worried about raging fires. They’re worried about the air they breath, the damage to their lungs... this year alone nearly 5m acres have burned across 10 states. More acreage than the entire state of Connecticut... We have a choice. We can invest in our infrastructure, make it stronger, more resilient, improving the health of Americans and creating millions of good-paying jobs while at the same time tackling the root causes of climate change. Or we can continue down the path Donald Trump has us on. The path of indifference, costing tens of billions of dollars to rebuild, where the human cost, the lives, the livelihoods the homes and the communities destroyed are immeasurable... With every bout of nature’s fury caused by our own inaction on climate change, more Americans see and feel the devastation. Whether they’re in big cities, small towns, coastlines or farm towns. It’s happening everywhere. It’s happening now. It affects us all."

Audrey Denney, the progressive Democrat running for the northeast California congressional seat (CA-01) that Trump enabler Doug LaMalfa currently holds, told us this morning that "CAL-FIRE, natural resource managers, and fire scientists all agree. Climate change along with vegetation management issues are making our wildfires worse. We will continue to lose lives and property in our part of the world until we have leadership that believes in science and has the political courage to take action." And that's not either Trump nor LaMalfa.

Julie Oliver, enthusiastically endorsed by both Blue America and the Sunrise Movement, laid out an aggressive plan for dealing with Climate Change which Biden should adopt for the country. But he won't.

• Transition the United States to carbon-free, 100% renewable energy by 2035.
• Eliminate emissions from the power sector in the 10-15 year time frame we have left to address the climate crisis.
• Supercharge the economy through major investments in American industries and manufacturing, modernizing our infrastructure, skilled labor, and innovation in clean technology.
• Provide workforce development and training, labor protections, livable wages, and collective bargaining rights for all jobs in the transition away from fossil fuels.
• Create millions of good-paying new jobs through low-carbon emission generation technologies, solar and wind technologies, energy efficient goods manufacturing and installation, building construction and retrofits, environmental remediation, forestry, and agriculture.
• Ensure a just transition.
• Invest in renewable energy, efficiency, smart grid, energy storage, electric vehicles and other clean energy technologies and green infrastructure to reach our decarbonization goals.
• Democratize the clean energy economy by increasing community ownership of energy generation through more distributed systems and public cooperatives.
• Stop fossil fuel extraction on public lands.
• Hold big business civilly or criminally accountable for their current or historical pollution.
• Innovate and expand energy efficiency through new building, power, and industrial standards, technology, and retrofits.
• Remove lead service water lines and fix water infrastructure problems in America, and protect our watersheds and waterways.
• Restore the American landscape through reforestation, wetlands restoration, and expanded sustainable farming and soil practices.
• Work with front-line, indigenous, and low-income communities and communities of color to build resilience and ensure pollution-free communities and economic opportunity.
• Modernize mass transportation by scaling up charging infrastructure for zero emission passenger vehicles and transition away from fossil fuels in heavy duty vehicles, aviation, and rail, while innovating and scaling up the next generation of carbon-neutral fuels and biofuels.
• Support and pass HR 763, the Energy Innovation and Carbon Dividend Act.
• Ban offshore drilling in the Arctic and the ANWR, and prevent Kinder Morgan from seizing Hill Country land through eminent domain.
• Create incentives and standards to promote soil health for better food, water quality, and carbon storage.

Scientific American started publishing on August 28, 1845. That's 175 years ago, even before Biden was in the Senate. Today was the first time they ever endorsed a political candidate. "This year," wrote the editors, "we are compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly."

The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people-- because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September. He has also attacked environmental protections, medical care, and the researchers and public science agencies that help this country prepare for its greatest challenges. That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more equitable future.

The pandemic would strain any nation and system, but Trump's rejection of evidence and public health measures have been catastrophic in the U.S. He was warned many times in January and February about the onrushing disease, yet he did not develop a national strategy to provide protective equipment, coronavirus testing or clear health guidelines. Testing people for the virus, and tracing those they may have infected, is how countries in Europe and Asia have gained control over their outbreaks, saved lives, and successfully reopened businesses and schools. But in the U.S., Trump claimed, falsely, that “anybody that wants a test can get a test.” That was untrue in March and remained untrue through the summer. Trump opposed $25 billion for increased testing and tracing that was in a pandemic relief bill as late as July. These lapses accelerated the spread of disease through the country-- particularly in highly vulnerable communities that include people of color, where deaths climbed disproportionately to those in the rest of the population.

It wasn't just a testing problem: if almost everyone in the U.S. wore masks in public, it could save about 66,000 lives by the beginning of December, according to projections from the University of Washington School of Medicine. Such a strategy would hurt no one. It would close no business. It would cost next to nothing. But Trump and his vice president flouted local mask rules, making it a point not to wear masks themselves in public appearances. Trump has openly supported people who ignored governors in Michigan and California and elsewhere as they tried to impose social distancing and restrict public activities to control the virus. He encouraged governors in Florida, Arizona and Texas who resisted these public health measures, saying in April-- again, falsely-- that “the worst days of the pandemic are behind us” and ignoring infectious disease experts who warned at the time of a dangerous rebound if safety measures were loosened.

And of course, the rebound came, with cases across the nation rising by 46 percent and deaths increasing by 21 percent in June. The states that followed Trump's misguidance posted new daily highs and higher percentages of positive tests than those that did not. By early July several hospitals in Texas were full of COVID-19 patients. States had to close up again, at tremendous economic cost. About 31 percent of workers were laid off a second time, following the giant wave of unemployment-- more than 30 million people and countless shuttered businesses-- that had already decimated the country. At every stage, Trump has rejected the unmistakable lesson that controlling the disease, not downplaying it, is the path to economic reopening and recovery.

Trump repeatedly lied to the public about the deadly threat of the disease, saying it was not a serious concern and “this is like a flu” when he knew it was more lethal and highly transmissible, according to his taped statements to journalist Bob Woodward. His lies encouraged people to engage in risky behavior, spreading the virus further, and have driven wedges between Americans who take the threat seriously and those who believe Trump's falsehoods. The White House even produced a memo attacking the expertise of the nation's leading infectious disease physician, Anthony Fauci, in a despicable attempt to sow further distrust.

Trump's reaction to America's worst public health crisis in a century has been to say “I don't take responsibility at all.” Instead he blamed other countries and his White House predecessor, who left office three years before the pandemic began.

But Trump's refusal to look at the evidence and act accordingly extends beyond the virus. He has repeatedly tried to get rid of the Affordable Care Act while offering no alternative; comprehensive medical insurance is essential to reduce illness. Trump has proposed billion-dollar cuts to the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, agencies that increase our scientific knowledge and strengthen us for future challenges. Congress has countermanded his reductions. Yet he keeps trying, slashing programs that would ready us for future pandemics and withdrawing from the World Health Organization. These and other actions increase the risk that new diseases will surprise and devastate us again.

...Biden is getting advice on these public health issues from a group that includes David Kessler, epidemiologist, pediatrician and former U.S. Food and Drug Administration chief; Rebecca Katz, immunologist and global health security specialist at Georgetown University; and Ezekiel Emanuel, bioethicist at the University of Pennsylvania. It does not include physicians who believe in aliens and debunked virus therapies, one of whom Trump has called “very respected” and “spectacular.”

Biden has a family and caregiving initiative, recognizing this as key to a sustained public health and economic recovery. His plans include increased salaries for child care workers and construction of new facilities for children because the inability to afford quality care keeps workers out of the economy and places enormous strains on families.

On the environment and climate change, Biden wants to spend $2 trillion on an emissions-free power sector by 2035, build energy-efficient structures and vehicles, push solar and wind power, establish research agencies to develop safe nuclear power and carbon capture technologies, and more. The investment will produce two million jobs for U.S. workers, his campaign claims, and the climate plan will be partly paid by eliminating Trump's corporate tax cuts. Historically disadvantaged communities in the U.S. will receive 40 percent of these energy and infrastructure benefits.

It is not certain how many of these and his other ambitions Biden will be able to accomplish; much depends on laws to be written and passed by Congress. But he is acutely aware that we must heed the abundant research showing ways to recover from our present crises and successfully cope with future challenges.

Although Trump and his allies have tried to create obstacles that prevent people from casting ballots safely in November, either by mail or in person, it is crucial that we surmount them and vote. It's time to move Trump out and elect Biden, who has a record of following the data and being guided by science.

And, yes, Albert Einstein used to write for the magazine.

Jesse Ventura Could Pose a Greater Threat Than Biden or the Democrats Believe

What the 2016 electoral vote would have looked if the “FU / None of the Above” electorate had turned out (source)

by Thomas Neuburger

“If I were to become President, these wars in the Middle East would end. War is a money-making scheme done by the military industrial complex. I would start a war on the climate, a war on pollution. If the oceans die, we die.”
—Jesse Ventura (September, 2019)

On April 27, Jesse Ventura announced he's testing the Green Party waters:

OK, I've decided I'm going to test the waters. IF I were going to run for president, the GREEN party would be my first choice. I've endorsed the party and I'm testing the waters. #mondaythoughts #MondayMorning #MondayMotivaton #MondayMood

— Jesse Ventura (@GovJVentura) April 27, 2020

If indeed he runs, and he keeps talking like this (9:48 in the clip below)...

If I were to become the president, let's say it that way, these wars in the Middle East would end. I take my foreign policy from Major General Smedley Butler, who wrote the book War Is a Racket, because war is that, it is a racket. It's a money-making scheme done by the military-industrial complex. Our soldiers don't fight for the United States; they fight for the corporations.

So to me, I would start a war on the climate, on pollution. I live in Mexico. I'm watching the oceans die before my very eyes. I've got news for you, ladies and gentlemen. If the oceans die, we die.

...he's going to win a lot of votes from the #NeverBiden crowd on the left.

Or if he keeps talking like this: “Wealth distribution is completely out of line today. In fact, people have talked to me about the minimum wage. What about a maximum wage?”

Sounds a lot like Sanders, doesn't he? He even has Sanders' mark of authenticity — whatever he looks and sounds like, that's who he is. Ventura's also strongly pro-marijuana; listen to the clip starting at 7:22 for the striking reason why.

The whole interview from which this quote came is interesting, by the way, and it's not terribly long. Aside from his marijuana story and the climate change quote, he discusses President Trump , the current state of the WWE, living without a cell phone, and how and when he will make up his mind about running for office again.

(His comment about Trump: "The first night of boot camp, there's one person who will break down, wet their pants, cry for their mom. That's Donald Trump.")

Ventura, a former Navy SEAL, comes from a strongly libertarian point of view, but if one looks at this compiled list of his issues I don't see much there besides his quotes on gun control to alienate many pro-Sanders but #NeverBiden voters. He'd have to update (or clean up) his past contrarian positions, but he won't be the first (for example, Joe Biden) to have to do that ahead of a presidential run.

Tarred with an Alex Jones Brush

Ventura will have problems, of course. In the past he's been on the record as a 9/11 skeptic and climate change denier, as this 2009 Guardian article shows — note the reference to his since-deleted TruTV show, “Conspiracy Theory with Jesse Ventura” — and there's his occasional association with Alex Jones. He'll also get no press, or "what a clown" press only, so he'll get no good coverage at all that he doesn't create himself.

On the other hand, he's rather good at creating coverage for himself. Should he enter the race, Ventura would make an interesting 2020 wildcard — or a dangerous one, depending on your point of view.

Ventura Would Run Seriously

I do think if he chose to run, he'd run seriously and to win. As one Minnesota commenter put it in a thread discussing his potential 2020 candidacy (emphasis added):

I voted for Jesse [for governor of Minnesota].

In the days immediately before the election Jesse was polling at 10%. And then he won.

This is because 1) polling models only look at “likely voters,” 2) 50% of the public doesn't vote, 3) the Dem and GOP candidates were doctrinaire party stalwarts that no one really liked, and 4) the chance for a Fuck You/None of The Above from that 50% was overwhelming as the under 40 vote came out in huge numbers.

I know you said “he won't win,” but he has and he could again. Trump and Biden are that bad and the Fuck You/None Of The Above vote could be at an all time high this fall.

Now, how was Jesse as governor? I liked him. He was no-bullshit candidate and speaker. He got us light rail and treated the job seriously. Somewhere I have an article that detailed his effectiveness, where someone mentioned that it took the Dems and GOP three years to learn how to team up against him so he wouldn't be effective and they could prevent the ascendancy of the Reform Party he won on, but now that he's in the news there's so many new articles in my search that I can't find it.

But on bottom line, he did well, and was well liked, and might have won again. He just grew sick of the bullshit politics and decided four years was enough and went on with his life. And I can respect that.

I'm not calling for a vote for Jesse Ventura, just noting that in this train wreck season, another locomotive may soon be added to the track, and not a small one.
  

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:

Are We Going To Condemn Ourselves To Voting For The Lesser Of Two Evils For Eternity?

New York State has 62 counties. A majority of voters in only 16 of them backed Andrew Cuomo's reelection as governor last week. He beat Republican Rob Astorino 1,919,225 (53.96%) to 1,443,713 (40.59%)-- with 173,606 votes (4.88%) for Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins.

In September Cuomo spent $60.62 per voter to win a 62-35% victory over staunchly progressive icon, Zephyr Teachout, who managed to win 30 counties, several-- like Ulster, Sullivan, Columbia, Schoharie, Saratoga, Otsego, and Tompkins-- with over two thirds of the vote. She took 77.9% of the vote in the Hudson Valley's Columbia County. Tuesday that county voted for obscure Republican Rob Astorino, 48.9- 39.6%. Almost 11% of the voters opted for Hawkins, which is why Cuomo lost it. Hawkins also kept Cuomo from winning in Ulster County, where he polled 41.7% to Astorino's 46.6% (with Hawkins at 11%). In Tompkins County Cuomo won 58.5% to 24.7%, but Hawkins won 16.2% of the vote.

Cuomo raised $45 million for his campaign. Astorino raised just $4.8 million. Cuomo’s average donation was $70,723; the average donation to Hawkins' campaign was $77. Cuomo raised so much money that his campaign account earned $104,000 in interest, almost as much as the $126,425 Hawkins raised in contributions!

As of last month, Mr. Cuomo received 81 percent of his contributions from donors who gave him at least $10,000, according to the Nypirg analysis. Donors giving less than $1,000 accounted for only seven-tenths of 1 percent of his total haul.

Mr. Cuomo has raised money from many businesses and individuals who have a stake in the activities of state government, including real estate interests like Extell Development and the Related Companies, as well as big corporations like Cablevision and Comcast.

New York also has some of the most porous campaign fund-raising laws in the nation, and Mr. Cuomo has proved a master at availing himself of those openings.

In particular, he exploited a loophole that allows donors to sidestep contribution limits by giving donations through a series of limited liability companies. The real estate magnate Leonard Litwin has given $1 million to Mr. Cuomo through limited liability companies tied to his firm, Glenwood Management, according to Nypirg.

When polling for the race began last year, Cuomo was leading 63-24%. As voters focused on the race and their governor's subservience to the finance, real-estate, and fossil-fuel industries, Cuomo kept sinking-- all the way down to the 53% he wound up with. The maximum contribution in progressive New York is $60,800 and that's where Cuomo got most of his money.

New York school teacher Brian Jones was the Green Party candidate for Lt. Governor. He did a perceptive post-election analysis that sounds a lot like what we;'ve been talking about here at DWT in regards to Democrats nationally.

Everything about this election points to widespread dissatisfaction with a rightward-moving Democratic Party. Democratic voters stayed home. The turnout was a record low in New York State, with Cuomo receiving nearly a million fewer votes than he did in 2010. The Working Families Party (WFP) deployed all their resources to maintain their ballot line, but their campaign literature didn’t mention their candidate for governor: Cuomo. Only the Green Party significantly increased their vote.

Our gubernatorial candidate, Howie Hawkins, got 5 percent and 175,000 votes-- nearly triple the number that voted for him in 2010 and quadruple the percentage. Instead of just voting against the Republicans or for a lesser evil, countless people expressed glee at the prospect of voting for someone running on a progressive platform.

Hawkins himself did an exciting and inspiring OpEd, America Just Took A Wrong Turn. It's Time To Take A Hard Left, for The Guardian that lays out a path forward for progressives who see nothing hopeful in what either evil Beltway party is offering.

Sometimes it feels as if Sarah Palin won the last two presidential elections. We’re not quite living in “Drill Baby Drill” America, but by co-opting the other Republican energy slogan, a meaningless plan literally called “All-of-the-Above," President Obama has opened up vast new areas to offshore drilling and pushed hydrofracking for oil and gas onshore. Even as the president says that “we are closer to energy independence than we’ve ever been before”, sometimes it seems like the US is becoming a repressive petrostate.

And then some days, like the day after the midterm elections, it feels like a complete victory for Palinite politics. The Republicans took back the US Senate, and the only Democrats who won major races were those like Andrew Cuomo, who defeated my Green Party campaign for governor of New York with a $45m campaign war chest provided by a few hundred super-rich donors-- Democratic and Republican ones.

But there were real victories this week for progressive alternatives on clean energy, economic security and social justice. The extremist blood bath may have painted the country more red, but there were more than a few important-- and extremely promising-- tea leaves of green. It was even enough to suggest a new, independent, hard-left turn in American politics is still very much possible.

Fracking bans just passed in cities from California to Ohio and even in Denton, Texas-- the town at the heart of America’s oil-and-gas boom. In Richmond, California, progressives beat back a multi-million dollar campaign funded by Chevron to defeat Green and allied candidates. Voters in Alaska, Oregon and Washington DC joined Washington State and Colorado in legalizing marijuana, adding to the growing momentum to call off the failed “war on drugs” that has given the US the highest incarceration rate in the world.

Republicans like Mitch McConnell have already warned that “we will be voting on things the administration is not fond of”-- citing a sure-to-be-caustic conservative energy agenda of which the Keystone XL pipeline is "only part." But true progressives will be using our local political leverage in a continuing campaign for a Green New Deal. We are putting back on the public agenda the economic promises that President Franklin Roosevelt called for back in 1944 but which the Democrats have long since abandoned. Those rights provide the foundations for what FDR called “the true individual freedom [that] cannot exist without economic security and independence”-- rights like a useful job, a living wage for doing it, plus affordable housing, healthcare and education.

The US needs to revive a New Deal-style public jobs program to put unused labor to work, meeting unmet community needs-- like the repair of a crumbling infrastructure for water, sewage, roads and bridges. But the centerpiece of the Green New Deal-- to ban fracking and build a 100% renewable energy system by 2030-- is itself a program for full employment. A peer-reviewed study by Cornell and Stanford researchers found that the 15-year clean energy buildout would create 4.5m middle-income jobs in construction and manufacturing-- in New York state alone.

As Greens educate, demonstrate and lobby during the next legislative session here in New York, we will be preparing to run more progressive candidates across the country. And if Cuomo opens New York to hydrofracking, as we expect he will, we’ll demand that legislatures everywhere keep pushing fracking bans and running new and bolder clean-energy candidates against legislators in 2016.

With Democrats repealing the New Deal and Republicans more or less repealing the Enlightenment with their anti-science stands on climate change and teaching evolution, the independent left is certain to mount a third-party presidential campaign beginning next year. I recently joined Kshama Sawant, the independent socialist elected to the Seattle city council last year, in calling for meetings across the country to begin laying the foundation for a strong left challenge to both parties of big business in 2016.

It may be disruptive-- but disruption is exactly what progressive America is asking for right now.

Public opinion polls show that a majority of Americans support social, economic and energy policies that veer left if not all the way green. The well-documented problem of American politics is that these progressive values do not get turned into progressive policies. It will take a party independent of corporate money and influence to change that. Or else we will be stuck with the Palinites.

If you liked what Bernie Sanders had to say to Bill Moyers up top, think about pitching in here. It can be done... one step at a time.

Marcy Winograd Leaves The Democratic Party-- Or Did The Democratic Party Leave Progressives?

In 2010 Nick Ruiz ran as a Green Party write-in candidate in a central Florida district with a reactionary Democratic incumbent, Suzanne Kosmas, and an insane teabagger challenger, Sandy Adams. Nick didn't really expect to win but he very much wanted to make sure that progressive ideas were inserted into the conversation and that the election wouldn't just be about two candidates fighting for ownership of right-wing ideas positions. As often happens when there's a DINO and a real Republican both advocating conservatism, the Republican won. Nick immediately switched party registration and is running again-- as a Democrat. He hasn't changed a word of his platform or his grassroots approach, of course. But this time voters in Seminole County will get a choice between a reactionary vision and a progressive vision-- unless the DCCC decides to put up a rich conservative candidate of their own, as they often do when grassroots progressives like Nick run in winnable districts.

Here in Los Angeles, Marcy Winograd has been an icon of those same kinds of values and principles... and tactics. She announced this week that she's moving in the opposite direction though. A former Democratic Party activist and congressional candidate, she's re-registered as a Green Party member. She explained what's she's doing in a post at the California Progress Report, part of which is reproduced below:

After the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act, with its codification of imprisonment without charge or trial, I could no longer register voters for the Democratic Party – even with the hope of involving new registrants in the California Democratic Party’s popular Progressive Caucus. If I could not ask someone to join the Democratic Party, I could not in good conscience stay in the party, even as an insurgent writing resolutions and platform planks to end our wars for oil.

Unfortunately, too many corporate Democrats, beholden to big-money donors or to a jobs sector dependent on militarism, vote for perpetual war and the surveillance state, replete with secret wiretaps, black hole prisons, and targeted assassinations. Far too many who are fearful or bought by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee vote for legislation that relegates Palestinians to second-class citizenship and threatens to take our country to the brink of an unthinkable war on Iran. 

President Obama, despite his eloquence and initial popularity, has continued, and in some cases, expanded Republican Party policies under George Bush by escalating drone attacks on Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia; hiring deregulators from predatory banks to craft economic policy; repeatedly putting Social Security cuts on the table; lifting a 20-year moratorium on new nuclear power plants; signing NDAA legislation that eviscerates due process; increasing U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) raids and arrests of undocumented workers.

As the US empire crashes on the shores of rapacious greed, as power shifts from the federal to the local level, the Green Party can play a crucial role in creating and promoting local economies, worker or consumer-owned cooperatives, model municipal policy and participatory democracy. The time is ripe for municipal federalism with its emphasis on cities sharing expertise, policies, and strategies for community building in a sustainable world. 

I want to be part of that movement to create a post-empire future that rejects perpetual war, addictive consumerism and vulture capitalism to embrace a life-affirming vision of sustainability with measurable goals for energy, water and food independence.

As more people struggle financially and the cost of energy and optional travel increases, Americans will stay closer to home to invest and recreate more intensely in their communities and neighborhoods. Our challenge in the age of withering empire is to set a new economic course that helps us invest our resources in ourselves, rather than multinational companies that extract our wealth and labor for the 1%. 

While running Greens for federal office may help to register new Greens, to attract young people to the Party, the Greens’ resources – economic and grassroots-- are best used at the local level where the Party has experienced the most success in the United States. In 2011, 8 out of 12 California Green Party members running for local office got elected. 
 
In Richmond, California, the working class city’s Green Mayor Gayle McLaughlin, representing more than 100,000 residents, took on Chevron, resulting in a 115-million dollar pollution settlement, enacted a waiver on residential solar power fee installation; and spearheaded one of the nation’s toughest anti-foreclosure ordinances that exacts a $1,000 a day fine on banks who fail to maintain foreclosed property. McLaughlin was one of several Green Mayors to publicly oppose the dirty tar sands project, signing on to a letter to President Obama urging him to reject, as he recently announced, the XL pipeline that would carry the dirtiest crude from Canada across the United States to the Gulf of Mexico.

In the city of Fairfax in Marin County, Green Mayor Pam Hartwell-Herrero and a majority Green city council has banned intrusive Smart Meters, and authored successful ballot initiatives to ban plastic bags and the cultivation of genetically modified organisms. Fairfax is the third California city to have a Green majority on its town council, joining Sebastopol in Sonoma County from 2000 to 2008 and Arcata in Humboldt County, which had the world's first Green majority on any legislative body between 1996 and 1998 and then again from 2000 to 2002. 

...Rather than running candidates for every state and federal office, Greens can invest their energy in campaigning for local non-partisan offices, in electing Greens to neighborhood councils  and city councils; union leadership positions, pension and credit union boards, associated student bodies – and to movement-building and media messaging that injects and accentuates a Green anti-consumerist pro-sustainability vision into the economic discourse.

Though our emphasis should be local, our scope global as we solidify relationships with Green Party members across the world. Let us hold the Greens from Europe to Africa close to our hearts as we reject nationalism-- its attendant racism, xenophobia, and scapegoating-– and embrace global citizenry  and planetary-caretaking.

Let us look to the German Green Party, the first to enjoy national prominence and the catalyst behind Germany’s decision to phase out nuclear power by 2022. Encouraged by the German Greens, we must challenge billions in U.S. federal subsidies for new nuclear power plants and demand plant closures from California to New York. With a void in leadership in the U.S. anti-nuclear movement, the Green Party can play a key role in re-invoking the moratorium lifted under the Obama administration.

Elsewhere in Europe, Greens have launched a Green New Deal (GND) aimed at “reducing inequalities within and between societies, and reconciling our lifestyles-- the way we live, produce and consume-- with the physical limits of our planet” through progressive taxation, tax incentives for green initiatives, and new economic indicators beyond the Gross Domestic Product. For example, in Vienna, Austria, a GND initiative built “bike city”-– a housing project that includes bike rental and maintenance, a compressed air station, 300 bicycle parking spaces, and extra large elevators for bike transport.

Let us build a new American landscape of bike cities, urban gardens, municipal credit unions, barter economies, and city-owned utilities with Greens organizing a new power-sharing worker-member-owner paradigm a la the Mondragon Cooperatives Cooperation in northern Spain. Based in Basque region, the Mondragon is a federation of worker cooperatives employing 84,000 people in four critical sectors: finance; industry; retail; knowledge.

Electorally, I envision a fusion approach-– whereby Greens support progressive Democrats, just as Los Angeles Green Party members recommended my candidacy when I challenged war profiteer Jane Harman for Congress, and just as Green Party activists in northern California support PDA’s Norman Solomon to fill retiring Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey’s seat. 

Endorsing progressive Democrats-- a la Congress Members Kucinich, Lee, Grijalva-– on the national level-– and Assemblyman Bill Monning and Senator Fran Pavley on the California state legislative level-– makes sense until the Green Party is ready and able to successfully elect statewide and federal candidates of its own, either because the Party has exponentially multiplied its current voter registration, estimated at 300,000 in the nation; 110,000 in California, or because enough cities like Oakland, San Francisco, Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Portland have instituted instant run-off or ranked-choice voting to increase the likelihood that voters will not simply cast their ballots for pre-ordained winners or lessers-of-evil but instead choose a candidate who truly represents their vision of peace, social justice, and environmental sustainability. 

Ranked choice voting must be a strategic priority for the Green Party in the U.S., with Greens in every leadership position-– be it a partisan office or a non-partisan environmental organization-- introducing ranked-choice voting into their respective organization. Strategically, Greens might organize a coalition of third parties-– Greens, Peace and Freedom, Libertarians, and the well-funded centrist Americans Elect – to institute proportional representation through state ballot initiatives for ranked choice voting.

Such initiatives would appeal to voters who want to save budget-starved states, counties or cities millions of dollars wasted on run-off elections.

In the meantime, until widespread adoption of ranked choice voting, the Green Party might leverage its power by becoming a fusion party, regardless of state laws like the one in California that prohibit candidates from becoming the nominee of more than one party. On the grassroots level, endorsing Democratic Party candidates active in Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) would address the “spoiler” charge and position Greens as a swing voting constituency, much as a swing state can decide a Presidential election.

Let the Greens be wooed; let every candidate running for city, state, or federal office feel compelled to address the priorities of the Green Party, and let our party learn the lessons of the Swedes and Norwegians who successfully challenged the 1% by building strong coalition governments and coalition movements behind those coalition governments.

While it’s true that California Democratic Party delegates can be stripped of their delegate status for endorsing Greens in elections, there is nothing stopping non-delegates active in PDA from participating in a blue-green coalition that endorses and works to elect local Greens. In fact, that should be the call to action, watering the Green seeds for the next generation.

In LA County, where there are 23,000 registered Greens, and over 900,000 Declined to States, the Party will participate in an aggressive voter registration campaign before the November 2012 election when a Green Party Presidential candidate, perhaps  pioneering environmental health advocate Dr. Jill Stein,  will likely enjoy ballot status in at least 17 states, including the largest state, California, with its 55 electoral votes, and swing states Ohio, Florida and Colorado. Other Green Party ballot access states or districts include Arkansas, Arizona, DC, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, New York, South Carolina, Texas and West Virginia.

Though Green Party strengths lies in bottom-up organizing, running a Presidential candidate can provide a strategic stage for the left to critique and challenge the status quo, while attracting “millennials” or younger voters to a party platform that refuses all corporate contributions, supports single-payer health care, advocates zero-waste, calls for a tax on the rich, and opposes not only pre-emptive wars for empire, but weapons sales to other countries.

With strategic planning and a shift in focus, those newly registered Greens can rock the world of monopoly capitalism with a sturdy footing in city soil and municipal radicalism. I will proudly stand with them.

Losing Marcy Winigrad is a huge loss for the California Democratic Party, though, happily not for California progressives.