A new poll suggests that Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is drawing more voters from former President Donald Trump than from Vice President Kamala Harris.
According to a Noble Predictive Insights survey released last week, Harris holds a narrow lead over Trump in a hypothetical three-way race. With Stein on the ballot, Harris’ lead expands, pointing to a potential spoiler effect similar to what many Democrats blamed Stein for doing to Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election.
For Trump, the emergence of Stein as a potential spoiler may be a critical factor in battleground states, where even a small shift in votes could determine the outcome. For Harris, Stein’s candidacy could paradoxically provide an unexpected advantage, drawing votes from Trump and narrowing his pathway to victory.
I won’t believe a single poll until this election is over. There is so much incentive for misinformation out there it is unbearable. Just get out and vote.
[email protected] about to lose their minds with rage.
most don’t pay attention; so they wouldn’t notice.
Regime front on the fediverse in shambles?
What’s with .ml obsession with stein anyhow? Is it the links to Putin? I don’t get it.
This has to be bait. You can’t possibly think people think that way, right? .ml people disagree with NATO-sphere liberals about a lot of things to do with Russia, but that’s not the same as being mindless Russian chauvinists.
Like, do you really think whatever meetings she had with Putin or whatever it is you blue rags gossip about would be a bigger factor than her opposing the genocide in Gaza, to say nothing of having better climate policies, better immigration policies, and so on?
“But she won’t win”
Obviously, but her shaking Putin’s hand won’t change that. His apparent trick of buying a miniscule number of highly-targeted Facebook ads isn’t gonna do much for her, so we need to accept that assumption either way.
I’m voting for PSL, not Greens, btw.
I love the assumption that .ml people have to take a purity test with political leaning check boxes and receive a manual of how to think while using the instance. Not, you know, just a larger instance that’s popular that anyone on the internet can make an account on. Also love how lemmy has a more progressive stance on calling out bigotry in all it’s forms, but somehow popularly encourages instance bashing with upvotes.
Little known fact. The .ml server is run out of an old Soviet bunker in Leningrad, powered entirely by burning copies of the Victims of Communism leaflets in a converted T-34.
Green party is the most progressive party that has access to 400+ electoral votes. Anyone that wants to participate in the farce would want to vote for them. And Dr Stein pisses off right wingers like no one else, which is a plus.
Why do Right wingers get pissed off at Stein? I do not get it. The main attack ads I have seen towards the Dr. come from the Democrats. Who try to sell her as a Spoiler candidate who is seemingly pro Putin – although no serious proof is given outside insinuations-- and also as proxy vote for Trump, because she takes away possible Dem votes.
Is it right wingers who dislike Trump?
Democrats are right wing.
Ah, fair.
I’m struggling really hard to see which voter is on the fence between Trump and Stein. Wouldn’t it be more likely to be on the fence between Stein and Harris, or Stein and the couch?
I think Trump draws a lot of broad support from his ‘anti-establishment’ rhetoric so it kinda makes sense for folks to look to other anti-establishment candidates as an alternative to him. There’s a tendency to look down upon Trump voters as only right wingers, conspiracists etc and not really understand that a lot of his support is superficial and based on limited information.
In a way it’s not so much that Stein or other left candidates are spoilers for the establishment Dems but more the case that figures like Trump are spoilers for progressive alternatives to the establishment.
Not as many people hate Harris specifically as hated Hillary, but a lot of people (for good and bad reasons) hate the Dems and also Kamala to some extent.
People who don’t like Trump but are too anti Democrat to vote Harris
One could still be pro Democrat or pro democracy, and still do not like Harris. Many things can be true at the same time.
Don’t those people usually vote Libertarian?
They vote anti establishment in general, which is the green party.
I just personally hate anyone who tries to argue somebody doesn’t have a right to ruin for presidency, they might not win but that’s not the point. If you’re a democracy, any citizen who meets the criteria has he right to run for an elected position.
Jill Stein is providing spite voters an option to not vote for Donald Trump.
Hillary took a lot of friendly fire in 2016 from the Bernie Bros who were not too happy.
Democrats will still blame Stein if they lose, and even though their explicit strategy is to pick off disaffected Republicans, they’ll never blame Chase Oliver. It’s just like in 2016, when Hillary used the exact same strategy, and they blamed Stein, even though Gary Johnson took home a much higher percentage of the vote in most swing states. They don’t care about spoiler candidates; they just want to punch left, especially when they need a scapegoat for a loss.
What’s wild to me is that they actually put out attack ads targeting the Green party, which tells me they’re believing their own propaganda.
Many Democrat voters do believe the propaganda, and I imagine it largely keeps them in line so they don’t start looking elsewhere. I’ve heard multiple Democrat voting family members and friends specifically state this year that they think “The Green party only exists to siphon off Democrat votes” It’s not just bots. Media is saying it because astroturfing works, unfortunately.
Because democrats are deathly afraid of any mildly progressive party getting funding and being on the ballot nationwide, because then their entire blackmail scheme falls apart. You can’t go “you fucking better vote for us, or else” anymore.
The democratic party has been suing to take PSL and the Greens off ballots in multiple states (which also serves to cut into their budget, which is almost entirely small contributions). That’s the party trying to save democracy apparently.
This. As long as they have a base big and dumb enough to buy any and every excuse to go further right (and blame progressives for it), they’ll keep doing it.
Do you think all of those people who have been saying that third-party voters are going to destroy the US will be apologizing in the comment section here?
First past the post is a terrible design. Let’s rank choice and move on.
lol, pie in the sky right?
It is literally more likely for a socialist revolution to happen in the US than for us to use STV enough to choose the president that way.
But democrats believe in democracy!
Sure i’ll start. If this is true, I was wrong. I couldn’t believe a republican to not fall in line with the party even if the put a party clown up. Good job proving me wrong and saving America.
deleted by creator
Regardless of outcome, you’re playing with fire in our current voting system. Even if a few states did actually elect a third party, you could see no candidate reach 270 electoral votes and then it goes to the even more arcane vote done in the house of representatives (which each state gets a vote)
A very blue district in Hawaii sent a Republican (Charles Djou) to Washington in a special election with less than half the vote, because the two Democrats in the race refused to back down. If there were a ranked choice or other voting system than “plurality takes all”, he wouldn’t have won
Oh geez, really tightening up the narrative now. 3rd party voting in non-swing states is getting demonized.
Cripes. My point was our current system means your vote for the perfect candidate can put the candidate you disagree with most into office when one with much closer views to yours could have been elected instead. It has happened, and in a place where it really shouldn’t have.
That system should be changed for that reason, and until it is you should be very aware of unintended consequences of that vote.
So now that you’ve identified the problem I can only hope you’re actively building grassroots support to replace the current system instead of just posting online about how people should vote blue no matter what, right?
I see lots of problems in the world. Our voting system is flawed, income inequality is bananas, people still think Donald Trump won the election 4 years ago, our cities are very car-dependent, and plenty more. If I built a grassroots program for every issue I point out to every yahoo on the Internet, I wouldn’t have time to change my toddler’s diaper. If my posting online tells people to keep the cart behind the horse or reconsider their points of view (glad you seem to agree with me what the problem is!) I’ll call that a win on a smaller scale.
I know people who have small children and are still involved in socialist organizing.
Cool. Am I supposed to do that for every cause I believe in or just the ones you say I should?
I understand juggling the current political hellscape with a child is nightmarish but building a movement behind a better political system would be the first step in allowing people to vote for better options and resolve the myriad of issues you’ve listed - until then saying to “keep the cart behind the horse” only means we’ll continue bickering in the backseat while the obviously broken two-party state drives us all off the edge.
And I get that between work and family finding time to be politically active can be challenging but I would hope you can find an hour or two a month to join your local RCV advocacy group and help create a better political environment for yours and everybody else’s children.
Without looking at any statistics or polling, I think the spoiler effect is not as prominent and is over stated for one reason.
If I’m going out of my way to not vote for the Democrats or Republicans and voting third party that would mean that I dislike my options so much that I’m giving a fuck you to the two party system.
What people can gather from this is if you said there was only two options I would just sit out and therefore it wasn’t going to affect either candidate regardless.
I’m open to be convinced otherwise but I think candidates blaming spoilers should look at the electoral college and themselves when every 4 years they are ready to blame single digit candidates for their losses.
It sounds like your interpretation of the spoiler effect centers on people voting third party due to dissatisfaction with the 2 unfortunately omnipresent parties, which would be the same as not voting. Have you considered that some people who were going to vote no matter what might vote for a third party candidate because their listed policies actually resonate with them?
I would agree with you maybe 10 years ago but I think that the empire being in such decline and leading us to the worst candidates back to back to back it’s really hard for me to believe that third parties are to blame for the spoiler effect. Taking third parties off the ballot most likely wouldn’t have the effect that people put on them because everyone has an opinion on the two candidates more than ever.
There is nothing to agree or disagree with here, I gave no opinion on spoiler effect, I explained 2 potential reasons why someone might vote third party.
yawn and thats their decision. Candidates are not entitled to a person vote, they need to earn it. If you wabt your candidate to win those votes then get them to adopt the policies that caused those voters to not vote for them.
Trump’s case: being a corrupt authorian, racist, and all around shit human. Harris: a genocidal corporate lapdog.
Trump is unfixable along with the people who vote for him. Harris might be able to stop being a genocidal ass.🤷
Idk who your arguing with, I was showing a different point of view on why someone might vote third party, not sure why you’re responding like such a dick.
Edit: sorry you seemed to have gotten two responses meant for other people. Suspect an off by one bug in lemmy reply page
Libs will still blame leftists like blue maga wants them to.
Alright I’ll bite. I don’t understand this. The word liberal has two meanings: the classical and the colloquial. The latter is indistinguishable from leftist, so I assume you are using the classical form.
Classical liberals will still blame leftists, like … blue maga wants them to? Who exactly is blue maga? Jill Stein supporters?
Classical liberals also span the left-right spectrum right now, with many identifying as libertarian. I struggle to see what you are getting at regardless of who blue maga represents, but maybe there is a good point here.
Words can have different colloquial meanings. There is a really crass meaning of liberal that would identify Marx as a liberal, yes, and this is the most popular one in America, but there’s another colloquial meaning (more popular in other anglophone countries, but gaining traction in America) where liberals are basically centrists (in capitalist societies) who might pretend to be progressive but are ultimately moderates to their bones. This came from the proclivities of “Liberal” parties, along with centrists understandably claiming the name of whatever the ruling ideology is, and here it is of course liberalism.
Among leftist circles, “liberal” is sort of an unmarked term for the moderate definition and the Lockean definition both, like how “guys” can refer to both a group of males and a group of mixed gender, despite “gals” only referring specifically to a group of females (I’m using those terms because they apply to children also, not just men/women).
So the comment is saying, in translation: “Democrat aligned people will still blame socialists (etc.) like their Democrat ideological cult wants them to.” Does that make sense?
Yeah, very helpful, thank you.
No it’s not indistinguishable from the left, as issues like this show very clearly. That’s just a fiction you’re taught by liberals to fool you into thinking they’re on your side.
deleted by creator
You mean because I am asking reasonable questions to learn? I have heard the phrase blue maga but am not very familiar with what it means. Meanwhile your post history is nothing but frothing at the mouth vitriol and online angst just like all of Reddit. Why exactly are you somewhere else? I would think because you got tired of that crap just like the rest of us. So let’s try to do better here.
Jesus, bucketing everyone together and then throwing out crazy labels. Sounds like you live by the MAGA playbook.
This is a sentence with words, but the arrangement makes no sense. You sure you didn’t generate that from ChatGPT?
? Do you disagree? Isn’t blaming leftists what blue maga is currently priming their voters for if/when they lose?
I think it’s funny that someone with “Locke” in their name would seemingly not distinguish between liberals and leftists.
You realise that you’re not using the word liberal as Locke would either right?
That’s true, they are (and I guess I am, by extension) using it in a narrower sense than is represented in Locke, who encompasses both the red and blue team, but the Lockean sense would still distinguish between liberals and modern leftism.
This is a sentence with words, but the arrangement makes no sense. You sure you didn’t generate that from ChatGPT?
Dem mental gymnastics are going into overdrive rn
You heard’em, start campaigning for Stein if you want Kamala to win.
A vote for Stein is a vote for Kamala!
MRW when @univeralmonk was right
It doesn’t matter.
If Kamala loses, they’ll blame us. If Trump loses, they’ll blame us. It’s more convenient to use the 3rd party excuse than to acknowledge that the ruling parties, through the effects of their governance, have convinced tens of millions of voters that missing a badly-needed day’s pay isn’t worth taking the time to vote.
Jill Stein releases a statement: “To be clear, I only want Kamala votes please! Only former Kamala voters!”
deleted by creator
Yay!
Ranks 60 out 284 in Five Thirty-Eight’s rankings. Not bad.
