Congrats Green Party voters, you got another Republican elected!

Embed from Getty Images

I didn’t watch the news yesterday, because I’d rather watch tennis than actually have to pay attention to the 24-hour newscycle of doom and disappointment. The big news this week was the Ohio special election for the 12th congressional district. The district has always been a GOP stronghold, and Donald Trump won the district by 11-points. Democratic candidate Danny O’Connor went head-to-head with Republican Troy Balderson. Trump went to Ohio to stump for Balderson, and Trump took a big, personal interest in this election. And the result is… probably a recount. What separates Balderson and O’Connor is less than 2,000 votes.

Republicans appeared to have held off a Democratic surge on Tuesday in a traditionally conservative Ohio district many Democrats had hoped would serve up an unlikely victory and boost their chances of sweeping wins in November’s midterm elections. With a margin of 50.2% to 49.3%, the Republican Troy Balderson was narrowly ahead of the Democrat Danny O’Connor on Tuesday night in a congressional special election sparked by the resignation of the longtime incumbent Pat Tiberi to take a private sector job.

While Democrats will be disappointed that were not able to claim an outright victory, the tight margin will still be a reason for optimism. Republicans declared victory with Steve Stivers, the head of the National Republican Congressional Committee, saying “I’m proud that my fellow central Ohioan, Troy Balderson, will join me in Congress” and congratulating him on a “hard-fought victory”.

O’Connor, however, did not immediately concede, telling a crowd of supporters: “Can you believe how close this is? We are in a tie ballgame.”

With all votes counted, Balderson had a lead of 1,754 votes. However, according to the Ohio secretary of state, there remained 3,435 provisional ballots to be counted and 5,045 outstanding absentee ballots. If, after those are counted, the margin is within 0.5%, an automatic recount would be triggered.

[From The Guardian]

Balderson is claiming victory, and Trump is claiming victory and Democrats are depressed, so it must mean that everything is pretty much the same as always. The added bonus here is that as it turns out, there was a Green Party candidate running in this congressional race, and he got about 0.6% of the votes, which means that Democrats were roasting Green Party voters all f–king night long.

Embed from Getty Images

Photos courtesy of Getty.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

196 Responses to “Congrats Green Party voters, you got another Republican elected!”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Darla says:

    It’s still too close to call because of provisional and absentee ballots that are still out. It may go to a recount. Either way, we have another shot at this seat in 90 days! O’Connor is going to get this seat when all is said and done. I’m donating to him. And this was very bad news for the R’s. We’re going to take the house, as long as we continue working very hard, donating, and of course. VOTE in Nov.

    • cr says:

      For all my internet friends who are all “we should have won this seat!”, yes, but it’s not over with and we have another shot in November. And considering how this is usually Republican territory, this still a good result, even if we don’t take it outright this time.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I like your optimism today Darla! I know you have been down lately. Yeah, I take this is a win. We get a do-over and now those who didn’t pay attention will get off the sofa and vote. 90 days for a red seat to barely hang on is GREAT news as far as I am concerned.

      • Darla says:

        Thanks magnolia! I get down when there’s nothing I can do, but we’re in the home stretch now, and I feel very hopeful. Of course I would prefer O’Connor won it outright, but this may go to recount, it’s not even called yet. And I was reading that the R’s put millions into this “safe” red seat, and they won’t be able to do that in Nov, because they have much closer seats they have to defend. O’Connor will get plenty of $’s from around the country. Plus there are over 60 seats more in danger for the R’s than this one was. We can take the house. But we have to put in the work, and I am doing my small part.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I am excited right now too. I have my list of favorites I donate to and I try to help out in other ways if I can. Which reminds me donate to Stacey Adams in Georgia. It would make my life if a black woman was the governor of Georgia. I mean…I would weep for a solid week. The mayor of Atlanta is a black woman so the history of this would be amazing. I am heavily backing mostly women in the midterms. It doesn’t mean I am not supporting men on the left but my focus is on women, LGBTQ+, and other minorities. Everyone should be represented in our government.
        I was thrilled that a BLM backed campaign booted out that bigot in Missouri. A Muslim woman won in Michigan and will most likely be the first Muslim congresswoman. I donated to her too.
        All in all, I am smiling today.
        Let put all of our rage and frustration into getting people to the polls and supporting Blue.

    • Kitten says:

      Thank you. Why all the doom and gloom? This is TERRIBLE news for Republicans. O’Connor lost by half a point or something. He should have been trounced by that Troy asshole.

      Also, Twitter is making me realize how much Americans REALLY don’t understand the local electoral process. Neither does Trump, BTW–but nobody is surprised by that.
      People on the left should be pumped right now, not whining about the Green Party.

      • Louisa says:

        One more good piece of news from this is that the GOP poured millions into Balderson’s campaign which they won’t be able to do for November. This was pretty much his one and only chance at major help from them. And he still maybe lost.

      • Betsy says:

        It is a big victory no matter what BUT seriously (and imagine me yelling the next part, not at you, but just for emphasis) what is the malfunction of the Green Party voters?

      • Kitten says:

        Thank you for bringing this up, Louisa. No corporate PAC money for Danny and outside spending for Troy dwarfed the Dems. According to Time Magazine:

        “The Congressional Leadership Fund, a Republican super PAC spent $3 million, including $2.7 million on television ads, and has had staffers on the ground there since June. The Republican National Committee spent $650,000 and manned over 700 volunteers in get out the vote efforts. In the two and a half weeks since Trump endorsed Balderson, America First Action, a Super PAC that advocates for his legislative agenda, spent $200,000 investing in voter turnout.”

        All that money…and still the race was *thisclose*.

    • Morning Coffee says:

      Agreed. Not sure where Kaiser is getting his “Democrats are depressed” impression, but that is simply not the case. The fact that this election is still too close to call is amazing. This is one of the most gerrymandered districts in the country. And another plus – the Democrat won Franklin County handily. That’s suburban, whites and women, folks. Franklin County is like the Broward County of Republicans. And honestly, it doesn’t matter because this race goes on. Both candidates are campaigning today for the upcoming mid-terms.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      This is a great result. The Dems should never have been close in this district, much less make it “too close to call”.

      There are SO MANY districts that are statistically easier to win than this. The Dems put in very little money here because it wasn’t on a list of priorities because it was a long shot. This is a great sign for the DOZENS of other disctricts that are tighter. The GOP should be terrified.

    • Lightpurple says:

      If the GOP has to pour substantial amounts of money to retain seats that it has traditionally held for decades, it does not bode well for their ability to hold on in purple areas or flip anything from blue. Keep fighting out there!

      And Greens, try actually building your party. Run for seats like school committee and planning board so you can actually get people elected to something where they can develop a record and then run for others offices like selectman, city councilor, mayor, state representative and then higher office. Stop it with the protest votes and actually become a viable option

      • babypeanut says:

        At this point, I wouldn’t be surprised if the GOP were pouring money into the Green party.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Yes, the GOP held this seat for 30 years! The fact that they had to spend $30M on a seat like that and barely squeaked by is really a big deal.

      • cr says:

        “And Greens, try actually building your party. Run for seats like school committee and planning board so you can actually get people elected to something where they can develop a record and then run for others offices like selectman, city councilor, mayor, state representative and then higher office. Stop it with the protest votes and actually become a viable option”

        This is also true of Libertarians. Both parties have been around long enough, yet neither have had much success in terms of actually winning seats, at any level. Even in localities where they would be popular.

      • jwoolman says:

        Babypeanut- someone else was wondering if the Russians were backing Greens for this reason….

    • bros says:

      Holy Sh*t that green party candidate is such an idiot. and idiots vote for other idiots I guess.

  2. Lightpurple says:

    This was a Special Election. So, doesn’t he have to defend the seat in November?

    • boredblond says:

      Yes..and considering Congress does nothing but take vacations in the summer, then leave to campaign, he’ll be ‘in power’ about two weeks. Hopefully, someone will teach green/third party fans some math, and their leaders some common sense.

    • STRIPE says:

      Yes that’s true. But I think we can continue to expect the same from them come November. If they don’t understand the importance of voting for someone with an actual chance now, they won’t in November either

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        I think so, too – they’ll keep protesting through that vote, or they’ll just stay home. Need higher Democratic turnout to overcome this stupidity.

      • Morning Coffee says:

        Turnout will be higher in the mid-terms.

      • jwoolman says:

        They didn’t understand in 2016 that we have a binary system and with Trump in the running, this was not the time for a token protest vote. What makes you think they understand that any better now?

    • magnoliarose says:

      Yes. It isn’t really a loss. It is more like a practice run.

  3. minx says:

    Oh, I know. Idiots.

  4. Birdix says:

    Green Party is an easy target, what’s depressing is that there are still 50% who will vote Republican right now.

    • Rescue Cat says:

      What percentage of eligible voters didn’t vote?

      • Swackd says:

        Thank you. It’s not just the Green Party (part of it) but it’s also those who didn’t vote. Missouri (Greitins) put the Right to Work vote off from April (where we have a lot of important races going on – especially local ones) until yesterday hoping that people wouldn’t come out and vote and therefore Right to Work would pass. Didn’t work as Right to Work failed miserably because of the constant campaign against it. What they have to do now is not become complacent and shoot for the November elections and hope more pro-O’Connor get out and vote.

      • Gina says:

        Stop attacking the Green Party and start focusing on those who don’t vote! They were the problem in the last election and they are going to be a problem in November.
        There is too much focus on getting republicans to turn on the IDIOT and not enough effort focused on those that don’t vote.

      • Leapin' Lizards! says:

        It’s getting late in the game, but if Democrats are serious about getting that blue wave they — the dccc– better throw serious resources at voter registration…It’s called getting out the vote.

      • Dara says:

        If every Democrat* votes in the mid-terms, it will be a very good day. “Among the 31 states (plus D.C.) with party registration, there are nearly 12 million more registered Democrats than Republicans.”
        *disclaimer: many large states don’t require a voter to indicate preferred party when they register.

      • Laur says:

        Bit late to the party on this one but I’ll say it anyway. And I’ll just quantify my comments by saying I’m British, if I were American I’m sure I’d be a democrat, however I hate how this site blames Green party (or other) voters for voting for the person they want to vote for! It’s like saying we’ll if you’re not going to play my way then you can’t play anymore. I understand why it’s so important to get these gains back but you can’t pick and choose which parts of the democratic process you like and which you don’t. As others have said, for us on those who didn’t vote rather than those who voted for the people they believe in. Jeez.

    • Kitten says:

      I know! I think it’s all the old people…that’s the only way I can frame it to make sense to me.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        And with Republicans more likely to turn out, that artificially inflates their representation among voters, right?

        Turnout appears to be the only answer, both to overcome Republican party fanaticism and 3rd party votes.

      • Algernon says:

        The AARP is legendary for its ability to mobilize their members. Seriously Democrats could take notes because the AARP really gets it done at every level, from lobbying to communicating with members to running vans-to-vote programs to make sure elderly members can get to polls. Someday this will work in our favor when the average OAP is from the more progressive generations of X and Millennial.

      • isabelle says:

        White Evangelical Christians however are sadly their main blocs….and they always show up to vote because its how they have gained their political power in the last 30 years. They realized long before romantical & apathetic liberals voting actually works especially during midterms. They show up to vote, ALWAYS.

      • Kitten says:

        Sigh. You guys are depressing me.

      • Lightpurple says:

        As my 92 year old great uncle said to me recently: he fought at Iwo Jima, he voted for the first (and so far only) non-Protestant President, he voted in all those who brought us Civil Rights and Voting Rights and Medicare and Medicaid, he voted in those who worked to investigate & prepare an impeachment vote on Nixon and he plans to vote this November for those that will rid of that Orange Menace and save Medicare, and where can he give money to Seth Moulton?

      • Tiffany :) says:

        This district has gone for the GOP for 30 years! I think a lot of people are probably just on autopilot. When people vote one way for that long, it becomes a part of their culture.

        That being said….getting a vote this close shows that a great number of people have changed their votes. So I find it encouraging.

  5. Alice says:

    I’m not an American but to put “kids in cages” vs environment is a very cheap attempt in populism. The truth is that if a candidate has no strong environmental message, regardless democrat or republican, green voters have no reason to vote for him. And without urgent measures on environment and climate policies, all kids are facing very grim future so it is a very cheap argument. It is also not making the critic look well, IMO.

    • Ms says:

      But that conveniently ignores the golden thread here, which is that our current establishment is dismantling the EPA, pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord, and a million other things because they are wingnut climate change deniers.

      At some point you have to use your brain and vote against fascism. We are there.

      • Alice says:

        I see your point as I’ve been closely following the current administration’s actions against the Act, specifically. However, you missed my point: a candidate without a clear environmental message won’t attract the green vote. This has been an issue in many countries and elections and is becoming more and more important. Sorry to say, but not all voters are willing to read between the lines or in depth beyond what is readily served to them.

      • Lady D says:

        Well, when the ground is dead, you can no longer breathe the air, and the water is poisoned, it will be too late for the useless GP voters to do anything for the environment.
        They knew how close this race was, they knew the consequences of their actions and the hypocrites say they want to help their country. Sure they do.

      • ms says:

        I didn’t miss your point. I’m straight up calling people out for making excuses not to vote against a fascist government. I’m not willing to give people a pass for not being “inspired” by their available candidates and their policies when one is CLEARLY doing so much damage, not just to the environment, but every other policy the Green Party stands for.

        I’m GP and there is NO WAY I would vote for anyone but a democrat in any election coming up.

    • boredblond says:

      Even a person with a trump level IQ knows that dems are ALWAYS more environment friendly, and repubs ALWAYS side with big biz..(the last exception was teddy Roosevelt) that’s the choice.

      • Prettykrazee says:

        That’s just not true. My biggest complaint of Obama was he wasn’t very pro environment and very business friendly. Let’s not forget he ok’d Artic Drilling and did nothing for months on the keystone pipeline. It wasn’t until protesters and environmentalists and the media coverage held his feet to the fire that he ‘changed’ his mind.

        Sometimes a voter want more than I’ll look out for the environment. I’m not a Green Party member. But I believe a candidate has to earn a vote. And these voters didn’t feel he earned their vote.

      • Alice says:

        As @Prettykrazee said, a democrat is not automatically “better for the environment”, sorry. I spend my life in environmental movements and I know this all very well. A vote must be earned and it has become increasingly important to have clear messages on each issues the candidate is going to work for /against. Each issue.

        And frankly, resorting to comments about people’s IQ level doesn’t help your argument. Someone voting for a candidate automatically because of “the party” doesn’t sound much more intelligent to me.

      • Kitten says:

        @ Alice-The Green Party platform has NEVER been solely about the environment. It’s a big platform that tackles issue like justice reform, civil rights, raising the minimum wage, universal healthcare and more. My BF is a registered Green but there is no way in hell he would vote Green in a special election. And he will be voting Ayanna Pressley (a Democrat) for Congress here in the Boston state primary, as will I, an Independent.

        Honestly, you’re making a strange generalization about the Green Party. Maybe peruse the US GP platform before you speak with such authority.

      • magnoliarose says:

        The Green Party is deeply problematic and had that charlatan phony ass Jill Stein working her Russian angle in 2016. Ralph Nadar helped throw the election in 2000 for Bush and thus began the nightmare we still haven’t awoken from.
        So how hard is it for a Green to vote for a Democrat in this political climate? How many lessons must they learn?
        It is VERY privileged to use those arguments these days when we are literally fighting to stop Fascism and rampant abusive Institutionalized Racism.
        At any other time in history or the future, I would say those arguments are worthwhile and very valid. I believe candidates need to earn their votes and inspire people to believe in them. I am a proud Independent Progressive but I am also pragmatic. I know I should vote for those who are MORE like me than not to keep harmful people from being elected.
        We just don’t have the luxury to be purely ideological right now.

      • Alice says:

        @Kitten I am well aware of the fact that no party has a platform built on one issue only. My point was and remains that a democratic candidate should not and is not automatically considered environmentally better because not all of them are such. Which leads us to the spilled green vote. I’m not sure why it is so difficult to understand that a clear message on different issues is easier to all voters. If a candidate has no message on a particular issue that is important to a voter, chances are the voter won’t vote for this candidate. That’s all. I understand American people are passionate about this whole political situation but I also think half of the arguments to my comment are missing the point I expressed clearly: it is about providing people with particular and clear messages on issues that are part of the candidate’s platform and if certain issues are not part of his/her platform, then don’t expect voters who care about these issues to vote for him/her.

      • Algernon says:

        Teddy Roosevelt is an interesting case because he was a dyed in the wool Republican but by today’s standards he was a Democrat, and when FDR ran as a Democrat Teddy had some eloquent yet salty words about it, even though FDR was like, Uncle Teddy I am basically running on your platform. The parties switched platforms in that generation gap.

      • Kitten says:

        It’s not that I don’t understand your point, Alice, it’s that you aren’t understanding MY point that O’Connor’s platform aligned with MANY of the same ideals as the Green Party Platform. I still don’t see how you can make the assumption that Green Party candidates voted for Manchik because his message is somehow stronger on environmental issues than O’Connor’s and not simply because he’s the Green Party candidate on the ballot.

        And I think that’s why you’re seeing pushback from people here: because your commentary is based on an assumption that hasn’t been backed up with polling data.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Alice wrote:”I also think half of the arguments to my comment are missing the point I expressed clearly: it is about providing people with particular and clear messages on issues that are part of the candidate’s platform.”

        Your point is useless, because this democratic candidate DID have environmental issues as a part of his platform. He has a section on his website, very easy to find. Did you do any research about this candidate before you started running with this hypothetical that he ignored environmental issues?

        Russian tactics include trying to divide the left. Your comments have me wondering about your motives.

    • Natalia says:

      OMG so true. Thank you. These 3rd party people are so infuriating.

      • jwoolman says:

        On the one hand, we need more parties. On the other hand, right now the Greens have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning anything at the federal level. They really should focus on local elections and pushing for national legislation and pushing against Trump as he dismantles everything of apparent importance to them.

        Trump must be stopped and his little Republican friends too. I don’t see how Greens can in good conscience vote anything but Democratic right now. The Democrats are our best hope at the moment.

        But some people are just absolutists and aren’t worth talking to. Let them live in their bubble and work on people who know we only have two choices.

    • Elkie says:

      The Trump Administration’s EPA just OK’d putting frickin’ ASBESTOS back into construction materials. For the financial benefit of a RUSSIAN company.

      If workers not dying slowly and horribly of mesothelioma, plus axing the Paris Accord, plus axing the Clean Water Act, plus opening national monuments to strip mining, plus axing vehicle emissions guidelines et al. isn’t enough for Greens to vote strategically against the GOP, then they can’t be that concerned about the environment…

      • Lady D says:

        Green voters demand to be heard and clearly don’t care who or what gets harmed by their actions. Case in point? Last night’s election.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Trump administration wants to open up off shore drilling along ALL of the US coastline. The only state he would exempt is Florida (because of Mar a Lago, of course).

        Green party voters aren’t having to chose between two slightly different candidates when they look at Dems vs. GOP. There is a DRASTIC difference.

    • Erinn says:

      Here’s the thing with that though. By voting green they’re allowing the person with very strong ANTI environment message to win. So they’re worse off than if they’d elected a Dem.

      • Alice says:

        Depends on the platform of this *particular* democrat, as I’ve said above if you read me, I am not talking about party, I am talking about candidate. Not all democrats are devoted to environmental protection, sorry. If this democrat votes against environmental laws if elected, I don’t care if the party as a whole is “better for the environment”.

      • Juls says:

        But Alice it DOES matter that the “party as a whole is better for the environment.” You are looking at specific candidates instead of the big picture, which is what commenters are trying to relay to you. If democrats take control, they will vote to protect the environment. Green party voters are voting their conscience, and that is admirable. But they are hurting their own cause. Look at the 2000 election as an example. Nader cost Gore votes in a razor-thin election. Gore is as environmentally conscious as a presidential candidate can get. Think where we would be today environmentally if he had won. That’s the big picture we’re trying to get you to see.

      • Alice says:

        @Juls I don’t really need people to explain anything to me, I’m trying to politely state my point and see little understanding. I personally and all people I know would NOT vote for a party because “it’s better for the environment” which is BS. If this candidate votes against environmental laws once elected will it matter he comes from the party “better for the environment”? No, it won’t. You can try to understand that not all people share your view or carry on, your choice.

      • Juls says:

        Alice, I understand your point of view just fine. I’m simply diagreeing with you. There is a difference between understanding and disagreeing. You don’t seem capable of differentiating to two. And you didn’t actually counter any of my arguments. You just shouted about how nobody is playing fair or listening to you. We are all capable of civil dicourse here. We educate each other. But you seem more of the “my way or the highway” type so I’ll take your opinion with grain of salt. I was just trying to get you to understand the opposing point of view, which you have clearly decided not to do. Undertanding, which you accuse others of not having, you lack yourself. Good day.

      • Kitten says:

        “I personally and all people I know would NOT vote for a party because ‘it’s better for the environment’ ”

        You said you’re not American, right? You don’t seem to understand the very good example that Juls gave you with Nader and Gore. People here do consider their vote based on which party is better for the environment when the choice is Republican Vs Democrat. No, it’s not the only issue that dictates the vote but it is GREATLY important. We made progress with environmental concerns under Obama and all of that has been rolled back under Trump. Green Party voters like my boyfriend see that and as such, they would NEVER vote Republican and are FAR more likely to vote Democrat. That being said, many American understand that a politician without party support in Congress can’t get much accomplished. As others here have said, voting Green simply because your guy is on the ballot is a luxury at this stage.

      • Erinn says:

        That sounds insincere, then. Just imagine for a moment – the democrat is elected and pushed through this round. Let’s say he and his party votes against some environmental policies. 1/4 to 1/2 of them even. On the other hand, the republican gets through and he and HIS party instead vote against environmental concerns 3/4 to 4/4 times. That’s a HUGE difference in potential. You’re basically saying that you’d rather things quickly get worse rather than stabilize and slowly get better.

        You can’t say that that doesn’t matter. You’re saying things need to change *now* and urgently for the sake of the environment. But there just aren’t even a tiny fraction of the numbers needed for the green party to somehow gain enough political control of the country where it would have the power to make this happen. It’s sad, but it’s true.

        The US is in a situation where things need to change *now* on multiple fronts. The current administration is one that’s hell bent on throwing out environmentally friendly practices in favor of cold hard cash. It has no problem with collusion, cheating, lying, bring cruel to the people of the US and beyond. Under a more normal circumstance – I’d be more understanding. But this is a different situation – and the current administration has continually done so much to undo the bits of environmental protection that was already in place. Why wouldn’t you want to do whatever it took to ensure that THAT government no longer has the kind of control it has. That should 100% be step one for anyone who cares about fixing this mess. Take back control, and then work on everything else.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Alice, DID YOU READ THE PLATFORM OF THIS *PARTICULAR* DEMOCRAT? If you even researched this candidate, you’d see he is “pro-environment”. He has a section about it on his website, under “priorities”

        “Combating Climate Change
        America’s leading scientists are clear: climate change is leading to extreme weather and devastating storms that must be addressed. This is an opportunity for the U.S. to lead the world and create new jobs in clean and renewable energy.”

    • Zip says:

      I’m a green party supporter on another continent. However, whenever there is an election and I know that I would waste my vote for a green party candidate if the real race is between a social democrat vs. some conservative nutjob (they are become as bad here, too) the I go with the social democrat. Wasting a vote on someone with zero chance get’s the one you don’t want elected.

      • Christin says:

        Agree. It’s a throw away vote, like it or not.

      • Natalia says:

        Yes! You can work to build and strengthen a 3rd party but you cannot and must not throw your vote away. This is not the right timing in history, unfortunately.

      • Kitten says:

        I think most Greens are like you and my BF. Do we have the data on how many registered GP voters voted for O’Connor or any other Dem in a local election? I wouldn’t be surprised if more Greens voted for a Dem than for their candidate. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Greens who may not have bothered to vote in prior local elections if they didn’t have representation for their party on the ballot, are now voting and voting Dem.

    • Louisa says:

      Okay so how about one party is allowing asbestos to be used again… and the other party isn’t!

      • Alice says:

        And one president of the better party allowed Arctic drilling. so? There is no doubt in the core that the current administration has zero environmental concern or knowledge but my point was never about that and I thought I had put it very simply: it is about delivering clear messages so voters recognize their concerns in your platform. Is this easier to understand? Why would it be a problem to add to the platform: environment, climate change, etc.? If indeed the candidate is from the better party for the environment, they should have no issue with stating so. That’s all. people go for messages. So, deliver. I’m not only a voter. By profession, I am a communicator and let me tell you, it is always us who have the obligation to deliver to the audience, it is never the audience’s duty to decode what we actually mean/intend to do.

      • Juno says:

        @Alice, all of these lofty, idealistic conversations are lovely for any day that’s not the Special Election. If one party holds 49/100 of the votes, the other holds 47/100, and the four remaining voters decide to protest the lack of suitable options by voting for a candidate who will, at the end, have a grand total of 4/100 votes, their “protest” effectively handed the first candidate a victory.

        That’s not protesting. Your issue is with the Dems not having the best background in these matters. Weigh that against the current administration and decide whether throwing your vote away is the way to go.

        Think carefully. Many of the third-party protest votes came from people who deeply regret them now.

        Also, food for thought: Trump and his ilk give 0 floozes about the environment. They are also dismantling democracy. Even if I thought the Dems were no better re environment, I would still make a beeline toward the party that doesn’t commit human rights atrocities and isn’t working overtime to deregulate, suppress voters, start a white nationalist theocracy, and basically eradicate not only the environment but also any chance at healthy public debate on the subject.

        Seriously. If a GP voter still, in the face of all that, decides to throw their vote away, they are too far gone to be reasoned with. I’ll just nod at them and move on to the next undecided voter.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        “And one president of the better party allowed Arctic drilling. so?”

        OMG, you are building your case on random factoids and not the big picture. When you come and try to lecture to people about things you don’t understand, it will blow up in your face. Obama’s record isn’t 100% perfect, but it IS 100% better than anything the GOP would ever aspire to do. To pretend Obama is similar to GOP on environment is just ignorant.

        Here’s a small list of things Obama also did…
        1. Signed the Omnibus Public Land Management Act of 2009, which protected 2 MILLION acres of land, in addition to thousands of miles of trails and rivers.
        2. Refused to allow drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
        3. Established the largest marine reserve to EVER EXIST in the ENTIRE WORLD
        4. Created “Federal Strategy to Promote the Health of Honey Bees and Other Pollinators”
        5. The Stimulus package included $500M to train green-collar workers, funding to weatherize 1M low-income homes to improve energy efficiency, funding for 180 green energy projects at the state level, provided financing options for 100,000 renewable energy projects, etc.
        6. He used the Antiquities Act of 1906 twenty three times to protect natural, scientific and cultural landmarks.

        So get out of here with your trolling, pretending that the Green Party’s objectives aren’t furthered by democrats.

      • Killjoy says:

        Alice, can you acknowledge that Collins put forth climate change as one of his seen top priorities?

    • Betsy says:

      No, Alice, you are completely off base. Do not let perfect be the enemy of the good.

      Has Nader not been a spoiler in 2000, where would America be in terms of environmentalism? (And would both wars have been averted?)

      Had Nader not spoiled again in 2004, what progress could we have made? How much could we have improved?

      Had Stein not spoiled in 2016, would Hillary have put asbestos back on the acceptable building materials list? Would she be rolling back other environmental regulations? Hiding data? Silencing scientists?

      You’re so wrong it’s almost funny.

    • minx says:

      Like it or not we have two main political parties, and that’s it. Greens are never going to win. So I have no problem saying people are throwing away their vote when they vote Green. We saw what those votes did in 2016.

    • Lucky Charm says:

      Alice, there is no perfect candidate for everyone, that campaigns on every message every voter is looking for. If (Green Party) voters continue to protest vote, vote for Republicans or just not vote at all, then they are in fact voting to destroy the environment.

    • BorderMollie says:

      Just wanted to say, I think you’re making very good points, Alice. I’d also add that democratic (and Liberal here in Canada) party governments have put kids in cages, built destructive pipelines, and deforested old growth forests. People seem to be missing the point of having a Green or further left party, which is to push mainstream centre-left parties more left on environmental and other issues, like foreign policy.

      Also, there’s no solid proof that people voting for green candidates would switch to dems. My advice is for dems to get out non-voters not focus on the 0.6% who vote Green.

      • notasugarhere says:

        What, you think they’d vote Republican?

        Greens have a choice – vote for Dems or continue to allow the wholesale destruction of everything the Greens claim to support. Claiming the moral high ground doesn’t work when the Greens are the ones enabling the Trump extremists to win.

      • BorderMollie says:

        No, I think they probably wouldn’t vote at all. There are, however, lots of unregistered or unengaged voters that can be brought round by more inspired candidates and platforms to democrats. Get the superPACs out, grassroots in, and field some more progressive options.

  6. Ninks says:

    As a complete outsider, I look on this as a good thing. One, the huge swing from safe Republican seat to a very, very tight, still not confirmed win is a very positive outcome for Democrats. And Two, it’s a seat the winner will only be holding for three months. (Right?) I don’t think Democrats are complacent about the blue wave happening in November, but this is a really good reminder that even ‘safe’ seats can be flipped, but that everybody needs to get out and vote when it really counts. Even some of the dingbats who voted Green might realize they need to vote Dem when it really counts. For people who think it doesn’t matter if they vote, or who they vote for, you now have a great example to show them why every vote matters and how only a handful can make all the difference.

    Also, your electoral system is massively f*cked up. I think you all know that, but that’s my main take away from watching American politics in the past few years.

    • Natalia says:

      As someone who has witnessed our electoral system for at least 50-60 years, I really don’t think our electoral system is going to change in my lifetime. It serves the agenda of too many rat bastards. Depressing. There are some improvements in terms of votes, but as a whole our electoral system is completely screwed up, corrupt, non-working and non-serving of “We The People.”

  7. Reef says:

    I’m of the mind that maybe the Democratic Party needs to do more besides say we’re not as bad as those other guys. I look at what an ever loving pos Doug Jones turned out to be. How he’s voted 69% of the time with my POS Senator Isaakson. How all those black women really campaigned their hearts out for Jones for him to vote lock step with R’s. Lol. I don’t blame anybody for not voting for the current crop of centrist Dems. I’m tired of them too.

    • cr says:

      “I’m of the mind that maybe the Democratic Party needs to do more besides say we’re not as bad as those other guys.”
      Except they actually have platforms, and aren’t solely running on ‘Trump sucks!” And the reality is, the Repubs are very, very very bad, so pointing out that you aren’t as bad as they are may actually work in some elections.
      Sorry, I understand the need for the Dems as a whole to move farther left, but there still so much ‘it’s not far enough left for me!’ or focusing what they’re doing wrong, as opposed to what they’ve done right this year.
      It gets tiring.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        Democrats are very issues focused, but the media doesn’t really pay attention to anything that isn’t related to the Trumpster Fire. Hillary, for example, could do an hour long speech about her policy proposals, and the media would only discuss the 3 seconds where a vague reference to Trump was made.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I will always vote for Dems because they are way better than the GOP. There is a lot of room for improvement though and they need to get rid of Chuck and Nancy at the top. This is a golden opportunity to broaden the base but doing the same old thing with the same old people is not an answer. We need to wipe the floor with the GOP to be able to fix this broken down ramshackle mess we are in and by putting up people who aren’t inspirational it won’t happen.

      • cr says:

        “and by putting up people who aren’t inspirational it won’t happen.”
        I hear this a lot, and I get it, and I think that’s also part of the appeal of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, she is inspirational. But, most candidates aren’t in that way, and voters also have to be smart enough to look beyond lack of ‘charisma’. And I still worry that AOC is going to get elected, make a compromise, as politicians do, and some of her supporters who’ve idealized her too much will turn on her.
        As for changing Dem congressional leadership, have to vote in those who will move the party to the left first.

      • magnoliarose says:

        In my mind, I think there are all sorts of ways to inspire beyond charisma. You need some dazzlers for sure to fire up people who need to be woken up but someone with a good solid platform and reflects their district can be equally as inspiring. The high charisma people are great to bring in to campaign for those who are as good but perhaps aren’t electrifying. I think the left needs fresh faces AND skilled politicians who are pragmatists.

        Even though I am a leftist I believe candidates should reflect their districts. It is absurd to put a hard leftist in Jackson Mississippi for instance or a Joe Manchin type in Portland Oregon. That is when I end up debating my fellow progressives. It is just dumb and illogical. Believe me, I know how off the rails progressives can be. *eye rolling at them as I write* I would rather sit beside someone who agrees with me 60 percent of the time rather than someone I don’t even want on the same bench.
        As for the leadership, I don’t need them to be as left as me. *more eye rolling at my progressive brethren* I just want them to be more effective and assertive and I want them to be strong leaders with iron in their spines.

      • jwoolman says:

        I am personally tired of inspirational candidates. A significant portion of the population think Trump is “inspirational”. That just feeds into the idea that we’re supposed to be entertained by the candidates. Who cares what they say, as long as it’s fun watching them.

        If I want to be entertained, I’ll watch a cartoon. Be boring and policy-oriented, please. Tell the truth. Work hard at the job, not just at getting the job. Listen. Learn. Don’t be a Trump.

    • Veronica S. says:

      Revising the Democratic party means their supporters actually need to get involved at a mass level. We’re never going to shift the needle more to the left if we don’t support candidates at the local and state level, and then work up. When the base becomes more progressive, the party will be forced to move with it.

  8. Diana says:

    Why are people so stupid??!???!?

    • HK9 says:

      I don’t know but it seems to me that they don’t think about the big picture when they vote. You need to think about what will actually happen if I vote for a particular party (ie:who is most likely to win AND govern well) and most people don’t go that far.

      • IlsaLund says:

        Those who don’t feel their lives will be negatively impacted never vote based on big picture. They never put themselves in someone else’s shoes and empathize with people who may not look or act like them. Tunnel vision blinds too many voters from thinking about the ramifications for all of us. I always tell my children, always think big picture and support the candidate who’s the least likely to do the most harm. You may not like him/her and they may even be problematic, but in the long run, is this person the least likely to inflict harm on all of us.

    • Maya says:

      I will never understand third party voters…

  9. Ann says:

    God I hope there is a recall and it sucks up all the attention. Keep the orange moron distracted while the rest of the states get some decent candidates in.

  10. grabbyhands says:

    But you guys, it’s a MORAL victory.

  11. STRIPE says:

    “Hi. I’m a Green Party voter. I love the environment so damn much I keep accidentally electing climate-change deniers who are owned by the fossil fuel industry. Do I get a cookie now for being a nonconformist?”

    THIS RIGHT HERE!!!! perfectly sums up my frustration with 3rd party voters. They cut off their nose to spite their face. Every time.

  12. WHY? says:

    The press keeps underestimating these russian bots and trolls. They hacked into the power grid, impersonated BLM, hacked into voter systems in many states, hacked into at least 2 democratic candidates campaign, organized rallies against immigrants, and facilitated sandfortheanthem and that walkaway movement(tried to make it look like democrats were losing supporters) , so why does the press keep ignoring the roles they are playing in the polls and elections? Kris Kobach and Balderson were losing, and then out of nowhere there was a sudden surge where they were ahead of their opponents. Just like the Dotard, Kris Kobach is always claiming that there is voter fraud. Why do you think this is so? Kris kobach and the Dotard have to cheat to get what they want.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I read what you write every time you post because you say what I am thinking quite often. This is why when people get mad about crazy people on social media I scratch my head. They are very busy right now trolling and botting.

    • jwoolman says:

      If we don’t insist on paper ballots in November 2018, we are idiots. We simply cannot trust the machine vote counts any more. Whatever is done eventually to make the machines “more secure” can be undone by someone who is determined and skilled, foreign or domestic. Really. The stakes are high for a few. Follow the money.

      The Democrats will have to win so big that they can outrun the hackers. That’s no way to run an election.

  13. Iknow says:

    We need to get some perspective here. As a Democrat, am I disappointed that O’Connor didn’t win out right? Yes. Am I depressed that he came within .9 percentage point, in a district that only went Democrat ONE term and went Republican 30 years ago, has been gerrymandered to the point where Republicans are over represented in the voting population? No, I am not. This seat will be open again in November. Democrats came out and some Republicans switched
    over. That district is way too red for the election to be this close. And yes, the Green Party really needs to get its self together. Why get up, go out in the August heat, to waste your vote?

  14. Juls says:

    Like I said in another post, we flipped a solid-red seat here in Tennessee in a local election, a really popular republican lost his seat to a newcomer dem. It’s a small victory but points to the big picture. The message to GO VOTE is working. We need to keep pushing. This razor-thin margin in Ohio is a good thing. It’s proof that we can take over Congress with a blue wave come November if we get people to the polls because EVERY VOTE MATTERS!

    • cr says:

      There have been a lot of local victories in very red states, which is not only good for that locality, it also helps create a larger pool of potential Dem candidates for higher office. To use an American baseball analogy, we’ve got to strengthen the minor leagues, in order to help have a base to draw on for the major seats.

    • Gina says:

      This is good news!!! You are so right. The focus needs to be to get more people voting. Good luck to Tennessee!!

  15. Prettykrazee says:

    Positives- Missouri got rid of right-to-work AND Bob McCulloch yesterday. That is a win!

    Maybe the Democratic Party needs to earn their votes. Stop assuming bc they have D after their name means people are just going to vote for them.

  16. Eric says:

    Please note. There are 68 congressional seats LESS a Republican stronghold than the Ohio-12th. If the Democrats flip 23 of these, they take the house in November (January) and impeachment proceedings begin.

    The fact that the Ohio-12th is even this close and that the TRE45ON party spent 500% more than the Dems is great news for November.

    Register. Go to the polls. Vote.

    • Esmom says:

      Yes, as much as I would have loved an outright win for O’Connor, I find this extremely encouraging.

      I’m afraid to even see how the deplorables are spinning this, though.

    • Tiffany :) says:

      Yes, exactly. Well summarized!

    • lucy2 says:

      This. And if you can do something to help, either for a candidate or a get out the vote drive, please do it. Every bit makes a difference.

    • Kelly says:

      The fact that the GOP margin of victory was less than 1% in OH-12 is important. As others have noted, the national party spent millions on a special election for a district that should have been an easy win for them. They pulled out all the stops, including a Trump rally, for a razor sharp win.

      If the Democrats can replicate this strategy in districts that could be pickups and in more expensive media markets, then there’s a chance of a Democratic-controlled House after November.

      It was honestly a very good night for Democrats and progressives. Missouri voters rejected a right to work law that their former disgraced Republican governor pushed through. Michigan voters chose a progressive Democrat, Gretchen Whitmer, to be their nominee for Governor. She may not have gotten Bernie Sanders’ endorsement but she’s leading the winner of the GOP primary by numbers larger than the margin of error in the major polls.

      Next week is Wisconsin’s primary for the following: Democratic candidate for governor, GOP Senate, and multiple US House seats, including WI-1, Paul Ryan’s seat. Several polls have the Democratic front runner well ahead of Scott Walker, which is reason for optimism. A couple GOP held US House seats, including WI-1 are seen as competitive races.

  17. TheOriginalMia says:

    Bunch of selfish, pretentious twats. They are obviously unaffected by the Republicans’ destruction of our country to vote for this crazy old dude. But O’Connor is going to win in November. I just know it.

  18. Enn says:

    I worked on the Clinton campaign and I still hold a strong grudge against third party voters. It’s easy to “vote your conscience” when you won’t be affected by the outcome (like POC, Dreamers, Muslims, asylum seekers).

    If you want to change the two party system, I hope that you will work locally and build from the ground up. When it comes to races that will affect the nation, I’m sorry, but Dems are the only ones who can hold the line. We need a blue wave to stop the freefall that we’re in. It won’t even reverse it. But it will stop it. Undoing the damage will take years.

    • Veronica S. says:

      Yeah, this is pretty much how I told off friends ~upset~ about the election they helped throw because they were spiteful over Bernie losing. Progressivism is a ground up movement. You have to convince voters that your unfamiliar ideology is the better way, else they aren’t going to risk putting your candidate in office.

    • Mumbles says:

      The Greens didn’t keep Clinton from campaigning in Wisconsin or Michigan.

    • magnoliarose says:

      I hold them more responsible in 2000 and 2004 not so much in 2016. I still believe Russians hacked the votes in the swing states. Bots, trolls, voter suppression, apathy, the media harping on the emails and not going after 45, and sexism are what cost HRC. So to me, they sucked hard and were a factor but they had a lot of company.

  19. Honey bear says:

    Everyone has the right to vote for the candidate they support, whether it is the most popular option or not. Just because it didn’t fit YOUR agenda, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. You really don’t see you’re just as bad as those idiots at Fox News. You’re just too arrogant to see it.

    • Sarah says:

      People at Faux Noise are currently spreading conspiracies about our first African-American president and a bizzare cult of Hollywodd pedophiles. But sure, Kaiser is the same. *eyeroll*

    • Yala says:

      100% agree. The point of democracy is everyone having a voice and right to vote even if you disagree. Leave Green Party supporters alone.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        Every single vote in every single election is a strategic vote. It is now ever more clear that the Republican Party opposes any form of environmental regulation and is actively working to worsen the already dire situation. If you know your vote may put Republicans in office, how are you supporting efforts to slow climate change?

        Vote for Democrats and then get energetically involved in environmental causes: Donate to the best advocacy groups that will lobby a Democratic Congress, and get involved at the local level fighting polluting factories. Buy hybrids and electric cars. Push for mass transit. USE IT. Recognize that factories and agri-business are major polluters. Support unions. They play a role in this, too.

        More will be accomplished by throwing out the Republicans and then working every lever of advocacy possible. Nothing has been accomplished through the odd Green vote here and there except for helping sweep Republicans into power, and confirming to Russia that its social media penetration works.

        In the end, if someone votes Green and ONLY votes Green but does nothing else for the environment, then it’s a very lazy, time-limited, self-soothing choice.

      • Lady D says:

        Voting Green means no one stops the Republicans from putting oil rigs in the Grand Canyon. How does that jive with your ‘protect the environment at all cost’ head in the sand scenario?

      • Dot says:

        @Yala +1000000% No one OWES any person or party a vote.

    • Veronica S. says:

      I mean, sure. Technically. But.

      As somebody who is registered independent and who has worked on multiple campaigns, if you aren’t politically active outside of those third party votes and working to get your candidate out there and getting those progressive ideas forwarded in legislature and movements, you are as useless as the nonvoters. If your idea of “supporting third parties” is showing up every couple of years to throw in a Green vote, and using it to talk about how you don’t get involved in the polarized political landscape of America, you are not defiant and you are not progressive. You’re just privileged, and your political action is performative at best and insincere at worst. You can’t sit here and talk about everyone having a right to a voice in a representative democracy and then blatantly ignoring the fact that one party is actively suppressing the votes of minorities and the poor.

      • HK9 says:

        Please say it louder for the people in the back.

      • Who ARE These People? says:

        Gosh, you said it better than I did, so much better. I was struggling (see above). “Your political action is performative at best and insincere at worst.”

        Our #1 donation every year is to the most effective environmental lobbying/advocacy group and we always vote for Democrats. We think more can get done that way. Yes, we own 1 car and it’s a hybrid, but so much more can get done by electing Democrats who will force all car makers to boost mileage and built electric/hybrid. It’s not about us; it’s about moving the levers of power.

      • Lady D says:

        Word for word, everything you said, Veronica.

      • lucy2 says:


      • magnoliarose says:

        Yes M’am to everything.

      • Tiffany :) says:

        So well written, Veronica S!

      • Jerusha says:

        👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 To all your posts, Veronica.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      3rd party voters do have the right to vote for whom they want. It’s not that. It’s that they don’t have the right to complain about the outcome. They don’t have the right to blame the party that they hurt; in the current context, it only shows that they recognize that they’re hurting the center-left party and go ahead anyway. And they don’t have the right to pretend that their tiny showing in high-stakes elections is doing anything to change the electoral system in America. They are not changing the world. In particular, racial justice and environmental justice are intertwined. Maybe they could think about that.

    • IlsaLund says:

      You do have the right to vote for anyone you choose. But there does come a time (and we are at that junction in this country now) where you have to vote strategically. This country is in a free fall and if we don’t rid our government of Trump and his GOP enablers, there won’t be much left. Third party candidates will not win….that is a fact and a given. Until there is a strong grassroots movement to build up a viable third party starting from the local and state level, third party candidates will not win election to higher office. It’s all right to sit their and spout off about voting for who you choose, that’s exercising your choice and showing your privilege. Cause you won’t be the one harmed by the crazy shit that happens. I, as an African American woman, can’t afford that choice….especially when my and my children’s lives are at stake. Elections have consequences and if more people thought of others rather than just themselves maybe we’d have better outcomes. And, btw, I’ve been a registered Independent for over 40 years and would absolutely love to see a thriving third party in this country. But for right now, this is all about basic survival and trying to save our government and country from the fuck shits that are running things now.

  20. Sarah says:

    It’s always very easy to vote your conscience when you have no skin in the game. That’s why you don’t see a lot of black women wasting away their votes like that. We know what’s up. Been knew forever.

    • Who ARE These People? says:

      As I said above, environmental justice and racial justice are intertwined. People who are focused on plastic straws maybe could be giving more thought to children drinking poisoned water in Flint and other urban centers.

      • Sarah says:

        In this case, they did not even vote for a GOOD candidate. The guy thinks he is an ALIEN, ffs.
        A significant amount of third party voters act like the wokest folks in the country when they are out there electing dumb*ss like that. SMDH.

    • magnoliarose says:

      That is what drives me crazy. They lose nothing so they can afford to sit around feeling all defiant while basking in their privilege.

  21. thaisajs says:

    This race didn’t mean anything since it’s a special election in August and these two candidates will be facing off again in November for the seat. But the fact it was this close isn’t great for Republicans. And maybe some Green Party voters this time might get the hint in Nov. and vote for the Democratic candidate? Hope springs eternal.

    • Veronica S. says:

      Yeah, I was going to say, even if he lost, this is a big deal that he lost by such a narrow margin. Ohio is almost as bad as SC and Pennsylvania in terms of its gerrymandering, so the fact the turnout was enough to make him sweat is telling. It isn’t supposed to be a competitive election by any means.

  22. Veronica S. says:

    One of my Facebook mutuals was complaining about the outcome of the Michigan race, and I’m just like…I can’t. “She’s not progressive enough because she doesn’t support state-wide single payer healthcare. Democrats are the worst!” But she does support wage increases and investment in infrastructure and nearly every other progressive platform. “She’s only leftist by measurement of centrism!”

    Motherf*cker, if you want people to vote for your progressive candidates, you have to make an argument that appeals to the general public. Articles regarding the election clearly stated that her opponents had well-funded campaigns, so it wasn’t a matter of money. It’s a matter of message. In any case, take a goddamn seat so the rest of us can approach this like adults and recognize the lesson of 2016 – purity politics are a load of shit that benefit the privileged and not the many. I will worry about moving the needle closer to the left when we address the absolute shitshow going on in the federal government right now.

  23. Tania says:

    I kept waking up last night because of KS-03! People were still in line to vote after the 7 pm deadline and they couldn’t start counting until the last person voted. Sharice Davids, A NATIVE AMERICAN who – and I’m only mentioning it because it’s all over the place – is a lesbian and “accepted $300,00 from corporate shill Emily’s list” won our district. In fact, our county – Johnson – carried her to a 2,000 vote margin against Bernie’s candidate, Welder.

    It frustrates me that the narrative is that a Native American woman is an establishment candidate. In what reality is that even possible???

    But I am proud that in this red state my county voted for Clinton and is now going to fight to elect an out Native American. Time to get my tennis shoes out and help GOTV for her. She has an uphill battle to climb but that’s what we’ve been doing since columbus got lost.

    Other positives: Missouri, which is a stone’s throw from here decisively said no to the “right-to-work” law.

    Today is a good day!

    • Prettykrazee says:

      Because she is establishment? Just because she’s a Native Lesbian doesn’t mean she’s not. She worked in the Cheeto’s White House. She accepted over $400k in TV ads alone from Emilyslist. She doesn’t believe in Medicare for All. That’s what the voters want in KS03. And that ok. I don’t live in KS03. If she’s able to beat that loan shark puppet you guys have representing you now, then more power to her.

      As I stated upthread, Missouri did good last night! They got rid of that Bob McCulloch too

      • Tania says:

        There is no reality where a Native American LGBT Woman can be “establishment”. They can be supported by establishment, they can be in the same stratosphere as establishment, but cannot be establishment.

        Here’s the definition: an established order of society: such as a often capitalized : a) group of social, economic, and political leaders who form a ruling class (as of a nation)
        b) often capitalized : a controlling group the literary establishment

        2. She was a Fellow in Obama’s White House, not cheeto’s. Please: google! It’s not that hard to look up facts.

        Emily’s list is not establishment. If women had the right to choose and weren’t limited by those choices, they would be establishment. But right now it’s old white guys telling us what we can and cannot do with our bodies. Ergo, they’re not establishment.

        But sure. You do you.

      • Prettykrazee says:

        Maybe you need to Google and learn about the candidate you support. She started her Fellowship under Obama and continued it under the Cheeto. Those are the facts! Just because you don’t like them doesn’t make them false.

        Her views and believes places her in the establishment.
        ‘The Establishment may be a closed social group which selects its own members or specific entrenched elite structures, either in government or in specific institutions.’ This has nothing to do with her ethnicity, sexuality or gender.

        Emilyslist is a PAC. Just because it helps Democratic Females doesn’t mean it’s not establishment. A PAC is establishment! Period!

        Like I said before. I don’t live in KS03. The voters selected her to represent them. Good Luck to her in November! But Maybe you need to educate yourself on your candidate and what is the political establishment before you get all in a huff when correct descriptions are used to identify her.

      • kacy says:

        That’s how those fellowships work. They are long-term, and she probably had a positive influence in the role even under Cheeto. Bernie uses PACs, too. Is he establishment??

    • magnoliarose says:

      You can be a minority and be an establishment candidate. Obama was establishment. Mark Takano is a gay Asian man in California and he is establishment too. That is fine they represent their districts they way the voters decided.
      Good for her either way.

    • Prettykrazee says:

      I know how Fellowships work. Just like I know you accept fellowships to make connections. To further your career in government. And Technically she didn’t accept $400k from Emilyslist. They spent that money on her behalf. A PAC can only donate $5k max to a candidate directly. But can spend unlimited money on their behalf. The candidate has nothing to do with a PAC spending money on their behalf. Which is why you see The same PACs spending on both Democrats and Republicans. Just the PAC spending money on Davids isnt what makes her establishment. It is also her views, which line up with the Democratic establishment. I never said the establishment is wrong. I said that Davids is establishment because she is. KS03 picked the candidate they wanted to represent them.

      And no Bernie isn’t establishment because he is not a Democrat.

      • Tania says:

        @Prettykrazee: She was a fellow under Obama. The fact it carried over into cheeto isn’t a reflection on her anymore than public servants not resigning en masse when a new government is formed. So that’s not on her that she began something under Obama and finished it under Cheeto. That’s a massive jump you’re taking there.

        Perhaps you need to understand minorities before you call them establishment. As mentioned above, anyone can spend anything on commercials on behalf of a candidate. That doesn’t make them establishment.

        I’m not sure where your dislike for her comes from but that’s a reflection on you, not me. I’m not going to argue semantics with someone who is pre-disposed to dislike a minority lesbian and try box her into your “establishment” like it’s a derogatory term and that she isn’t inspiring to many people out there given where she’s come from and where she is now, despite the “establishment” being designed to keep someone like her down.

        But you do you.

      • Prettykrazee says:

        Umm? So because you can’t win your argument about Davids political views making her part of the establishment then I must dislike her because she’s a Native Lesbian? So I’m a racist homophobe now? Seriously? That’s what you got from my responses? You are so wrong!

        I was the one that explained how PACs work. Not you because you didn’t know. Just like you clearly don’t know what the political establishment means. Maybe you need some reading comprehension skills. Invest in a dictionary and a thesaurus to understand the words I typed, Because I never said the establishment was wrong. I just said she was a part of it. You were the one coming on here to say you couldn’t understand how she is being placed in it, just because she was a Native Lesbian. I as well as another commenter tried to tell you a persons identity has nothing to do with what makes a candidate establishment. She even gave you examples of other minorities being establishment. Which you conveniently choose to ignore.

        Look I’m not going to argue with someone that results to insults when they dont have facts to back up their argument. Especially on a day old post. As you said so succinctly You do you.

      • Tania says:

        Uhh…here’s what you said in your first response:

        “Just because she’s a Native Lesbian doesn’t mean she’s not. She worked in the Cheeto’s White House. She accepted over $400k in TV ads alone from Emilyslist. She doesn’t believe in Medicare for All. ”

        I then gave you the definition of establishment. Sharice does not fit in those categories. Then you kept moving the goal lines. She worked in Cheetos White House. Completely ignoring the fact she started in Obama’s White House.

        It was also explained to you what the maximum donation organizations can directly give to a campaign and a PAC can spend their money on candidates. But sure, “you explained to me.” I get that tone a lot.

        As for “medicare for all” This is directly from Ms. Davids’ website:
        Support the continued expansion of Medicaid.
        Support legislation that prevents price gouging and restricts the ability of companies to slow the introduction of generic brands.
        Enable Medicare to negotiate drug prices.
        Support legislation that ensures women have access to a full range of healthcare services and that they are not excluded from insurance plans or denied care by providers.
        Support initiatives aimed at reducing the alarming and preventable disparity of maternal mortality rate facing African American mothers.

        While technically none of those things directly say “Medicare for all” it also doesn’t say she disagrees with it.

        You’re the one that has been @ me for being happy she was elected and attempting to douse my flames with water. But go ahead. Keep doing you. It’s working out so well for you here.

        I “chose to ignore” because President Obama was not establishment. Establishment only chose him because he won the race to be the democratic nominee. But if he was “establishment” we wouldn’t have orange cheeto in the white house trying to undo everything the alleged established Obama put forth.

        And it’s very convenient for you to say, “Look I’m not going to argue…” when that was actually your intent from the beginning. You’re just up against someone who’s put up with people like you their entire life and I don’t give an inch or a f*ck.

      • kacy says:

        Pac usage is the first thing everyone likes to throw in peoples’ faces but crickets about how Bernie has PACs, too. Typical.

  24. aang says:

    Chris Collins (R) NY was just indicted on charges of Securities Fraud!! He is awful and has been kissing Trump’s butt for 2+ years. I’m soooo glad he is finally going down!

  25. Jen says:

    The nerve some people have of voting for who they think should win an election. Shame on this Green Party voters for exercising their constitutional rights.

    • Sarah says:

      They voted for a man who believes he is an alien. This is who they think should represent them. They are the ones shaming themselves honestly.

    • Lady D says:

      Vote for whoever you want. Just make sure you’re in line to accept your share of the blame for the GOP govt, because you did help them stay in power. Congrats on voting and exercising your constitutional rights. You might not have those rights much longer, but hey, you did your sanctimonious best, and voted for what was best for your country.

      • Christin says:

        Agree. Time and place…and it’s definitely not either right now. I lean independent/moderate, but fully know which major party is more for individuals than the corporate interests.

        Democrats implemented the major US social programs of the last 80 years, yet the primary benefactors’ descendants (at least on the older white rural voters’ side) vote against their interests today. It’s all mind boggling.

    • pottymouth pup says:

      they’re all complaining about how mean it is for people to engage in vote shaming (and many threatening to make sure a democrat never wins because of said vote shaming).

      I hope none of them works at an ER when an accident comes in, based on their mentality, if you can’t save the lives of everyone, then everyone should die of their wounds

  26. Aud says:

    Yeah, f*k you and your right to vote how you want. In this particular toxic climate you have a RESPONSIBILITY to protect our democracy and those who have no voice. You vote for third parties and feel pious. Well, kiss my ass. Look into the eyes of a minority being screwed by Republicans and tell them how virtuous you are.

    • pottymouth pup says:

      I don’t understand how those people say they are voting their values. They are very aware that, in our current 2-party system, voting 3rd party means that either a democrat or a republican gets elected. If your choice is to vote your 3rd party candidate, who won’t win; vote for a candidate that will have at least workable policies on many of your key values (civil rights, in particular) but not as hard on wall street as you want; or vote for a candidate who is in deep with wall street and votes in a way that is against pretty much all of your values – how can you be helping advance your values if your vote ensures the guy who wants to destroy all you find holy gets the power to do so?

      The moral majority played the long game by moving the GOP to the right from inside the party, then letting the fringe take over. The left can learn from that but we don’t have 20-30 years or we’ll be back in the dark ages before we get a chance to move left. It will take a really hard jerk to get us back to a true center as it is, so if your goal is to move left of center, don’t help push the country further right

  27. Aud says:

    Now seems like a good time to remind you free thinking third party voters that you’ve been punked by Russia. Hell, Jill Stein was probably IN on it.

    So yeah. F*k you. Rewind, repeat.

    • jwoolman says:

      The Soviets and Russians have been offering their services to US Presidential candidates since at least 1960. The ones I’m sure about (Adlai Stephenson, JFK, and LBJ) told them to take a flying leap. Stephenson in his 1977 memoirs said he basically did a Comey — he listened to everything they said, then left the meeting and wrote down every detail in extensive notes, and trotted over to tell President Eisenhower all about it before he told them no way.

      I imagine they’ve also provided “help” unbidden as well when they don’t get or don’t think they will get a positive response. I wonder if they were behind that anonymous package of GWBush debate prep materials that appeared on the Gore campaign doorstep on 2000 (and was rerouted to the FBI, which opened up a criminal investigation).

      I would not be surprised at all if the Russians tried to support Bernie over Hillary in the primary and also any third party in the 2016 election, because the one candidate they definitely did NOT want to win was Hillary Clinton. Since I’m sure they were in cahoots with willing Americans from early on, I’m sure they realized that pushing third parties in our 2016 election was taking votes away from Hillary and making it easier for Trump to win. They very likely are doing the same thing now, since I’m sure the Trumpsters have explained to the Russians that these midterms are really important to getting done what Putin wants done.

      If I’m right about the source of the materials the Gore campaign received in 2000, the Russians may not wait for the candidate to consciously accept their help (even though I trust Jill Stein about as far as I can throw her, and I struggle just trying to pick up a pudgy cat).

      But the only Presidential candidate whose campaign definitely enthusiastically and consciously embraced Russian help in 2016 was Donald Trump. He might be the first one that has, actually. Anyone else would know it was political suicide, at the very least. But Donald actually has been encouraged by Russians for years to run for President and is financially entangled with Russian financial sources and of course has the ethics of a flea. He is a very different case.

  28. Really? says:

    These comments make me smh. It’s as if people are asking for less choice. The only way out of this predicament is to encourage more parties to participate – not less. The two party system is broken and a false dichotomy. Why not got after the people who don’t vote instead they f the people who are using their democratic right to vote?
    Why not actually look into who is funding both parties and Congress people to see whose vying for them to get into power? It might show that there really isn’t much of a difference.
    Stop getting angry at people who actually voted because they didn’t do what you think they should have done and start figuring out how to fix your corrupt system and corporatocracy.

    • lucy2 says:

      I’m all for more choices, more parties, etc. I dislike the strict 2 party system we have right now, and in the past I would have agreed with you about there not being too much difference between them. But this is a new era, and the current GOP and administration are doing horrific things, well beyond politics as usual. There are real people feeling a real difference right now.
      To me, it’s like saying yes, it’d be nice to water all of the plants here so they all grow well, but maybe first we should put out the house on fire right in front of us.

    • Veronica S. says:

      Because that vote is meaningless if they aren’t actively supporting the progress of those platforms elsewhere. Your desire for more choice requires actual voter involvement, not just waiting for somebody to stand up and be the perfect candidate. The Green party has been around for decades now. Where are their local candidates? Their senators? Their governors? Clearly, something in their message isn’t getting to the people on ANY level.

      I worked with the Pennsylvania SEIU for several years. Most of the people in the upper levels of the the union were communist or socialist, but they didn’t screw around when it came to elections. They looked at the running, backed the candidate they felt would be the best option, and then used their financial and political power to get that person in office where they influence them toward more progressive platforms. You are never going to convince a population over night to seek out more progressive politics. It has to be done in increments, and it has to be done from the ground up, local, than state, than federal officials. You can’t have a socialist president unless you’ve convinced your neighbors, friends, urban dwellers, and rural communities that it’s a better situation over all. America is a country the size of the entire European continent. Acting as though those geographical barriers aren’t a very real contributor to the party limitations is silly.

      All of this hand-wringing over ~how different are Democrats and Republicans really??~ is a matter of privilege. You’ve got a party in total control of the government that is passing voter suppression laws, slowly hammering away at women’s reproductive rights, creating a tariff war that’s going to murder small business, and is more or less declaring a war on immigrants, legal or otherwise. Democrats have their issues – and they are many – but when you have a party in power that is literally making historians scream about how closely they’re playing by the 1940s fascist playbook, you act with intent and pragmatism. Because if you don’t get the “lesser evil” in now, you’re going to be working even harder uphill for the next several decades. The shift in the Supreme Court’s numbers is already a major blow to these movements.

      • cr says:

        “All of this hand-wringing over ~how different are Democrats and Republicans really??~ is a matter of privilege”
        That someone is still ‘they’re no different’ 18 months into Trump’s presidency does reek of privilege and purity politics.
        The US system is currently not set up, especially at higher levels, for a multi-party system. And politics, including voting, is about compromise. I live in Ohio, I can’t afford to vote 3rd party while I’m waiting for my dream candidate rolls around. Because that dream candidate isn’t there.

      • pottymouth pup says:

        the perfect Green candidate was Jill Stein, she of the “I hang out with Putin” posse

    • magnoliarose says:

      Think of this way though. We have a president who is committing treason and it won’t change unless Democrats win. No one is being held accountable for the corruption. Before we can discuss the problems with the system we need to fix the danger we are facing right now.

    • Incredulous says:

      Good for you Really?

      magnoliarose: There will never be a good time to expand voter choice, that’s part of the problem.

      Addendum edit: I know Manchik is not exactly the best or sanest candidate.

      • magnoliarose says:

        I don’t disagree with you that the system is a mess. I just think right now there is a much bigger threat. We should be able to address that issue and fix it but with the GOP in office, we get even further away from even being able to start a meaningful conversation about it. I understand your sentiments though.

    • Leapin' Lizards! says:

      Thank you for saying this. I think it’s mistaken to assume that people who voted for the Green Party would otherwise have gone to the Democrats, or republicans for that matter.

    • jwoolman says:

      We are stuck with a two-party system at the moment. We have to deal with that reality, particularly when one Party is trying to destroy everything and is in deep with a hostile foreign power. This is not normal.

      And this is not the time to try to chip away at the two-party system, that is best left for lower level offices anyway to build up a real multiparty system. Either the Republican or the Democrat is going to win the election, and we need to vote for the one who does the least harm and that right now is the Democrat.

      We are in danger as we never have been before. That is why people who usually are silent about elections and sitting Presidents are speaking up every chance they get. This is why even psychiatrists have decided their duty to warn about Donald Trump’s pathologies is higher than their usual preference to avoid diagnosis of someone they have not treated personally.

      This is not normal. Not normal at all. The Russians continue to be actively trying to sabotage our elections, and that does include the midterms. The entire House of Representatives is up for re-election, they only have two-year terms. One-third of the Senate is up for re-election (six year terms, staggered). The midterms will determine who has the majority in both chambers, meaning who gets to issue subpoenas in investigations, who gets to decide which bills reach the floor for debate (and for how long) and a vote, whether or not a Presidential nominee for SCOTUS even gets a hearing in the Senate. Even in the Senate, where there are practically as many Democrats as Republicans, the Republican majority has protected Trump very successfully because of the enormous power they wield as the majority.

      The Democrats becoming the majority in Congress is our only realistic hope of trying to contain Donald Trump’s madness and greed. The Republicans have mostly just gone along with everything he does and says, this is also not normal. When it became obvious that Richard Nixon was guilty, guilty, guilty and in the depths of paranoia – the Republicans convinced him to resign before they started impeachment proceedings. I don’t see that happening today. Trump has gone way beyond Nixon in his violation of US laws and our Constitution and is clearly pathological, but the Republicans won’t try to stop him or to protect the investigation of Russian interference in our elections. I have never seen anything like this, and I was born while Truman was President.

      Pushing third party candidates helps the Republicans win tight races, and the Russians know it. During the Trump Era, they have always been advised by Americans who know how our politics work. People thinking about voting for third parties need to be aware of the Russian influence on them in this very abnormal situation.

  29. cr says:

    Draining the swamp:
    Rep. Chris Collins, R-N.Y., has been arrested on insider trading charges lodged by the Justice Department, law enforcement officials said Wednesday morning.
    The indictment obtained from a federal grand jury also charges Collins’ son, Cameron Collins, as well as the father of his fiancee, Stephen Zarsky.
    The indictment relates to “securities of Innate Immunotherapeutics … an Australian biotechnology company on whose board of directors Christopher Collins served,” the DOJ said.
    Collins passed nonpublic information about Innate’s drug trial results to his son in order to help him “make timely trades in Innate stock and tip others,” the indictment alleges.
    His son then traded on that inside information and passed it to Zarsky, along with numerous unnamed co-conspirators, “so that they could utilize the information for the same purpose,” according to the indictment.
    Zarsky, too, allegedly traded on the inside knowledge and passed it along to yet more unnamed co-conspirators.
    The defendants are accused of multiple counts of securities fraud, as well as one count of wire fraud, one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and one count each of making false statements.
    The GOP congressman reportedly surrendered to federal agents in Manhattan on Wednesday morning. He is expected to appear in federal court in lower Manhattan later today. The U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York is expected to detail the charges in a press conference at noon.
    (from MSN)

  30. Jay (the Canadian one) says:


    • Ohioan says:

      Thank you. I don’t want to tell the author to stick to gossip but… her headliner here is 100% wrong.

      Even if ALL the Green Party voters voted for Danny O’Connor, the Republican still would have won. It’s simple math.

    • Veronica S. says:

      There are 8000 or so ballots that haven’t been counted yet, so we’ll see the extent of the impact then. I consider this a good sign regardless because that county should not be competitive, but, ah, a little empathy here. One of the writers on this site is a minority woman. She doesn’t have the privilege of not being upset about this kind of thing. She can’t just ~stick to gossip.~

      • Dessi says:

        The thing is that these kind of posts on the part of liberals do nothing but further alienate people way from the Democratic Party.

  31. CheleBelle says:

    What a 3rd party vote means in a so-called democracy like America is the minority wins and controls. 3rd Party votes have spent the last 25 years showing up to the gun fight with a broke handle butter knife. BUT hey at least they can claim to have voted ‘their conscience’. #PlayStupidGames #WinStupidPrizes

  32. Helen Smith says:

    If someone is Green or Libertarian they’ve thought long and hard about their decision. I wouldn’t throw them shade.

  33. Racer1 says:

    It’s audacious how liberals believe they represent the masses and anyone not on board is the enemy who is perpetually wrong.

  34. topcat says:

    Canadian here- really confused – is there nothing the orange baboon and his minons can do so people say no?! I used to envy America, now l don’t even want to visit. Welcome to your nightmare.

  35. em says:

    It’s called democracy. On what planet would you assume that Green voters would vote for the Democrats or either of the other parties they probably wouldn’t have voted at all. The Republicans would be blaming the Greens if the roles were reversed. Face the facts if you didn’t get enough votes , it’s because you couldn’t convince enough people to vote for you……end of.

    • jwoolman says:

      Nowadays it’s not that simple. We are dealing with real voter suppression, hacking of the vote counts (since those machines went in everywhere in 2004), extensive disinformation campaigns funded by very rich Americans and/or a hostile foreign country.

      It’s not just about persuading people under normal circumstances anymore. It’s a relentless battle against lies and distortions spread at super speed and having to outrun the hackers to actually win an election. Too many people are grossly underestimating the extent of this danger. This is simply not normal.