Green Vote cost Michigan Dems State Senate

[TWiley]

The Democrats failed to secure the Michigan Senate by two seats that had a very close result. In fact, if the Democrats had secured the votes of the Greens in both of those races, the Democrats would now control the Michigan State Senate. Carl Williams (D) in the 32nd lost by 500 votes and the Green candidate had 2,000 votes. Any Levin in the 13th lost by less than 800 votes and the Green candidate had over 3,000 votes.

Ok then, who really "won" this one?

The polluters, or those with a highly advanced sense of environmental issues?

[KingFlorez]

1. A lot of those Greens are Republican lackeys

They know what they are doing when they enter those races.

[Buzz Clik]

37. Can you prove that, or are you just blowing smoke?

I vote smoke...

[Vidar]

39. So are a lot of "Democrats".

[styersc]

44. Its ridiculous to think the Greens sank these Dems.

These Dem candidates had the opportunity attract Green voters and earn votes from Greens and each candidate failed to do so.

Its also wrong to suggest that if Green voters want to foil polluters and Corporatists, they would throw in with the Dems- despite apprehension on issues. If the Dem candidates were truly pro-environment and anti-Corporatists, why didn't they put their funds, efforts and votes behind the Green cnadidates? When is turn-about going to be fair play where Dems support Greens as they always demand Green support Dems.

[skipos]

2. Greens worked to defeat Lamont in CT.

Democrats will never make Greens happy.

[LTR]

3. I don't trust the Greens

While I support third parties, the Greens seem content to just spoil elections.

Case in point, look at Pennsylvania. They were propped up by Santorum and the GOP.

I have more respect for the Libertarians. At least they try to distance themselves from other parties instead of whoring themselves out. Though they need to organize a bit better.

[bluestateguy]

4. Greens are green on the outside and red on the inside

I really think that some of them are Maoists. The rest of them are either latte sipping limousine liberals who don't have to live with the real world consequences of Republican policies, or they are just naive.

[Greyhound]

14. "latte sipping limousine liberals"

"Maoists" and "naive" in only two sentences. Nice to hear that raygun is still with us. :eyes:

[depakid]

21. Oh boy another mindless Green bashing thread

And I hear it said that Republicans blame everyone but themselves for their losses.

Sheesh.

[Lexingtonian]

5. Green voters are annoyed (and annoying) conservatives

I look at large Green votes as signs that an electorate is still stuck in an unwillingness toward real change. Voting Green allows you to claim what passes for high individual ideals, but the effective vote is for status quo.

[demosincebirth]

6. Perfectly put.

[Frances]

7. I think it's worse than the status quo

I think it's voting to make the U.S. like it was before FDR where there were a few rich and lots of poor working folks and a small,humble middle class.

[davidwparker]

8. I lean to Green, but it's not wise to vote Green -- as I did in 2000 --

until we have instant runoff voting. Nader is correct about both parties. But, the Dems are right to. If you vote Green, you might as well cast a vote for the Republican.

[IndyOp]

10. Agreed. THE reason to get instant-run-off voting & clean elections

laws is so that all candidates are funded equally and I can vote for good Greens as my first choice, and Dems second. Locally we've had some good, strong Green candidates -- and we currently have a Republican seated on our City Council because the Green and Dem split votes.

:(

[New Earth]

12. it will be easier to vote Green or for a 3rd party

when Republicans are totally out of power and unpopular.
then it will be the 3rd parties against the Dems, making it at least less horrifying.

[LoZoccolo]

9. Thank you for this analysis; Greens revel in their pest status.

I see no reason for them to exist as a party. I'm sure the Republicans could think of some ways.

I'm recommending this thread too.

[Ibleedgreen]

19. can't stand greens

As far as I'm concerned the only thing green worth supporting is MSU. Laura Berman wrote a column of the Greens effect on the Senate race.

http://detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061109/OPINION03/611090366/1348

[pnb]

49. There is a very good reason for them to exist

Because they represent some peoples' beliefs moreso than any other party out there. That's what matters.

[New Earth]

11. i think some people are delusional

people vote for who they want and it's their right.
i vote Dem (for now) but there are plenty of liberals not happy with the Dem party these days.
i'm tired of the hate that comes from people here toward 3rd parties.

[blondeatlast]

16. Now that we have some power and balance in Washington , the

Greens may find more welcome among the Left. I'm a liberal, but a loyal yellow dog and want to push my party toward progressivism. I can see myself voting Green in local races, though.

Now is the time for Greens to run strong local races (I'd LOVE to see Greens run for school boards--LOVE it, love it, love it!).

[Radical Activist]

13. I guess the Democrats should have picked liberals for those districts.

Blame the Democrats for a losing strategy.

[Greyhound]

17. Jinx

[Greyhound]

15. Obviously the Democrats ran the wrong candidates in those races.

Implying that your fellow citizens shouldn't have the right to vote for whom they chose is about as anti-democratic an idea as I can imagine.

[skipos]

25. Wellstone and Lamont were the "wrong candidates"

and that's why Greens ran against them?

[Greyhound]

28. Apparently, in the eyes of the Green Party members, they were.

Wellstone won, so more people agreed with him than the green candidate, and I don't live in CT but can see how an environmentalist could object to a real estate developer.

[CTLawGuy]

46. Ned Lamont is not a real estate developer

he's in the telecommunications business.

[Greyhound]

50. Oh, my mistake. n/t

[eridani]

45. That was an artifact of Minnesota election laws

The Greens were required to run somebody, or risk any whackjob running for the seat as a Green instead. That they chose a no-name for the job rather than having Winona LaDuke run indicated that they were indirectly supporting Wellstone.

[depakid]

48. Stop making sense

The Green bashers hate when people do that....

Curious- I wonder how many libertarians "took" votes from Republicans in close races? Might be something a clever Michigander might look at and analyze. Maybe go back a couple of years and look at trends.

[Buzz Clik]

47. The Greens ran because they can. It's kind of a right in this country.

But are you suggesting that Lamont lost to Lieberman because of the Greens? Every political analyst with more than 10 minutes of experience was certain that Lieberman's loss in the primary was meaningless and that he would beat Lamont in the general election. Lamont lost because the voters in Connecticut didn't vote for him. Period.

[Greyhound]

51. 70% support from repuke voters, and it's the Greens fault? n/t

[ulysses]

18. but if what we keep hearing (from the haters) is true, and Green voters

are really just Repukes, why the assumption that they'd have voted Dem in the absence of a Green candidate?

[TWiley]

20. Good Point

But if the issue really is about the health of the environment, why would anyone vote for unrestraind business interests which tends to be a plank in every republicans platform weather they are Conservative or liberal.

[Telly Savalas]

55. Because that's why.

[LWolf]

22. Bullshit.

Just whose job is it to "secure the votes?" The candidate's. If the candidate did not "secure the votes," the loss is at the candidate's door.

Lose by 800, lose by 500...the greens don't owe votes to the democratic party. It's the democratic party, and the democratic candidates', responsibility to earn the votes. If the democratic party wants green votes, then the democratic party needs to see what in the green platform attracts people. 800 votes, 500 votes? I'm sure that more votes than that were cast by republican voters; some may have been cast by other 3rd parties, and many more people than that didn't cast a vote at all.

Nobody owes a party or a candidate a win. The blame game, shifting responsibility for loss to others, is juvenile and self-defeating.

[Greyhound]

30. This is possibly the most reasoned, accurate, and rational, post I've ever

seen on this issue.

Well said!:bounce::kick::patriot::kick::bounce:

[TWiley]

36. You do make a good point

And, what you say is absolutely true. Everybody has the right to toss their vote wherever they will.

The part I find hard to grasp is this:

In most cases, the polluters win. The only ones who seem to loose is the national party that actually gives a shit about the environment.

How exactly does electing a republican businessman advance the environmental cause? Most believe that global warming is a myth.

That is the disconnect. I protect the environment by voting for an unelectable candidate, and at the expense of one who will actually respond.

Al Gore aint green enouogh either. But, people do have the right to vote their conscious. That is what it is all about anyway.

[The Straight Story]

57. Actually, the greens could say dems cost the greens the seat :)

The door swings both ways - damn evil dems! ;)

[gasperc]

23. yes, we know

thanks for rubbing it in

[USA_1]

24. What Efforts Did Dems Make To Attract Green Votes?

[FDR33]

26. Who won?

See my sig line.

[TWiley]

33. Well, the Republicans won both seats

Locally, there is a city initiative to join the "cool cities" global warming community. The Greens scheduled a meeting at a different location, and the same date and time.

What is up with that? A meeting at the city Commission to convince the mayor and commissioners to sign on to the initiative, and the "Greens" sabotage this effort by telling their members to attend a bullshit meeting in the basement of a bookstore instead. I hope their Vente' Latte's were delicious.

whew. I need an anicin

[Tesha]

27. Next time, run farther left.

Don't *ASSUME* that the left will vote for the "D"
just because you think they have no other choice.

A funny thing happened in New Hampshire this year.
You know, New Hampshire, the rock-ribbed *HOME* of
the Republican Party? Anyway, what happened was a
whole bunch of left-over Dean lefties attended the
Democratic State Convention and basically hijacked
the thing, forcing through a very progressive series
of resolutions. And then we went off and nominated
two anti-war lefties for Congress. The State chair
was "not pleased".

But what's really funny is that we then won not only
*BOTH CONGRESSIONAL SEATS* from incumbent
Republicans, we also held the governor's chair, took a
majority on the Executive Council (five "lieutenant gov-
ernors"), recaptured the State Senate (for the first time
since 1912) *AND* the State House (for the first time since
1922). This is the first time *IN HISTORY* that Democrats
have controlled both branches of our state legislature
simultaneously.

So maybe you should run real democrats; then you
won't have to complain ex post factor about "the Greens"
and the election sthey cost you.

Tesha

[Buzz Clik]

41. Whoa! Any more at home like you?

:loveya:

[Tesha]

43. Thanks -- it was a very exciting year up here in the Granite State! (NT)

[TWiley]

59. Some Good Points Tesha

I believe that I worded the original post "dems failed to secure the green vote" And that is what I ment.

Nobody is confusing green votes with democratic votes. People will vote for who they will. However .....

If the main issue of the voters in question is the welfare of the planet, then both parties have lost because the conservative republicans won both seats and the control of the state senate.

Between the two parties, the Democrats tend to be more planet friendly than the magic-of-the-market-place capitalists.

I do hope that the future will bring a functional balance between practicality and idealism. Al Gore ain't "Green" enough for some, but the alternative always yields a victory to the wrong one. Lets all work together to determine the practical measures necessary to win these votes for electable, and environmentally conscious candidates.

That is the point. Thank you for the above analysis. It is appreciated.

[Le Taz Hot]

29. They're also steal your children

in the middle of the night and EAT THEM!!!! Enough of this shit. <flush>

[Alexander]

31. GREEN - Getting Republicans Elected Every November!

Anyone who thinks the Greens are trying to do anything else is either delusional or a liar.

[Zhade]

32. And lieberman's independent run cost the Dems the seat in CT.

NT!

[nickshepDEM]

34. GREEN = Getting Republicans Elected Every November

Carry on... ;)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

35. Dead To Me

Green = Republican. They can call themselves whatever they want, eat granola and driving a fucking Prius. But make no mistake about it. They are the enemy.

[Buzz Clik]

38. The Dems better find a way to reach out to the Greens, or this is just the beginning.

A lot of us who are deadly serious about the environment are not satisfied playing the role of a barnacle on the hull of the Democratic barge.

[Vidar]

40. The first step is to ignore DU on this issue.

[Buzz Clik]

42. Good advice.

[mainegreen]

52. I see you're using Karls math: counting votes you didn't get and can't predict. nt

[TWiley]

53. I believe you missed the point

Nobody is claiming that greens do not have the right to vote for whomever they wish. Nobody is claiming that greens are actually democrats.

The disconnect is this:

Typically, the green candidate does not win. Typically, the Republican in that race does win. Typically, the Democrat looses.

Now, if the environment really is the concern, then how does helping to elect a conservative republican serve any environmental cause? Most believe Global warming is a myth, and want to remove all environmental controls.

Now, if the environment really is the concern, then why not support an electable democratic candidate when our platform is by far more ecologically friendly.

The republicans march off to drill in ANWR, and all the greens cheer because they were "cool" and "enlightened" enough to lodge a protest vote that actually put the environments foe's in office.

That is what does not make sense.

Nobody is telling you how to vote. We are just pointing out that your votes do nothing to advance any environmental cause. It actually harms it.

Al Gore ain't "green" enough either is he

[mainegreen]

54. Depends on the state, how you vote local vs federal and a great many other factors.

I readily admit voting green nationally and in tight races is not the wise decision. In local elections it works. Few people here grok the greens. It is not all about environmentalism. Economic issues play an equal part in why the green movement has appeared.

The green bashing has reached the epidemic retarded logic free level on DU and the standard claim is that green votes somehow belong to democrats and I thought your post was expressing a similar sentiment. If that is not the case I apologize for jumping the gun on your post.

[USA_1]

56. "Typically, the Republican in that race does win. Typically, the Democrat looses."

So, will the Dems try to get the Greens to vote with them or against them?

[hayu_lol]

58. Dems, from this point on, have to consider Greens just an offshoot of...

the GOP. They have nothing in common with the Democratic party. They have nothing in common with thinking human beings. They are just, as they say, barnacles on the hull of common sense.

They continue to protest their innocence. They are guilty of tampering with the democratic process. Since they are funded in part by the GOP, let them own up and take responsibility for their actions. They do not belong on any Democratic board or site.

Greens=GOP

[roseBudd]

60. Greens are like indie music fans that hate any band that attracts crossover appeal

even though they loved the band before it was successful.

[roseBudd]

61. Thom Hartmann explains why 3rd parties don't work in our style of democrcacy unlike Europe's

Specifically, Nader has gone to great lengths to exploit the lack of knowledge most Americans have about how other democracies around the world work, and thus deceive people about both the history and present reality of our electoral system and the role of third parties in it.

When the Founders and the Framers of the Constitution put together American democracy in 1787, it had never been tried before in the way they visualized. In ancient Athens, it took 6001 citizens to turn out and agree to pass a law; Rome was a republic, but not of, by, or for "the people"; and the Iroquois Confederacy had no "executive branch" to elect, a remnant from the days of kings that the Framers were unwilling to give up. Thus, the Framers of the Constitution had no "truly democratic" model to work from.

So they created a flawed constitution.

The major flaw was that national elections are held on a first-past-the-post, winner-takes-all basis. Which means that if three or more candidates compete in a race, it's virtually guaranteed that somebody with less than a majority of the vote will end up winning political power. The result of this flaw is non-democratic minority rule, instead of the democratic ideal of majority rule.

snip

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0806-13.htm

You have to read the rest to see how subsequent democrcacies learned from and avoided our mistakes.