Stein/Turner Is a Stronger Ticket Than Sanders/Stein

Supporters of Bernie Sanders have long known about Jill Stein's offer to surrender her spot on the Green ticket to him if he would be willing to defect from the Democratic Party.

Sanders has never shown any interest in that offer--perhaps because he understands a point about sore loser laws that few Greens (apart from Texans such as myself) appreciate.

Most people understand that the Green Party doesn't have ballot access in all fifty states. In 2012, Stein was on the ballot in 37 states (and an eligible write-in candidate in 7 more). So far in 2016, the Greens have secured ballot access for Stein in 24 states and are currently working to achieve it in 23 more. It's certain that she won't be on the ballot in Oklahoma, North Carolina, or Indiana.

The good news for the Greens is that they already have ballot access in the states with the highest populations, including the big 4 of California, Texas, New York, and Florida. The bad news for Sanders supporters is that Texas is one of only a handful of states whose "sore loser" laws would disqualify Sanders from appearing as a presidential candidate for the Green Party. (In most states, sore loser laws only affect candidates running for local or state races, but Texas, regrettably, has legal precedents for denying ballot access to national candidates as well.)

As of this writing, the Greens lack ballot access in 8 sparsely populated north-central states that, added together, carry the same weight in the electoral college as Texas' 38 votes: Utah (6), Idaho (4), Montana (3), North Dakota (3), South Dakota (3), Wyoming (3), Iowa (6), and Minnesota (10).

By Novemeber, the Greens will probably be on the ballot in most of those states, since they jumped through the hoops to qualify in 5 of them in 2012 (Utah, Idaho, North Dakota, Iowa, and Minnesota).

Missing out on ballot access anywhere in the country matters, of course, but for presidential candidates, it matters most in the states with the most votes in the electoral college. From any presidential candidate's perspective, it's simply more important to be on the ballot in Texas than in Wyoming.

If Bernie were at the top of the Green ticket--Texans wouldn't be able to vote for him. That matters even though Texas is a reliably Republican state because ballot access in Texas will help the Greens break through one of the most difficult barriers in American presidential politics: the 5% of the popular vote necessary to receive federal funding.

With Nina Turner as Stein's vice-presidential nominee, Texans will turn out in droves to support the Greens. Turner loves to quote one of the great slogans of Texas' own Barbara Jordan, who spent her career calling for "an America as good as its promise."

I live in Austin. Jordan is still legendary in these parts, and Turner strikes a powerful chord with Texans who were once inspired by figures such as Jordan (who is no longer with us) and Jim Hightower (who has been a vocal surrogate for Bernie).

By running a Stein/Turner ticket, the Greens are sure to get tens of thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of votes from Texans who simply wouldn't be allowed to vote for a Sanders/Stein ticket.

Nominating Turner for VP is the smartest play the Greens can make for numerous reasons. I read earlier that Turner considers herself a reformer who intends to work within the Democratic Party, but I hope she will reconsider.

N re 2green party VP @ninaturner has officially stated ‘She is a reformer & will continue her fight WITHIN t/Democrat party' @MSNBC

— Tezlyn Figaro (@TezlynFigaro) August 1, 2016

Turner can help us all tremendously by recognizing the truth of Stein's assertion that it's hard to have a revolution within a counterrevolutionary party.

***

Update: This post became moot when Jill Stein named Ajamu Baraka as her running mate. Here's a quick video from Tim Black that plugs Baraka:

Jill Stein's VP pick, Ajamu Baraka is an EXCELLENT choice, here's why! @DrJillStein @ajamubaraka #Greenparty pic.twitter.com/HTNr8laXSW

— Tim Black ™ (@TimBartender) August 2, 2016

My Dog Has More Sense Than Noam Chomsky

My dog Twinkie fears two household items: vacuum cleaners and bathtubs.

The roar of the vacuum scares her simply because it’s loud and annoying. She’s never had an unpleasant experience with a vacuum. There’s no traumatic tale of a suction accident in her puppyhood. She just hates and fears the racket instinctively—so much so that she will do whatever gymnastics are necessary to avoid coming within five feet of a running vacuum. 

As for bathtubs, they didn’t scare her until she learned to associate them with becoming wet and miserable.

She reacts to the sound of the vacuum running and of tap water filling the downstairs bathtub in exactly the same way. As soon as she hears either one, she freezes and then, sneakily, peers left and right, plotting the course of her escape.

One night I happened to be vacuuming the hallway just as my wife was preparing the bathtub for Twinkie, who was napping in the bedroom between us.

The nightmare clatter of the vacuum and the filling tub roused her to the doorway.

First she looked my way—presumably to see if the vacuum cleaner was far enough down the hall for her to clear it at a safe distance on her way to the doggie door.

No chance. The hallway was blocked.

She looked the other way and saw my wife approaching with her sleeves rolled up and a towel over her shoulder.

We chuckled at each other as poor Twinkie gulped in terror. For a moment, she seemed paralyzed. 

But then she made up her mind. She bolted towards me and leapt over the vacuum.

She fears the vacuum because of what it might do to her—not because of anything it’s actually done. But the bathtub makes her miserable every time she’s plunged into it, so her decision wasn't difficult.

She evaluated her options and made the correct choice.

I wish Noam Chomsky could be as clear-headed as my dog.

On one hand, Chomsky must be smarter than Twinkie because he explains the role the corporate media plays in manufacturing consent far more lucidly than my dog can. 

But on the other hand, Twinkie must be smarter than Chomsky because she understands that sometimes we have to overcome our fears of the unknown if we want to avoid an outcome that we know in advance to be miserable.

Donald Trump is as loud and annoying as any vacuum. Most of us share the instinct to steer clear of him.

Hillary Clinton makes a much more soothing sound. The gentle whoosh of flowing water is attractive to us even if there’s lead in it.

But what do Clinton’s benign words about fighting for ordinary folks really portend? Presumably the same things they’ve always portended: 1) people of color being shipped off to prisons at disproportionate rates to perform slave labor; 2) fossil fuels being called “clean” as long as their pollution takes the form of invisible methane leaks instead of visible smoke; 3) helpless women and children being championed on camera while they are systematically murdered and displaced behind the scenes as a direct result of compulsive international meddling; and 4) American citizens being deprived of the basic protections of citizenship against international corporate profiteers through instruments such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Clinton calls herself a progressive who gets things done.

She’s right—as long as your idea of progress involves enslaving an ever-broadening swath of the American population to pay for wars that they never asked for—wars that are somehow supposed to make us safer from terrorists by killing innocent civilians all over the world.

If that thoroughly predictable future is less frightening to Chomsky than the unknowns associated with a Trump presidency, he needs a phobiametric recalibration.

But the most frustrating thing about Chomsky’s coerced-by-the-circumstances endorsement of Clinton is that it buys into the very binary logic we must explode. When you get trapped in a binary, the mistake is almost always to race towards one extreme or the other.

Twinkie didn’t charge towards the vacuum to embrace it. She took the risk of coming too close to it so that she could escape to safety. Life presented her a choice between the vacuum and the bathtub, and she selected option #3: the doggie door.

For me, option #3 will be Bernie Sanders until he refuses to run any longer. I think the abundant evidence of election fraud and voter suppression in this year’s primary process may yet prove that Clinton’s campaign lacks much of the support it claims. I think it’s possible (though improbable) that James Comey of the FBI and Attorney General Loretta Lynch will hold Clinton to the same standard of law as any other American entrusted with classified information. I admit that superdelegates are unlikely to betray their donors by representing their constituents, but I remain hopeful that enough Americans will rally in Philadelphia on July 25th to pressure the Democratic Party as dramatically as Icelanders pressured their government leaders in the wake of the Panama Papers scandal. Non-violent assembly can be very persuasive when it occurs on a large enough scale. 

Maybe that’s all wishful thinking.

Maybe the Democrats really will decide that the recipe for winning the presidency is to nominate a widely despised candidate under criminal investigation—as long as her opponent is Donald Trump.

If that’s their decision and Sanders subsequently endorses Clinton, then Chomsky is free to run towards misery with his vote.

As for me, I prefer to face the dangers associated with coming too close to Trump in order to move towards a brighter, safer, healthier, saner world. Even if Sanders becomes a fearmongering party hack on Clinton’s behalf, I’ll attempt to jump over Trump by supporting Jill Stein.

The strategy of jumping will work if enough people who are paying attention (such as Chomsky and the swing state voters he hopes to influence) are willing to vote out of hope instead of fear. 

But what if it doesn’t work? What if Stein shaves off just enough votes for us to land on the surreal comb-over of an orange-faced vacuum?

That’s still preferable to ending up miserable for a minimum of four years.

The vacuum will be loud and annoying. Everyone who hears it will try to turn it off or unplug it. Frightening though it sounds, the vacuum probably isn’t going to eat us even if we land on it. 

As for the tub, we know for a certainty that it will leave us wet, shivering, and miserable. 

I don’t care how pleasant the bath tap sounds relative to the vacuum. I cannot in good conscience choose the path that leads to poisoning the planet, enslaving my fellow citizens, and murdering/displacing innocent civilians all over the globe.

I won’t be taking my cue on this one from a graying academic—however highly regarded he may be. Instead, I’ll be following the lead of a mutt rescued from a local pound. This vacuum-bathtub binary is unacceptable, so I’m taking my chances on reaching the doggie door whether I succeed or not.

Call me a low-information voter if it makes you feel better. Depict me as an unwashed mongrel if you like. But even if there is something canine about my rationale, I fail to see anything humane about Chomsky’s.

It’s really that simple. Bernie or bust.