Green Party

Is The Green Party’s Jill Stein a Serious Candidate?

If voters don’t like Trump or Clinton as presidential candidates, does that leave Green Party nominee Jill Stein as a viable option?

Not according to a poll released last Tuesday that gives Stein 2% of Texas voter support, the same percentage that supports Harambe, the gorilla shot and killed at the Cincinnati Zoo after a 3-year-old boy fell into his closure. The same poll has Stein trailing Deez Nuts, the satirical

politician, who is actually 15-year-old Iowan Brady Olson.

Stranger yet, this is the second Public Policy Polling survey showing support for the dead gorilla who had 5% of the vote a few weeks ago over Stein, a Harvard-educated doctor. The political arena is really just a bizarre circus.

Continuing to walk the tightrope is Stein, the Green Party candidate who’s been loudly touted as a vaccine conspiracy nut by media and the public. Yet, she is still considered to be a serious candidate (well, at least by 2% of Texas voters polled).

So serious that on her own website, it says, Stein, who was the Green Party’s 2012 candidate, holds the current record for most votes ever received by a woman candidate for President of the United States in a general election.

She is a doctor with an Ivy League degree.

She isn’t Trump or Clinton.

She is not corrupt, at least that’s what she says. She also provides a choice for “disgruntled Bernie backers” who ideologically have more in common with the “progressive medical doctor than the neo-liberal Democratic nominee,” according to RT.

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

Snopes even stepped in earlier this month to debunk “myths” that Dr. Stein is anti-science and anti-vaccine. She is not the anti-vaccinating conspiracy theorist people have accused her to be.

“Dr. Stein’s stated position is that she ‘supports vaccinations’ and acknowledges that ‘we have a real compelling need for vaccinations,’ so it’s not true to say that she is on record as holding an anti-vaccination political position,” according to Snopes.

“I think there’s no question that vaccines have been absolutely critical in ridding us of the scourge of many diseases — smallpox, polio, etc. So vaccines are an invaluable medication,” Stein said.

“Like any medication, they also should be — what shall we say — approved by a regulatory board that people can trust,” Stein said. “And I think right now, that is the problem. That people do not trust a Food and Drug Administration, or even the CDC for that matter, where corporate influence and the pharmaceutical industry has a lot of influence.”

She mentions smallpox and polio, which are pretty old-school diseases.

What does she think about vaccines for more common illnesses such as influenza and pneumococcal?

Other media outlets have come to her defense as well saying, Stein, like many people, has ‘concerns’ about the effects of GMOs and pesticides.

But Stein’s vagueness also leads Snopes to add: “However, her somewhat equivocal statements surrounding that issue allow for a fair bit of leeway and interpretation — many others who proclaim to ‘support vaccinations’ in concept effectively undercut their positions by raising objections to the ‘vaccination process’ or the ‘vaccination industry.’”

It’s not that she opposes vaccines, it’s the terminology she uses to describe her position, which is consistent with a conspiracy theorist, according to an article in Patheos.

Nobody these days really comes right out and says they are “anti-vaxxers.”

“I received dozens of comments from Dr. Stein’s supporters cheering what they took to be a strong anti-vaccination message: They said her statements were, for them, proof of a government conspiracy covering up harm from vaccines, that we should stop vaccinating our children, or vaccinate for fewer diseases, or ignore vaccine schedules,”  Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician who heads both the Division of Infectious Diseases and the Vaccine Education Center at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia said. “So the concern that she’s sowing vaccine distrust isn’t hypothetical or exaggerated, it’s very real and already happening.”

The Huffington Post has written several articles against Stein which say she is a peddler of fear and paranoia and a panderer to the fringe.

She also doesn’t have any political experience which people are quick to point out on social media.

In the comments section of this PBS article, some guy named Steve said: “Stein would never recommend that her patients go to a quack, why does she think that governing a country doesn’t take training and specific knowledge, too?”

Stein may at least be right when she called her opponents the “most disliked and untrusted candidates for president in our history.”

But with a national average of 3.6% of the vote, which isn’t enough to qualify her for the presidential debate in September, it’s going to be tough for her to do anything of note this election.

RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in the world. You can write for us.

Cover Photo Credit: Paul Stein/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

New Numbers Show Why Bernie Sanders Really Could Swing The Election To Trump

Back in May, I posted an article here on RISE NEWS discussing whether or nor Bernie Sanders could spoil the election for Hillary Clinton.

But things have changed from May to now.

In the May article, I stated the following:

“According to a poll jointly conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News that was published on Tuesday, 31% of Sanders supporters say they may not or will not support Clinton in the general election. 64.5% of that 31% (or 20% of all Sanders supporters) say that they will vote for Trump.

When you take into account that 43.4% of all Democrats support Sanders (according to the latest RealClearPolitics average), this translates into 13.5% of all Democrats refusing to vote for Clinton, and 8.7% of all Democrats voting for Trump.

And remember, this poll was taken before the convention, whose outcome is now going to be determined by superdelegates, because of how close the race has been.”

The above information was posted prior to a series of developments that have since taken place, and are likely to make Clinton’s problems with Sanders supporters worse, despite the fact that all the primaries are finished and Sanders is reportedly expected to endorse Clinton prior to the convention despite being within range of clinching the nomination through superdelegates.

There are three developments in particular that stand out for me.

It is still an open question as to whether young voters who supported Sanders will  come around to Clinton. Photo Credit: Phil Roeder/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

It is still an open question as to whether young voters who supported Sanders will come around to Clinton. Photo Credit: Phil Roeder/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

The first is the leak of a memo from the servers of the Democratic National Committee by a hacker called “Gufficer 2.0,” which points to the idea that the DNC had been secretly backing Clinton all along, as Sanders has previously claimed.

Since this leak took place, Clinton’s standing among Sanders supporters have only worsened.

As of June 22, the percentage of Sanders supporters that may not or will not support Clinton has shot up from 31% to 45%. 48.9% of that 45% (or 22% of all Sanders supporters) say that they will vote for Donald Trump.

40% of that 45% (or 18% of all Sanders supporters) say that they will vote for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson.

When you take into account that 41.4% of all Democrats support Sanders (according to the latest RealClearPolitics average), this translates into 18.6% of all Democrats refusing to vote for Clinton, 9.1% of all Democrats voting for Trump, and 7.5% of all Democrats voting for Johnson.

The second development is the recent decisions by the FBI and the Department of Justice to not indict Hillary Clinton over her alleged mishandling of government emails while serving as Secretary of State.

Given that the announcements were made just after former President Bill Clinton met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch, accusations of a rigged system have increased.

Notable and influential Sanders supporters such as Rosario Dawson, Shaun King, and Mark Ruffalo have openly denounced the outcome of the FBI’s investigation of Clinton on Twitter, and I have seen friends of mine do the same on social media.

Photo Credit: Phil Roeder/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

Photo Credit: Phil Roeder/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

This development actually took place after the most recent poll on Sanders supporters was released, so expect the percentage of supporters who are disillusioned to go up further.

The third development is the alleged report that presumptive Green Party nominee Jill Stein is considering allowing Sanders to take her place and continuing his run after the Democratic National Convention.

Although it is not yet known how much such a move (Sanders still hasn’t endorsed Clinton yet, so anything can still happen until he does) would affect Clinton’s presidential chances, it would be wise for Clinton to make sure she doesn’t find out, especially given other recent events.

At the end of my May article, I stated that an opportunity awaits for both Clinton and Trump to make something out of a scenario that could make or break them. I reaffirm that belief, and say that it is now more apparent than ever.

If you are politically active, I suggest that you work to make sure the best is made out of this situation for your candidate.

After all, good candidates listen to their bases!

RISE NEWS is a grassroots journalism news organization that is working to change the way young people become informed and engaged in public affairs. You can write for us.

Cover Photo Credit: Phil Roeder/ Flickr (CC By 2.0)

Scroll to top