How Will Green Party Candidate Do Against Obama and Huckabee?
January 5th, 2008 by Ann Link
Sarah Lai Stirland blogged that “Illinois Democrat Barack Obama and Arkansas Republican Mike Huckabee surged to victory in the Iowa caucuses Thursday evening, buoyed by popular support that was bolstered by Internet activism and organization. . . . Obama’s senior campaign manager David Axelrod credited the youth vote Thursday evening for his candidate’s success.”
What does this mean for the Green Party? Common sense would suggest that a party supporting a peaceful, sustainable future would be a natural choice for young voters who have the most to lose from a planet threatened by war and global warming. However, the Green Party has yet to see the type of breakthrough that Obama experienced in Iowa against Clinton whose self identification as the frontrunner was largely accepted without question by the media.
One of the challenges the Green Party faces in getting a critical mass of votes in New York has to do with our poor position on the ballot. The Syracuse Post-Standard stated in an editorial that Syracuse Common Council candidate Howie Hawkins’ name on the ballot was in “Antarctica under a swath of white space, on Row H.”
Poor coverage by the media is also an obstacle for the Green Party. Malachy McCourt, the 2006 Green Party candidate for Governor, and the other statewide candidates were not invited to the televised debates despite the fact that several fulfilled the criteria for inclusion, and many NY newspapers had no articles on their campaigns.
Some Green Party candidates break through despite the media blackout. Dave Lussier got 49.5% in his campaign for an Albany County legislature seat last fall, barely losing to a well-known candidate.
As many as seven candidates are seeking the Green Party presidential nomination this year. What will the Green Party candidate’s chances be against Iowa primary winners Obama and Huckabee if they go on to win the nomination? I welcome your comments below . . .
Posts
The Democratic Party presidential candidate who is nearest to being a Green on the basis of positions on the issues is Dennis Kucinich. He receives no ink, no air time and no money from big finance. Why? Because of his position on issues:
1] He’s co-author of HR676, for single payer universal health care.
2] He has consistently oppposed the war on Iraq since before it began
3] He opposed the USA Patriot Act from the start.
4] He’s against the death penalty.
5] He’s for affirmative action.
[By contrast, Obama talks vacuously of hope, change, youth, etc. He is all for truth and reconciliation, with its vague allusion to South Africa, where the end of [de jure] apartheid has meant that socially and economically everything remains as it was before, except that a handful of black people run the government in the interest of the same [white] economic interests that ruled during the era of de jure apartheid; now we have de facto apartheid, and the white rulers have been relieved of the burden of enforcement. Glenn Dixon [Black Agenda Report.com] has described Obama as the political twin of Hillary, “a corporate candidate,” who has raised big money from the places where big money is found, thus “all of Greenwich [i.e., the hedge fund fat cats] is for Barak Obama,” and “This guy’s a fraud,” says Dixon, he’s to the right of Illinois’ white senator, Dick Durbin. On the issues, apart from personal gender or “race” category, who’s campaign is more in the interest of women, blacks and the working class in general? Kucinich? Obama? H. Clinton? McKinney’s main problem, the main problem of the Greens, is that we are treated as non- persons by the big-finance commercial media, because its in their material interest to treat us as non-persons; as it’s in their interest to treat even Democrats who adopt a genuinely progressive stance.
-John Moran
Westside [Manhattan] Greens
We are at a very unique time where the country has the possibility of setting various historical precedents depending on who wins the Democrat and Republican nominations. We could see the first woman, first black, first Mormon, or first Latino elected president. But the important thing to keep in mind, as Greens, is how important are these precedents compared to a real progressive candidate that is right on the issues. It should also be kept in mind that of the seven possible Green candidates, tentatively including Elaine Brown, we have three women, three black people, one man of Lebanese descent, and one man of Native American descent. Obviously in terms of diversity the Green Party is way ahead of the Democrats and Republicans, but what we can initially conclude from the Iowa caucus is that voters might be ready for candidates that do not look like themselves. The next step is to win the debate on the issues for them to vote Green.
Darin Robbins
Steuben Greens
If the Green Party were offering an alternative while BEING an alternative in practice (not just theory), it would be blossoming as a Party. Instead, unfortunately, when people get ‘close’ they often experience politics as usual. Talk about needing change! If the Green Party were truly offering change – beyond ‘words’ – people would be flocking to it.
I don’t know who will ultimately be the Democratic nominee for president. I watched a good amount of the debate last night. I wasn’t impressed by any of them including Obama. John Edwards kept talking about what was going on with middle income families, never mind what poor people have to go through everyday to keep a roof over their heads. You know – I have to take back what I just said about John Edwards never mentioning the poor; he did, I forgot- he said 37 million people go to bed hungry at night and approximately 200,000 veterans are sleeping in the streets. I think if Obama ends up being the Democratic nominee for president- we should seriously consider, not running a candidate. Then again, may be we should run someone who is well known like Cynthia McKinney to push the Democrat even further to the Left, where we need them. I can see that Hillary Clinton believes she is entitled to be the nominee of the party, that attitude pisses me off, to no end. She will not get my vote no matter what she says. Obama is another matter entirely. I think a good amount of whites would vote for Obama for president, however, the people that run the show aren’t about to give a brother the most powerful job in the world. Frankly, I’m not that impressed by him, but if he were to get the nod – I would give him my vote, just because it’s time we had a change. Ater all, he is somwwhat different from what we’ve had for the last 200 years in this country.
Whatever candidates win the Dem and Republican nominations will have their unique sets of issues that will effect whoever WE pick in Chicago.
But the key here is that we can’t wait for the media, can’t dwell on ballot placement, nor can we be surprised when our issues and natural voter base seem to be co-opted by spin from the establishment. All of these remain things that we don’t have control over.
What we do have control over is our organization, our willingness to make commitments to take things to the next level, our candidates, our issue campaigns – all of these represent where we should be focusing our efforts.
Don’t like the media blackout? Let’s start our own paper and begin putting together internet-based television programs.
Want to make sure voters know who (and where on the ballot) we are going into Election Day? Give generously to campaigns, volunteer for every one you can and get involved earlier each election cycle.
Tired of Green issues being coopted? Work to start local, regional and state-wide issue campaigns to make sure the truth behind what we stand for doesn’t become compromised.
Things will never get easier than they are now; we will only see more resistance and more challenges with each success we achieve. We know this going in, so let’s focus less on what we cannot change right now and more on what we can.
How will a Green Party presidential candidate fare against a Democrat (such as Obama) and a Republican (such as Huckabee)?
The answer depends on a number of factors. The most important factor is how effectively the candidate and the Green Party campaigns. Most voters, including many Green-thinking people, are simply unaware that the Green Party exists. Just getting noticed (the political consultants call it “visibility”) is the single most important thing a Green Party candidate can do.
The second most important factor is the closeness of the race between the Democrat and the Republican. In an election that is not close, it is valid to argue that voting for the sure winner does not use your vote as effectively as voting for a sure loser with whom you agree on principle. And because of the Electoral College, the United States will actually hold 51 (50 states plus Washington D.C.) separate elections, most of which will be slam dunks. In all of the solidly Republican and solidly Democratic states (about 35 of them, including New York, Texas and California), it should be possible to convince many Green-thinking people to vote Green.
But this will only be possible if the Green Party candidate and the party itself campaigns effectively. Of course the media will be unlikely to cover us, and of course we won’t be invited to the debates, but a creative campaign can still reach millions of people.
In the best possible case, the Green Party candidate will get more than 5% of the vote and qualify the Green Party for federal funds in 2012.
The Green candidate would have to create a lot of buzz in the general election, akin to what Ron Paul is currently doing within the Republican Party.
This is not impossible if the candidates are lackluster (Clinton) or simply tired repeats of what we’ve seen before.
If the Dem nominee is Obama, he will certainly drift further to the right as soon as the nomination is secured and campaign donations start flooding in. This opens a gigantic gap between the image of Obama as a “change agent” and the reality. A well-run, well-funded Green campaign built on the model of someone like Ron Paul’s fund raising base might have a shot at getting 5%.
This is even more likely if the Republican nominee is Huckabee or McCain – Huckabee will simply be crushed beneath the treads of the Democrats as he appeals only to evangelical voters at this point. A McCain nomination would be equally disastrous for the Republicans; McCain fully supports the war in Iraq and is thus out of step with the overwhelming majority of Americans.
That being said, unless we raise a great deal of cash or the election is close, we’re likely to get very little media coverage. That will hurt us, as will the lack of ballot lines in many states.
If we intend to best our 2.7% of the national vote total we had best do a lot of legwork and fund raising between now and November. The trick will be selecting the candidate that will get us the best shot at media coverage, fund raising dollars, and will motivate whatever base we have to knock on doors, make phone calls, and raise awareness about the issues. Again, I use Ron Paul’s campaign as a model for this kind of grassroots support.