Jill Stein elects Trump

Today's Poll:  Clinton 39 Trump 38    

Green and Libertarian Candidates change everything. 

The election discussion focuses on Clinton and Trump.  But there are two other candidates in the race, the Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party candidate Jill Stein.   When they are listed as choices Hillary Clinton's lead evaporates:

Clinton    39

Trump     38

Johnson 10

Stein       6

The GOP is divided over Trump, and the one unifying principle for Republicans is hating Hillary.  Sanders voters are asked to unify to stop Trump.  The campaigns'  focus is on fear and pushing up the negative of the alternative.

On the ballot in states colored green

But there are alternatives:  The Libertarian Party is on the ballot in all 50 states and the Green Party is on the ballot in some 21 currently, with more coming.   These include the swing battleground states of Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Colorado, and New Mexico.

The Libertarian Party can draw some Sanders voters.   They are openly pro-marijuana legalization.   That will be a draw for some single issue voters.   But the bigger threat to Clinton's prospects is a reprise of the 2000 election, where a Nader-type candidate splits the white progressive vote.    The Sanders campaign has set up this scenario.   He has rung the bell saying that Hillary is essentially corrupted by the current political system and that bell cannot be un-rung.

The Green Party nominee, Jill Stein, has the full suite of liberal environmental views of a Ralph Nader/Bernie Sanders: uncompromising on the environment, anti-corporation, anti toxic waste, anti fossil fuel, universal health, and so on.   She was the Green Party candidate for president in 2012 and is again this year.   If you like Sanders you will love Jill Stein. 

Jill Stein.   No, I did not date her in college.

The purpose of this blog post is to introduce Jill Stein and put her onto the mental radar of my readers.   Stein is a Massachusetts physician and was two years behind me in college, Harvard-Radcliffe 1973.   This blog would be more fun if I could say that I dated her back in 1969 and 1970.   I could have dated her.  I dated a couple of her classmates in the Harvard class of 1973.  But not her.  I cannot report how tidy she kept her dorm room, what we talked about while we smoked pot, whether she sang along to the Beatles and knew the words to Day in the Life.  Nope.  I know nothing.    We may well have been in a class or two together but we never met that I remember.   Sorry.

What I do know is that many of my progressive friends consider Hillary Clinton to be different from Trump but no less dangerous for America, and indeed they consider her more dangerous than Trump.   The thinking is that Trump is an obviously dangerous clown who, if elected, will destroy the GOP as a viable party.   There will be 4 years of chaos and out of the ashes of a GOP disaster could come a new era in politics.   The election of Hillary Clinton, however, would be an affirmation that the current system of campaign finance, of corporate influence, of compromise and incremental change still works.  It needs reform, and Hillary would work at that, but she would be reforming--therefore affirming--the legitimacy of the status quo.

Some subset of those people will want to "vote their conscience" and will not vote for Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.   Jill Stein is the nice, clean, uncompromising alternative to Hillary.   

Will she have the money to run a real campaign?   Possibly. 

Bernie's supporters gave millions to him in small amounts.  She might get contributions the same way.  

In thinking of this campaign as a matter of game theory and leverage I consider strategic support for Jill Stein to be a very clever way to elect Donald Trump.

Ask yourself the question:  What would the Koch brothers do?   Or more precisely, what should they do to leverage their money in the post Citizens United world??

There is little need to spend big money to advertise for Trump; Trump is known.   And people who hate Hillary have all the information they need.   I suspect that tens of millions of dollars spent on ads for or against Trump and Clinton would have little value.   No need to pile on to the ads trashing Hillary from the right.

But if the election is anywhere near close in the swing states Jill Stein presents an opportunity.   Conservatives, via SuperPACs with names like "Environmentalist Women to Stop Climate Change" or "Citizens Against Special Interest Money" or "Women against Fracking" might go big in support of Stein.  The money would come from Trump supporters but the ads would appear to be from the pure and uncompromising left. 

A few tens of millions of dollars in ads urging progressives not to waste their vote on evil Hillary and instead to send a message of environmental health and freedom from corporate influence by voting for Jill Stein might well get traction.  Messages like:   Don't compromise!  Or, Cast your vote for the brave outspoken woman who totally opposes fracking.   Or, vote for the woman without contributions from energy companies.

Nader drew votes from environmentalists and Gore's negatives were much lower than are Hillary Clinton's.  Jill Stein can draw votes that Hillary needs to win.   Jill Stein can be the Ralph Nader of 2016. 

It would be a cynical and hypocritical move for the Koch Brothers, if by October they decided they would rather elect Trump than Clinton.   But it would also be a smart and effective move.   Will they do this?   I don't know.   But they could.