With membership at new lows and no electoral wins to their name, it’s time for the Greens to ditch the malignant narcissist who’s presided over its decline.

"How has Stein fared as a leader? By AOC’s perfectly reasonable standard, she’s done abysmally. As of July 2024, a mere 143 officeholders in the United States are affiliated with the Green Party. None of them are in statewide or federal offices. In fact, no Green Party candidate has ever won federal office. And Stein’s reign has been a period of indisputable decline, during which time the party’s membership—which peaked in 2004 at 319,000 registered members—has fallen to 234,000 today.

This meager coalition can’t possibly kick-start a legitimate political movement, capable of organizing voters and advancing ideas outside of perennial electoral events. It’s just large enough, however, to spoil the work of those who put in this kind of work."

  • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
    418·
    2 months ago

    I dont believe there is a single stated belief from Stein in the entire article

      • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
        46·
        2 months ago

        Ah its that darn work experience required but how do you get work experience paradox.

        By this logic we should never elect new politicians.

        • TachyonTele@lemm.ee
          41·
          2 months ago

          Has she held any positions at all? What does she do between running for president?

          22 years of campaigning, and never once held any office whatsoever. Truly a great leader!

          • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
            46·
            2 months ago

            How do you expect someone to get elected if being elected is a prerequisite.

            She continues political work. Talks, events, promoting other green party people. Stuff that doesnt make headlines.

              • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
                36·
                2 months ago

                The democratic senate nominee for my state also has never held a political office.

                  • blazera@lemmy.worldEnglish
                    15·
                    2 months ago

                    You just try to grab onto any difference you can see, starting with a conclusion that she’s bad and then working backwards trying to find a reason. She runs for president because that office is responsible for the bulk of issues she wants to address. To start, theyre called the green party for a reason, the president appoints the head of the EPA and Department of Energy. And foremost the president is head of the military, and she’s had a long outspoken position against the US’s absurd military. The expenses, the wars, the invasions, the abuse of human rights domestically. Throw in the departments of labor and homeland security and its a huge converging point for progressive goals.