Democrats are sharpening their political knives for Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein before November’s election, a change in strategy compared to earlier in the cycle when party operatives were concerned they could elevate her with criticism.
But with independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suspending his campaign and endorsing former President Donald Trump, Democrats are ramping up their attempts to counter any appeal Stein may have for otherwise Vice President Kamala Harris voters, determined to learn from 2016 Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton‘s mistakes eight years ago.
The 2024 election, similar to the 2016 contest between Trump and Clinton, will likely be decided by roughly 100,000 votes in seven battleground states. But unlike 2016, Democrats this cycle are adamant that they will not wake up on the morning of Nov. 6 with regrets regarding their posture toward third-party and independent candidates, which many in the party contend are the reason Clinton lost that year.
The Democratic National Committee and outside Democratic-associated groups, such as liberal political action committee MoveOn and center-left think tank Third Way, are leading the endeavor against Stein as opposed to the Harris campaign as the party tries to undermine Stein without providing her with a platform.
“At Third Way, we’ve been working for over a year to make sure voters understand that a vote for a third party candidate is effectively a vote for Donald Trump — it’s true for RFK Jr. and it’s true for Jill Stein,” Third Way senior adviser Caitlin Legacki told the Washington Examiner.
In a MoveOn and Third Way memo this month, the two organizations promised “to hold these dangerous candidates and their funders and enablers accountable in the media, identify and empower voices who can amplify our message, and resource the groups on the front lines.”
“Stein’s vote total alone was enough to flip Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to Donald Trump in 2016,” they wrote. “Third-party candidates are polling high enough in more than half the battlegrounds to potentially lock the Democratic ticket out of a victory. Democrats, and our country, cannot afford to let history repeat itself.”
To that end, Democrats last week circulated Stein’s interview with former MSNBC host Mehdi Hassan during which she declined to explicitly describe Russian President Vladimir Putin as “a war criminal.”
“What we said about Putin was that his invasion of Ukraine is criminal. It’s a criminal and murderous war,” Stein said.
“He’s a war criminal who should be on trial?” Hassan asked.
“By implication,” she replied.
— Keith Edwards (@keithedwards) September 16, 2024
Earlier this month, Democrats also shared Stein’s sit-down on the Breakfast Club in which she scrutinized Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) for taking her “marching orders” from the DNC. Beforehand on Instagram, Ocasio-Cortez had called Stein “predatory,” “not serious,” and someone who runs for president every four years but does not grow her political movement. Stein did not seek the presidency in 2020.
“The one thing AOC has done that you haven’t is win some elections,” Breakfast Club host Angela Rye said.
— Keith Edwards (@keithedwards) September 12, 2024
Allegations related to Stein and Russia date back to 2015 when she and former Trump national security adviser Michael Flynn were photographed at a dinner with Putin in Moscow. A 2018 Senate-commissioned report also alleged that Russian agents promoted Stein on social media in 2016.
“Whether it’s voters who care about the climate or voters who care about preserving our democracy, we want them to know that Jill Stein’s campaign is built on Russian talking points, she has long admired dictators and is a total hypocrite about ‘leading’ the Green Party while holding nearly $100,000 in oil and gas stocks,” Third Way’s Legacki said.
The Stein campaign dismissed the criticism as “the usual tired and debunked lines of being a spoiler or a Putin puppet.”
“The corporate-owned parties representing the forces of [the] empire know their days are numbered,” Stein campaign manager Jason Call told the Washington Examiner. “Working people are tired of being thrown under the bus with low wages, unaffordable housing, healthcare, and education and see the billionaire class reaping exorbitant wealth on the backs of labor exploitation. They are waking up to the fact that neither of the MAGA duopoly parties are representing their interests.”
Acknowledging Democratic concerns about aiding her, Call added the Stein campaign not only welcomed the scrutiny but is encouraging it, arguing the candidate is “not giving it any consideration.”
“The more Democrats attack us, the more exposure our ideas are given to people who are looking for real alternatives,” he said.
Stein will appear on the ballot in at least five battleground states: Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. She is also anticipated to be on the ballot in Georgia, though Democratic legal challenges are ongoing. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled earlier this month that Stein could not be on the Silver State’s ballot after Democrats took action against her.
“Because both major parties are expecting tight results in the battleground states that will decide the presidency, there has been more than the usual amount of interest [in] how minor party and independent candidates might affect the results,” University of Wisconsin-Madison Elections Research Center Director Barry Burden told the Washington Examiner. “Republicans have been assisting Kennedy in his efforts to get off the ballot assuming that his departure provides more votes for Trump. Republican allies have also been assisting progressive Cornel West with ballot access under the assumption that he would take votes from Harris.”
In the critical blue wall states of Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, Stein is averaging 1% of the vote in Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and less than 1% in Michigan, according to RealClearPolitics.
In 2016, Trump won Wisconsin by less than a percentage point or 22,748 votes, with Stein receiving 31,072 votes. But Burden predicted Stein may not earn as many votes in 2024 as she did in 2016 when she “benefitted from progressives’s dissatisfaction with the political establishment,” particularly now that demographic appears “newly energized by the Harris campaign.”
“Studies of Stein voters show that many of them would have not voted or would have supported Trump had the Green Party candidate not been on the ballot,” Burden said. “Memories of 2016 also ignore that the Libertarian ticket drew even more votes than Stein and probably hurt Trump more than Stein hurt Clinton.”
“Only anger over the administration’s handling of Gaza will draw some liberal voters in Stein’s direction,” he added.
In Michigan, home to one of the country’s largest Arab American and Muslim American communities, a similar dynamic will be at work. In 2016, Trump won the Wolverine State by less than a point, or 10,704 votes, with Stein notching 51,463 votes.
“This election is different than 2016,” a longtime Michigan Democratic activist told the Washington Examiner. “Both Stein and West are threats to Harris in Michigan because they are appealing to Arab American voters upset over the Biden administration’s Middle East policy to vote for them rather than Harris.”
And then in 2016, Trump won Pennsylvania by less than a point or 44,292 votes, with Stein getting 49,941 votes.
Franklin & Marshall College Center for Opinion Research Director Berwood Yost agreed with Burden that 2016 and 2024 can be differentiated in that there are “far fewer voters who dislike both candidates and who are looking for a third-party alternative.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
“Trump has not won a 50% majority in either race he’s run in PA, so I imagine Democrats are concerned about anything that would allow him to win again without achieving a clear majority of votes,” Yost told the Washington Examiner. “In a close race, their presence on the ballot could matter, but I don’t think they matter as much now as they would have if Biden had stayed in the race and nearly 1-in-5 voters was unhappy about the choices they had.”