I'm assuming they mailed everyone registered Green/Libertarian; my wife answered a Democratic door-to-door canvasser the other day and so possibly they marked us as Greens after speaking with her.
Regardless, a few things come to mind after receiving this.
First, someone spent a good chunk of money mailing to Greens and Libertarians. That indicates to me a level of fear, that the 3rd parties may have significantly more support than the media wants to admit. Johnson is doing pretty well, and Stein is about at 5% in the poll they cite, which is good for party building. Obviously I hope she does much better than this, but if she does get 5% of the vote, the Green party immediately qualifies for federal funding next election, and is immediately on the ballot in many states. The Greens had to spend a lot of time money and energy this cycle fighting to get on the ballot, so it would be a huge help for growing the party next election cycle.
Secondly, the reasoning on the back is not very convincing to me. On the left, they cite Obama and Bernie as a "Join the Bandwagon" argument. Which is of course not really an argument.
The real issue though are the 5 points on the right. I'll copy them below in case its hard to read, then add commentary.
1. "Like it or not, we live in a two-party political system. Does that need to change? Maybe, but the two-party system is our reality."
This is completely missing the point on why many people vote third party, and actually encourages me even more to vote Green. We do live in effectively a two-party political system. It does need to change, not "maybe". There is no law, no section of the constitution, that requires that we use the first-past-the-goal-post method of voting or that we only have two parties. I am specifically voting Green because I want to break the two-party system that has been American reality in modern history (note that historically, America has had many parties, and today's modern GOP was actually initially a "protest" third party against the historically-dominant Whig party).
I think the GOP has become exceedingly right wing, and the Democratic party has become too right wing -- albeit more moderate than the GOP, but right wing regardless. Note that I meant right wing in the sense of economic policy here; yes, Democrats don't generally make a big deal about gay marriage, but that's not what I'm talking about. We need a progressive vision for America in all debates and discussions, not just a moderately right wing and a super right wing party. I'm voting Green to have another option that actually represents my views.
So I think this statement not only fails, but is even somewhat antagonistic.
2. There are only two people with a chance to win this election -- Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.
This is very likely true, based on polling and historical trends. I don't argue that it is a big uphill climb for third party candidates. What I do argue with is that this statement again implies the two-party system is unchanging. It wouldn't be impossible, depending on the mood of the electorate, for a third party candidate to win. More likely, enough people will vote third party that there is no clear electoral college winner. I don't think anyone has a clear view into who would be president in that scenario; the House would vote on the President, but seeing as so many GOP are anti-Trump, it's entirely possible they'd compromise on Clinton... or more intriguingly, perhaps some other candidate.
This statement also assumes that your only goal is to elect someone that "can win", as if the presidency is the only office that matter. It is definitely important, but Congress also is. Even if Stein or Johnson are unlikely to win -- even in the electoral college loss scenario -- your vote still matters, because a party that gets 5% nationally is guaranteed federal funding and ballot access next election cycle. You can vote for someone you know is likely to lose, because you want to see a party that represents your values grow. I want to see more Green candidates running for office, and that happens if the party gets more funding and ballot access. That doesn't happen if you continue to vote status quo.
This statement wasn't statistically wrong, but leaving out a lot of important details to keep you locked into the idea of a two-party system.
3. Donald Trump is an uncompromising racist and bigot, who says and does incredibly offensive things. He's attacked immigrants, the disabled, veterans, and even said climate change is a "hoax".
4. Hillary Clinton is the most qualified option. She believes everyone should be treated fairly, regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation.
I think points 3 and 4 have to be looked at together.
I am glad Clinton's official statement believes in fairness. But that statement is easy; Notice it only talks about fairness and not her actual policies. Let's compare Trump and Clinton.
- "Donald Trump attacks immigrants". But, Obama has deported more immigrants under midnight raids than Bush or past presidents. Clinton previously defended deporting immigrants, even children fleeing violence, and is very likely to continue those policies. Her campaign has stated she will not do so as president, but given her past record, one would have to ask if she will actually follow through or is just going after votes.
- "Donald Trump attacks veterans". But Clinton voted for Iraq war, was the architect of Libya, which is now a failing state, and is calling for more involvement in Syria, potentially putting more soldiers at risk and creating more veterans.
- "Donald Trump attacks climate change". But Clinton as Secretary of State pushed for more fracking worldwide, which contributes to environmental pollution and climate change. She could have pushed for clean energy programs if she believed in them, but she didn't. Sure, on paper she believes in climate change, but her actions don't show someone that is very concerned with it.
- While she now believes everyone should be treated fairly, she didn't as recently as 2013, when she finally flipped on gay marriage. Previously, she strongly argued in favor of marriage being a "sacred bond" between a man and a woman only.
The Wikileaks is also exposing many instances of pay-to-play, where Clinton used her clout as Secretary of State to get favorable deals for countries that donated to her. Is that what you mean by being "most qualified", that she knows more world leaders with civil rights violations that regularly donate to her? The story about Clinton from Elizabeth Warren about how Clinton quickly changed her stance on banking laws once she became a Senator and started accepting campaign donations.
In no way am I saying that I support Trump or think he is a better pick than Clinton. My point here is that, despite what they're trying to convince you of, Clinton is not a good pick either if you care about these issues.
Stein and the Greens are the only ones that are proposing a more compassionate immigration policy, diplomacy over weapons and warfare, aggressively combating climate change, and civil rights.
5. A vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson is a vote for Donald Trump. It's not a protest or a statement - it just puts Donald Trump one step closer to appointing Supreme Court justices and controlling our military.
No, a vote for Stein is a vote for Stein and her policies. End of story. That's how voting works; I pick who I want to win. I reject the false two-party narrative that you only vote to stop someone. My vote is absolutely a statement. I don't view it as a protest, because I am voting for the candidate and platform I prefer. If I wanted to protest, I would vote Vermin Supreme.
The scare tactics here with Trump are also pretty strong.
First, Supreme Court. If Trump appoints a strongly conservative candidate, can't Democrats block the nomination as the Republicans have to Obama's appointee? If the Democrats don't have the strength or willpower to stop it, then they are a failing party and it will happen regardless my vote. What I'm more concerned about is that Trump and Clinton will both compromise and pick an exceedingly pro-corporate "moderate" justice that will continue to uphold legal concepts like "corporations are people" that have allowed unlimited money to flow into politics. Obama's pick Merrick Garland is in this mold; prior to appointment by Obama, many Republicans had praised him as a great Supreme Court justice. Why are you so afraid of Trump appointing when Republican-leaning justices when Obama has done so and Clinton will likely do so as well? Also, keep in mind that Supreme Court is not the end-all; for cases important enough, we can overturn the Supreme Court with a constitutional amendment. If our representatives are not bold enough to support a national referendum on a constitutional amendment, then again, they have failed us as leaders and my vote for them wouldn't matter. Constitutional amendments were pretty common throughout American history until the most recent generation; it's time to change that. And via Article V of the constitution, we can get amendments without congressional support if necessary. I have faith in our citizens and our system.
Trump controlling the military is a bit of a scary thought, but consider this: much of the actual day to day decisions are handled by generals of the branches. Trump is, as far as we can trust him to not flip-flop, rather isolationist; he has advocated pulling out of the middle east and stopping more wars. Clinton meanwhile supported the Iraq invasion, the overthrow of Libya, and now wants to step up warfare actions in Syria. She's also blaming the Russians every time emails come out about her, which antagonizes them. Both of them could mean extended conflict. Again, the sensible choice is Stein and the Greens, which emphasizes humanitarian aid and the end of weapons sales to all sides of the conflict, to be enforced by embargoes and sanctions against any country arming any side of the conflict. The idea is without the flow of weapons feeding conflict, all sides would be more willing to negotiate diplomatically. Sanctions and embargoes got Iran to the negotiating table, so why wouldn't it work in Syria?
Overall, I find this mailer ridiculous. Stein and the Green party are the clear choice for this election.
