[GPCA-SGA-Votes] Discussion On Items ID 144, 146, 148, 150, 151, 152 & 155: Endorsing Non-Green Candidates For Statewide Office

[Genevieve Marcus]

And what if the voters love her and next time she says she is considering
running as a Green because.....

Genevieve Marcus

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:33 PM, Victoria Ashley <victronix01 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Given the long history of Greens becoming Democrats when it suits them, as
> they move up the ladder, it is actually quite a victory that Gayle
> McLaughlin chose NOT to become a Democrat In order to run a statewide
> campaign, and could easily have done so and probably won the Lieutenant
> Governor seat.
>
> By running as No Party Preference, she presents a huge conundrum for the
> Democrats. If they try to decimate her, they will further alienate the tons
> of Bernie Democrats who have already endorsed her. And if they do not, then
> a rogue actor is in their territory.
>
> Will the Sierra Club endorse her?  This presents a conundrum for them too,
> with their long history of endorsing Democrats-only (even ones who were
> later taken away in handcuffs by the FBI).
>
> Gayle shook things up by running NPP, all around, and now everyone has to
> think a bit more about where they stand and what they believe.
>
> That this would be somewhat divisive within the Green Party is inevitable.
> It’s a normal response and shows that we are diverse in our thinking.
>
> Currently I see us arguing about Party versus people.  But really, of
> course, we all agree on wanting a better world here in California.
>
> The arguments for Party loyalty are bringing up concerns about the
> long-term impact on people, if the Green Party allows or supports
> candidates defecting with no consequence.  The basic premise is that the
> Green Party is good for people and we must support it and grow it for that
> reason. I think we’re all in agreement on that basic underlying idea.
>
> And the arguments for people over Party are concerned about the near term
> impact on people if a Democrat wins, and not Gayle - they see this as an
> important opportunity to shake up the stranglehold by Democrats on our
> state government - now, this year.  I think we can all agree, given the
> large number of endorsements she already has by Progressive Democrats,
> County Greens, P&F and others, that she has one of the most powerful
> non-corporate statewide campaigns to potentially win the election.
>
> Importantly, this is not a debate about platform and issues – – this is
> something else.  Her decisions, her votes, her work as a Lieutenant
> Governor are likely all what we would agree with, and what the vast
> majority of Californians would agree with.
>
> This is about party loyalty, but also about the real-life day-to-day
> events for average people.
>
> While that sounds like a least-worst argument, we know that it is not,
> since we know that Gayle is actually a real Progressive through and
> through, and will never vote for war, or for oil, or for billionaires -
> that she will never vote in any of the ways we abhor.
>
> So that means that this is really only about a hypothesized outcome
> relating to party loyalty…
>
> On the one side there is the idea that her winning the race as an NPP will
> drain the Green Party of support, damage the party and create confusion,
> leading to a long-term loss overall for Greens.
>
> A different hypothesis might say that as an elected member of our state
> government, she could be an advocate for proportional representation and
> RCV, leading to an exponential *growth* of the Green Party.  She could
> advocate for everything we believe, from within the state government,
> because she is a true Progressive.
>
> To me, this is an amazing opportunity that I never thought would happen
> this soon. I think the risk of the more negative proposed future is worth
> the potential huge benefit of the positive outcome.
>
> - Victoria
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> > On Mar 26, 2018, at 9:35 AM, timeka drew <timekadrew at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Question: Would this mean that the Green Party could officially endorse
> candidates who are registered other than Green, even when there is a
> registered Green running against them? While I agree with the premise that
> good people should be endorsed, I worry that elevating non-Greens over
> those willing to commit to the party may make us more likable by
> non-Greens, but could weaken Green interest in running. Grassroots Green
> candidates may feel intimidated that they won’t get the endorsement over
> more seasoned “good” Democrats or others who may not take corporate funding
> as an individual candidate, but work within, get benefits from & support a
> machine that does. How would this non-corporate sponsored eligibility for
> endorsement be determined?
> >
> > “As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet
> who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are
> able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic
> advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best
> candidate.”
> >
> >> On Mar 25, 2018, at 3:11 PM, Eric Brooks <brookse32 at hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> As it stands, people who want to “throw their hat in the ring” and yet
> who have no track record with the Green Party or allied organizations are
> able to register Green and use our ballot line, and get an automatic
> advantage in the endorsement process, even though they may not be the best
> candidate.
> >
> > --
> > gpca-votes mailing list
> > gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> > https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>
> --
> gpca-votes mailing list
> gpca-votes at sfgreens.org
> https://list.sfgreens.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpca-votes
>



-- 
*"We have it in our power to begin the world over again." - Thomas Paine,
Common Sense, 1776 *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://list.sfgreens.org/pipermail/gpca-votes/attachments/20180326/89920f7b/attachment.html>