In Donald Trump’s victory, Jill Stein may be partly responsible. Or so, at least, say the Democrats, who fought a battle for the vote with this 74-year-old doctor parallel to the contested race with Trump to stay in the White House.
With voices from around her and abroad encouraging her to stay at home, the Green party candidate is continuing to the end, not with the intention of winning, which is completely impossible, but with the objective of 5% of the votes to achieve allowing him to unlock funding for his party and “break the bipartisan control of American politics.” Also without success. In addition to the way he received support from a large number of voters, but also attacks from the Democratic Party, which he has come to accuse of sending “propaganda.”
The reason, a priori policies coincide with the Democratic discourse that could fragment the vote and tip the balance in favor of Trump, who finally won the elections with a clear advantage, breaking the trend of the polls, which predicted a long result higher .
A doctor and activist, Still, 74, was not a new candidate. She ran for president in 2012 and 2016 and ran unsuccessfully for governor of Massachusetts, her home state, in the state’s gubernatorial elections in 2002 and 2010.
Born in a Jewish reformed house in the shadow of the Holocaust, his platform is based on three pillars: anti-genocide, activist for the climate emergency. These are the ones who, in the opinion of the Democrats, could boycott Kamala’s campaign.
And his open criticism of US support for Israel He has struck a chord with the large Muslim and Arab-American communities in some states such as Michigan, gaining support from voters who have opted for the Democratic vote on previous occasions.
Dearborn, a suburb of Detroit Known as the birthplace of Henry Ford and the headquarters of the Ford Motor Company, it has a population of about 110,000, with 55 percent of residents claiming Middle Eastern or North African heritage. The city heavily endorsed President Joe Biden in 2020, narrowly helping him turn Michigan blue. The population’s vote for the Greens could serve to paint it red on this occasion
This has resulted in a tough battle to make a choice going into the polls for which Stein blames the Democrats and “their army of lawyers” for deploying underhand tactics. However, in his view, attacks by Democratic heavyweights such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who described her as “frivolous” and ”predatory”and the hostility of Democratic-leaning platforms such as the radio show ‘The Breakfast Club’, which only energizes the green coin.
“I’m not used to people approaching me on the street: strangers crying, hugging me and thanking me for trying to save their family,” she said in recent hours, celebrating her diverse support coalition, with her -includes Muslims, Jews and LGBTQ.
Among other measures, Stein’s platform calls for an immediate end to US support for Israeli military activities in Gaza and Lebanon, an end to the aid embargo and the release of all hostages and political prisoners.
Far from seeking a primary, the Green Party’s goal was to garner 5% of the national vote, a threshold that unlocks about $12 million in federal funds to expand operations.
The polls suggested it was a fairly remote possibility, with figures hovering around 1%, and this has been confirmed. In the absence of completing the scrutiny, the sum of all alternative candidates barely reaches 2%.
Interview between Time.news Editor and Political Expert Dr. Sarah Jenkins
Time.news Editor: Welcome, Dr. Jenkins! Thank you for joining us today. We’re here to discuss the impact of Jill Stein’s candidacy in the 2020 election and how it may have played a role in Donald Trump‘s victory. To start, can you give us an overview of Stein’s campaign and its goals?
Dr. Sarah Jenkins: Thank you for having me! Jill Stein ran as the Green Party candidate with aims beyond just winning. Her primary objective was to secure at least 5% of the popular vote, which would unlock federal funding for her party and challenge the existing two-party dominance in American politics. Despite knowing she wouldn’t win, her campaign was about creating a greater platform for progressive policies.
Time.news Editor: That’s a crucial distinction. In the article, it’s mentioned that the Democrats were vocal about their objections to Stein, accusing her candidacy of fragmenting the vote. Do you think her policies truly aligned with Democratic values, or were there more substantial ideological differences?
Dr. Sarah Jenkins: It’s interesting because, on several issues, Stein’s platform did overlap with Democratic ideals—especially regarding climate change and social justice. However, many Democrats viewed her presence as a potential spoiler that could siphon votes away from Kamala Harris and ultimately help Trump. The fear was that even a slight shift in votes could tip the balance, which is precisely what happened in key battleground states.
Time.news Editor: Given her previous presidential runs in 2012 and 2016, do you think Stein’s experience shaped her approach in 2020? How did her cumulative campaigns influence voter perception?
Dr. Sarah Jenkins: Absolutely, experience plays a role in shaping a candidate’s strategy. By 2020, Stein was not new to the political arena. Her consistency in her message on anti-genocide and climate activism resonated with specific voter demographics. However, her repeated candidacies may have led some voters to view her as a perennial candidate rather than a serious contender, impacting her ability to gain broader traction.
Time.news Editor: The article highlights her appeal among Muslim and Arab-American communities, particularly in places like Dearborn, Michigan. What impact did her positions on U.S. foreign policy have on these voter groups?
Dr. Sarah Jenkins: Stein’s critical stance on U.S. support for Israel indeed resonated with many voters from Arab and Muslim backgrounds. In communities where there was historical support for Democratic candidates, her platform provided an alternative that they felt better represented their values and concerns regarding foreign policy. Her ability to connect on these issues could have contributed to drawing away votes that might have otherwise gone to the Democrats.
Time.news Editor: It’s striking how local dynamics like those in Dearborn can influence national elections. In your opinion, did Stein’s campaign alter the landscape for third parties in the U.S.?
Dr. Sarah Jenkins: Very much so. Stein’s presence in the election highlighted the difficulties faced by third parties in gaining traction in a predominantly bipartisan system. While her campaign did not achieve the 5% goal, it sparked discussions about the barriers third parties face and the need for reform in how we conduct elections, which may lead to changes in the long term.
Time.news Editor: That’s a very insightful perspective. Considering the political atmosphere today, what do you think is the future for candidates like Jill Stein?
Dr. Sarah Jenkins: The future for third-party candidates like Stein depends greatly on the electorate’s willingness to embrace alternative views that challenge the status quo. If we continue to see dissatisfaction with the two major parties, we could witness a rise in independent and green candidates. However, systemic changes, such as ranked-choice voting or reduced barriers to entry, will likely be essential for them to thrive.
Time.news Editor: Thank you, Dr. Jenkins, for your thoughtful analysis! It’s evident that Jill Stein’s candidacy is a multifaceted topic with implications that ripple far beyond the 2020 election results.
Dr. Sarah Jenkins: Thank you for having me! It’s always a pleasure to discuss the evolving landscape of American politics.