This morning's news from Arizona sure was a waker-upper: several sources reporting that US Senate nominee Angela Green had abruptly dropped out of the race and thrown her support behind Democrat Krysten Sinema.
Aw, hell no! Bad call, Ms. Green. Given that the sources on the first page of Duck Duck Go results are almost all right-leaning outlets—Fox News, Daily Caller, Politicus USA, NewMax—I wasn't sure whether to believe it. (Not gonna link to those.) The Hill (center-right pretending to be objective) also posted an item. I had to see this video clip on an interview with Green, from Phoenix's NBC affiliate, before I was convinced.
As of this writing, neither Green's website nor that of the Arizona Green Party have any news about her withdrawing from the race. In fact, Green's home page specifically mentions that she has resisted calls from "those who have requested, asked, demanded, harassed, and bullied me to remove myself from the ballot in order for their major party candidate to win."
Aw, hell no! Bad call, Ms. Green. Given that the sources on the first page of Duck Duck Go results are almost all right-leaning outlets—Fox News, Daily Caller, Politicus USA, NewMax—I wasn't sure whether to believe it. (Not gonna link to those.) The Hill (center-right pretending to be objective) also posted an item. I had to see this video clip on an interview with Green, from Phoenix's NBC affiliate, before I was convinced.
As of this writing, neither Green's website nor that of the Arizona Green Party have any news about her withdrawing from the race. In fact, Green's home page specifically mentions that she has resisted calls from "those who have requested, asked, demanded, harassed, and bullied me to remove myself from the ballot in order for their major party candidate to win."
Allow me to pause here and state my opinion (and possibly yours as well), that both yeswewillmakeadifference.com and azgp.org could benefit from some editing and design help. They could benefit...well, a lot.
All right, I'll just say it: Both sites are cringe-inducing. Mine isn't the prettiest, I know, but I have 20 years of mistakes in website design from which I've been able to learn. Black text on a dark green background with diagonal stripes? Srsly? Oy.
I don't know all the details, and I don't know yet who does know. I'll readily admit that I knew little to nothing before today about Green or her candidacy. What I do know is that this move reflects badly on the Arizona and US Green Parties. Even if Arizona Democrats are grateful for her decision, the popular perception of Greens as a monolithic entity (e.g., Jill Stein said something negative about vaccinations, therefore all Greens are anti-vaxxers), points to the conclusion that all Greens are quitters who don't really mean what they say about the Lesser-of-Two-Evils paradigm.
The move comes too late for Green to be removed from ballots in Arizona; from what I can tell, the thousands who had planned to vote for her still can, and early votes for her will still count.
Among the relevant details: that the margin between Sinema and Republican nominee Martha McSally is tight, estimated at only 7%, and thus Green did not want to play the "spoiler." Polls showed Green taking anywhere from 3 to 6%. I can't say that I entirely fault her wanting to avoid having Democratic former friends flinging poo at her for all eternity, should she receive more votes than the Republican margin of victory. But you don't get into this business of third-party candidacy if you're too chicken-shit to stick with it through election day.
Experience tells us that any of those polls showing Green at 6% don't mean diddly. In tight races, too many progressives get cold feet in the voting booth and reflexively vote for the Democrat, no matter how loudly they were banging the Green Party drum the day before. I'd be surprised if Green could garner even 3%. So apparently no one informed Green that she was in no danger of tilting the race toward McSally.
Also, apparently no one reminded Green that of bloody course the local media and the major parties would exclude her from the televised debate, despite her supposedly strong polling numbers.
Detail, possibly bogus: One of the commenters on a Facebook thread asserted that AZGP had not actually endorsed Green. She appears on the Candidates-2018 page of azgp.org, but not is this February 2018 press release from GPUS.
Detail, decidedly enraging: Sinema, a former Green and a Nader supporter in 2000, is running "as an unabashed Democratic centrist," according to AZ Central. She isn't even doing fake-left-run-right dance that I see from newly christened Texas superhero Beto O'Rourke. She's running straight up the corporatist middle. If, as Green says, Sinema has positions more in line with hers than McSally does, what does that say about Angela Green?
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I doubt Ms. Green will be welcomed warmly at future meetings of the Maricopa County Green Party.
All right, I'll just say it: Both sites are cringe-inducing. Mine isn't the prettiest, I know, but I have 20 years of mistakes in website design from which I've been able to learn. Black text on a dark green background with diagonal stripes? Srsly? Oy.
I don't know all the details, and I don't know yet who does know. I'll readily admit that I knew little to nothing before today about Green or her candidacy. What I do know is that this move reflects badly on the Arizona and US Green Parties. Even if Arizona Democrats are grateful for her decision, the popular perception of Greens as a monolithic entity (e.g., Jill Stein said something negative about vaccinations, therefore all Greens are anti-vaxxers), points to the conclusion that all Greens are quitters who don't really mean what they say about the Lesser-of-Two-Evils paradigm.
The move comes too late for Green to be removed from ballots in Arizona; from what I can tell, the thousands who had planned to vote for her still can, and early votes for her will still count.
Among the relevant details: that the margin between Sinema and Republican nominee Martha McSally is tight, estimated at only 7%, and thus Green did not want to play the "spoiler." Polls showed Green taking anywhere from 3 to 6%. I can't say that I entirely fault her wanting to avoid having Democratic former friends flinging poo at her for all eternity, should she receive more votes than the Republican margin of victory. But you don't get into this business of third-party candidacy if you're too chicken-shit to stick with it through election day.
Experience tells us that any of those polls showing Green at 6% don't mean diddly. In tight races, too many progressives get cold feet in the voting booth and reflexively vote for the Democrat, no matter how loudly they were banging the Green Party drum the day before. I'd be surprised if Green could garner even 3%. So apparently no one informed Green that she was in no danger of tilting the race toward McSally.
Also, apparently no one reminded Green that of bloody course the local media and the major parties would exclude her from the televised debate, despite her supposedly strong polling numbers.
Detail, possibly bogus: One of the commenters on a Facebook thread asserted that AZGP had not actually endorsed Green. She appears on the Candidates-2018 page of azgp.org, but not is this February 2018 press release from GPUS.
Detail, decidedly enraging: Sinema, a former Green and a Nader supporter in 2000, is running "as an unabashed Democratic centrist," according to AZ Central. She isn't even doing fake-left-run-right dance that I see from newly christened Texas superhero Beto O'Rourke. She's running straight up the corporatist middle. If, as Green says, Sinema has positions more in line with hers than McSally does, what does that say about Angela Green?
Perhaps I'm wrong, but I doubt Ms. Green will be welcomed warmly at future meetings of the Maricopa County Green Party.
RSS Feed