You’d think the Green Party would be happy with Jill Stein and her recount campaign, given that any leftover funds ostensibly will line party coffers for future campaigning and recruitment. The useless “Recount 2016” campaign has been a major boost for the Green Party.
In total, Jill Stein received twelve times more mainstream media attention from her recount campaign than her presidential campaign. Not only that, her recount campaign raised more money than her presidential campaign ($6.3 million raised for a recount; $3.5 million raised for her 2016 presidential run). Perhaps she learned a few lessons from The Donald in getting free publicity from the media and using it to her advantage.
Regardless of the success she’s had so far (in drawing attention to herself), the rest of the Green Party ain’t happy. They’ve even gone so far as to scrub her from their party site.
As the American Thinker reported: Dr. Margaret Flowers, Green Party candidate for Senate from Maryland, released a letter on her campaign site complaining about the misuse of time and funds in the Green Party’s name, suggesting their efforts be redirected to more important party causes. The letter was signed by over 200 Green Party members, candidates and party officials.
The relevant bits of the letter are below:
There are significant electoral reforms needed to make elections more democratic and more representative of the people. While we support electoral reforms, including how the vote is counted, we do not support the current recount being undertaken by Jill Stein.
The decision to pursue a recount was not made in a democratic or a strategic way, nor did it respect the established decision making processes and structures of the Green Party of the United States (GPUS). The recount has created confusion about the relationship between the Green and Democratic parties because the states chosen for the recount are only states in which Hillary Clinton lost. There were close races in other states such as New Hampshire and Minnesota where Clinton won, but which were not part of the recount. And this recount does not address the disenfranchisement of voters; it recounts votes that were already counted rather than restoring the suffrage of voters who were prevented from voting.
As a candidate, Dr. Stein has the right to call for a recount. However, we urge the GPUS to distance itself from any appearance of support for either Democrats or Republicans. We are well aware of the undemocratic actions taken during the primaries by the DNC and the Clinton campaign. Greens cannot be perceived to be allied with such a party.
All mentions of Stein have now been purged from the Green Party’s website. In this hyperlink you can see an archived version showing what the website looked like before they purged all mentions of Stein from it.
Adios Jill, we hardly knew ya.
[Note: This post was authored by Matt Palumbo. Follow him on Twitter @MattPalumbo12]