Keep Trump out without settling for Clinton: a possible strategy

So now that Sanders has folded, we're supposedly faced with a choice between a hawk and a mamba snake. ("It can strike very quickly and can also chase its victims at an incredible speed. It chooses to do this quite often without any provocation whatsoever."--Conservation Institute) I anticipate that most progressives will be afraid to vote for Jill Stein lest that split the vote and give Trump the win. What if we could get 50 million people to pledge "I'll vote for Stein if fifty million others will pledge to do so"? Would that get you to vote for Stein? The average voter turnout for presidential elections during this century has been about 122.7 million. So if we could collect close to half that many pledges for Stein, would you take part? Of course, what we really need is ranked-choice voting, so that we could vote Stein for our first choice and Clinton as second choice, which would amount to voting "anyone but Trump." That's not going to happen before November, though, so would you take part in a credible effort to put Stein into the White House?

I'm not settling for Clinton, I actively support her. I consider her extraordinary well qualified, smart, hard working and committed to positive policy goals. She will be a awesome POTUS.
Dodie

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by Moon:

So now that Sanders has folded, ...

---

Clinton is without question experienced, hard-working and smart, and she did make a serious effort toward getting all of us decent health care; I don't mean to insult her supporters. The problem is that she's a hawk. I wept for joy when the US elected a Black president, even though I knew his politics weren't especially progressive, as he tried to make them sound. Likewise, I'd be thrilled to see this country choose a womon for president--but not if she's a baby-burner; the whole point of having a female president is to empower the values that have traditionally been maintained primarily by womyn: empathy (leading to lasting peace), nurturance, fair play, etc. We may still be able to get Stein in.

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by William Allan Shearer:

I'm not settling for Clinton, I actively support her. I consider her extraordinary well qualified, smart, hard working and committed to positive policy goals. She will be a awesome POTUS.
Dodie

---

You (and everyone else) can vote for whoever you choose. I am not trying to persuade you to do otherwise. I just have one question for you and all other Clinton supporters...How you really researched Hillary Clinton? I have been finding that most Clinton support really haven't done their homework. It seems to me most of Clinton supporters are "buying in" to whatever mainstream media tells them. Please vote for whoever you want...but please do your homework!!!!

Quote:

---

Posted in reply to the post by William Allan Shearer:

I'm not settling for Clinton, I actively support her. I consider her extraordinary well qualified, smart, hard working and committed to positive policy goals. She will be a awesome POTUS.
Dodie

---

I don't think that as things stand there is any credible effort that could be mounted to put Stein in the White House, but I absolutely agree that there is no rational reason whatsoever not to switch to ranked-choice voting for all elections, including at the national level. I would like to see a big movement develop to push for this reform when the next--hopefully democratic majority--congress convenes next year. I'd love to see what lame rationalizations the political establishment would be forced to come up with against such a reform!

I've never heard of Ms. Stein, and I consider myself reasonably well-informed. SO, who are these well-informed people who are going to vote her in. What has she accomplished?

Is she a single-issue person who supports your cause and that's why you want her in? If so, keep in mind that the office of POTUS is running a highly complex entity with multiple issues, not just the one you may care about...even if, like anti-war, it is incredibly important. Also, Presidents are limited in what they can accomplish...why we have the balance of powers. Just a fact of life. That's why I'm voting for Clinton, even though I don't agree with all of her views.. She can steer the ship of state.

You haven't heard of Dr. Jill Stein because the mainstream media doesn't want you to know about Dr. Stein...plane and simple...peel the the layers of the onion; that is, do your homework!

I'd be interested to hear whether Clinton supporters really don't know about some of her positions--e.g., her enthusiasm for war and for indebtedness to big corporations--or whether they do know and just feel those are counterbalanced by other considerations. BTW, what's your answer to my question?