In an effort to divert support from Vice President Kamala Harris, a number of Republicans are endorsing Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein's far-fetched candidacy.
Democrats are concerned that Stein would derail Harris's campaign in swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan because to her backing, which includes former Trump associates. Although Stein has very little chance of winning any of these races or even making it to the White House, if Harris loses even one of these three, she will be in a much more precarious position to challenge Trump for the presidency. For Democrats still hurting from Hillary Clinton's 2016 defeat in those states—where Stein was also running—the thought of Stein stealing votes from Harris is a source of great frustration.
1111l
With polls showing Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump in a tight race, Green Party nominee Jill Stein's support in crucial "Blue Wall" areas might be the deciding factor.
As the campaign has become more close, Democrats have been accusing Stein of handing the GOP candidate, Trump, an advantage. Stein is on the ballot in crucial swing states like Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin.
Her credibility takes a hit since Jill Stein believes in pseudoscience and paranormal phenomena. Her views are likely to be unpopular with educated voters, particularly those who are knowledgeable about science. She shares the mistrust of U.S. vaccine regulating organizations, a sentiment shared by many anti-vaccination extremists. I feel compelled to clarify that vaccinations are not "frightening"; so, any pre-med students who are anxious about not getting into Harvard need not be. You will likely be spared the opportunity to discover this. Do not, under any circumstances, put your faith in anything you read online. Stein has also made the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) a central tenet of her program. To make breeding and cultivation simpler, add extra nutrients (like vitamin A to rice), and make plants more resistant to diseases—most of our food has been genetically engineered. This may come as a disappointment to some of you. Considering that many on the left are staunch advocates of scientific literacy, you have to wonder whether Stein, who utilizes her Harvard degree to intimidate her audience, is the champion they need. Just in case you needed more convincing, it was Dr. Andrew Wakefield who, in 1998, used false (read: not genuine) data to suggest a connection between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccination and his medical license was revoked.
There are other fundamental concerns that Stein's policy tackles, apart from the homeopathic, pseudoscience position that her party has adopted in the last several years. Free higher education, a higher minimum wage, universal health care, and LGBTQIA+ rights are just a few of the positions.
She is actively working to advance green energy as part of her agenda, as is the case with Democratic Party contender Hillary Clinton. There is still a long way to go before Stein can have an impact in politics, even if she is projected to be on 47 state ballots.
A new commercial called "Crucial" was published on Friday by the Democratic National Committee (DNC). It targets those three states and accuses Stein of trying to steal votes away from the Democratic candidate, Harris. A vote for Stein is actually a vote for Trump," reads the advertisement, which shows Stein's visage changing into Trump's.
A clip from Trump's June campaign event in Philadelphia, when he said, "Jill Stein, I like her very much," is also included in the commercial. Why do you ask? She gives the Democrats her all.
Democrats claim Stein supporters might swing votes their way, but it's not apparent whether all of those people would have voted for Harris or skipped the election altogether.
"The concept that Democrats and Republicans control everyone's votes and that Greens somehow 'steal' votes from the political establishment is ridiculous," Stein's campaign spokesman had previously told Newsweek in an email. Your vote is not owned by any politician; each contender must work to acquire it.
Barring any unexpected outcomes elsewhere, Harris would have the best chance of winning next month's election by securing victories in the blue wall battleground states of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Winning North Carolina, Georgia, and a potentially decisive Pennsylvania would put Trump in the best position to receive 270 electoral votes. Trump defeated Clinton in Pennsylvania by a razor-thin margin in 2016, but Biden reversed the outcome in 2020.
At a press conference on Fifth Avenue, across from Trump Tower, on December 5, 2016, Jill Stein, a presidential candidate for the Green Party, talks in New York City. An new commercial from the DNC accuses Stein of siphoning off votes in key battleground states from the Democratic candidate. Getty Images/Drew Angerer
At a press conference on Fifth Avenue, across from Trump Tower, on December 5, 2016, Jill Stein, a presidential candidate for the Green Party, talks in New York City. An new commercial from the DNC accuses Stein of siphoning off votes in key battleground states from the Democratic candidate. Getty Images/Drew Angerer
More than any other swing state, Pennsylvania's 19 Electoral votes might decide the 2024 presidential election, making the Keystone State a crucial battleground.
Harris was ahead of Trump in a New York Times/Philadelphia Inquirer/Siena College survey of 857 likely Pennsylvania voters, but both candidates lost ground when independents like Stein were included.
Harris received 50% of the vote, while Trump received 47%, according to the survey that was conducted between October 7 and 10. When third-party candidates are included, however, Trump's support falls to 45% and Harris's to 49%; Stein's support rises to 1% while Chase Oliver's support falls to less than 1%. If the margin of error is plus or minus 3.8 percentage points, then Harris has a lead.
Stein and Oliver received 1% of the vote in Pennsylvania, according to a recent Quinnipiac University survey that was conducted among 1,412 potential voters from October 3 to 7. Harris received 49% and Trump received 46%. Harris would have retained 49% support while Trump would have come closer with 47% in a hypothetical head-to-head contest including just the Republican and Democratic candidates.
The survey found that just 3% of the 23% of respondents who identified as independents backed third-party candidates, while 43% backed Harris and 47% backed Trump. There is a margin of error of 2.6 percentage points in this survey.
If Stein's 1% of the vote goes to Trump, it might give him the victory, but if it goes to Harris, it could put her ahead of Trump by a hair. The margin of error is so small that it could decide the election either way.
With the addition of fresh data, aggregate polls are constantly updated, allowing for real-time shifting of averages and providing a broad pulse check on public sentiment. On Sunday morning, the following percentages were calculated.
In Pennsylvania, Harris has 49% support versus Trump's 48% according to the Times' aggregate survey. According to FiveThirtyEight, the election is closer than it seems on The Hill (48.7 percent for Trump and 48.7 percent for Harris).
Lake Superior
Stein is also doing well in Wisconsin's polls. Between October 3 and 7, Quinnipiac University polled 1,073 registered voters in the state and reported that Trump had a 48-point advantage against Harris with 46 percent of the vote. Oliver and Stein were both able to gain 1% support.
Excluding third-party candidates does not change the difference between the Republican nominee and the Democratic nominee; Trump received 49% of the vote and Harris 47%.
A total of 33% of voters identify as independent; of those, 47% favor Trump, 43% support Harris, and 3% support a third-party candidate. The margin of error for this survey is plus or minus three percentage points.
The findings were comparable in a survey by Marquette Law School that surveyed 882 registered voters from September 18th to the 26th; Stein received 1% of the vote, while Harris had a four-point advantage over Trump with 48% to 44%. There is a margin of error of 4.4 percentage points for this lead.
The importance of Stein's vote share is highlighted by the fact that most aggregate polls indicate a margin of less than 1 percentage point between Harris and Trump.
In Wisconsin, Harris gets 49% support compared to Trump's 48% in the aggregate survey conducted by the Times. In a more closely contested election, FiveThirtyEight has Trump at 47.3% and Harris at 48.3%, while The Hill has Trump ahead by 0.1 percent, with 48.4% to Harris' 48.3%.
Lower Michigan
Other polls indicate that Stein continues to have comparable support in the state, even though a Quinnipiac University survey of 1,007 likely Michigan voters found her to be out of the race—a significant change from last month's poll when she was at 2%.
With half of the vote, Trump was ahead of Harris (47%) and Oliver (1%), an independent, and Cornel West (1%). As a whole, the survey is within a 3.1 percentage point margin of error.
Stein has spoken out against American foreign policy toward Israel in light of the continuing conflict in Gaza. A late August survey by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) found that among Muslim voters in Michigan, 40% supported Stein, compared to 12% for Harris and 18% for Trump. The state is home to a sizable Arab American population.
If Muslim Americans do not back the Democrats, they will not be able to win. Unless the Democrats decide that winning the election is more important than doing the genocide, that community has left the station, Stein said Newsweek in a September interview. This is not genocide, according to Israel.
In Michigan, Harris gets 49% support compared to Trump's 48% in the aggregate survey conducted by the Times. Although the election is tighter according to FiveThirtyEight (47.7 percent for Harris and 47.0 percent for Trump), according to The Hill (48.7 percent for Trump and 47.9 percent for Harris), Trump is ahead by 0.8 percent.
×