Awesome Person 2011
Capitol Hill, Seattle, WA, USA, Earth, Sol, Sagittarius Arm, Milky Way Galaxy
report this user


COMTE is the online handle of Christopher Comte, a native of the great State of… more »

COMTE is not putting up with any of your bullshit.
11:40 AM yesterday COMTE commented on Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No..

Um, you do it the same way the big pants Parties do: you go door-to-door with your message; you phone bank; you send out mailings; you set up booths in public spaces and at community events; you hold rallies and regular meetings of your Party Organization to bring in new members; you reach out to your communities and form alliances with those who share your values and aspirations; you access local media; and most importantly you run candidates for office, not a few here-and-there, but in as many races as are available. That's the literal definition of "grass-roots organizing". And that last part is crucial because candidates get to submit statements to voters guides articulating their platform; they get to request and be interviewed by community, labor, and constituency groups for endorsements; they get to participate in debates, forums, and town hall meetings; they even get interviewed by local media - when there is an actual person running running from a Party TO be interviewed.

The simple reason Stein isn't being taken seriously by the NATIONAL media is because she isn't a serious national candidate. The Greens have NO appreciable state organizations or structures; they have NO significant penetration at the local level (aside from very minor inroads into N CA and a bit in the LA basin); they have almost NO name recognition; and they apparently have NO actual strategy or program in place to achieve any of these goals. You keep whinging about how the national media refuses to take the GP seriously, but what is the GP actually DOING to show they're worthy of serious consideration? So far as I, and presumably many others, can tell, not fucking much - except complain.

As for conflating failure with the need to apply pressure, well, if the Greens can't even bother to run candidates (and only covering 118 out of 511,000 possible elective offices is simply ridiculous on its face) then they have no pressure TO apply, Under those circumstances the GP is NOT the party of necessity here - how can they possibly be with such a pitiful track-record over so many years? That may be their aspiration, but they're doing crap to actualize it - and in politics nobody gets handed the cookie without having to work for it first.

In order to apply pressure, you have to have something to apply pressure WITH. If the GP really wants to exert influence on the Democrats, they first have to build up some serious internal pressure of their own, but I for one don't see any effort on their part to make that happen. Right now the GP is the political equivalent of a dripping sink faucet that thinks it's a fire hose. They have absolutely nothing to bring to bear and yet they STILL think they deserve to be treated like an actual, functioning national Political Force regardless. It's all just ego, privilege, and hubris on their part, and frankly, it's pathetic.

If the GP wants to sit at the adult table, then they need to roll up their sleeves and do the hard work that earns them a seat there, and stop blaming others for their own ineffectiveness, ineptitude, and lack of motivation,
8:42 AM yesterday COMTE commented on Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No..

Get back to us when those "hundreds of candidates put in a position in government; from dog catcher to county commissioners, on school boards, to Mayors" becomes THOUSANDS of elected officials (preferably in more than 2 states), because, if THIS is the best they can do after 32 years of trying, and if all they can do in 2016 is field a measly 118 CANDIDATES (not elected, just running, and that includes Stein & her VP selection), then they're not doing squat, and nobody except the most ideologically pure of the true-believers is going to give them the time of day.
Jul 21 COMTE commented on Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No..

I'll look up a copy of that.

But, so far as Stein is concerned, to date at least her early (or pre) adoption of Sanders' platform doesn't seem to be translating into any significant bump in her support, whether by those disaffected by Clinton's nomination or otherwise. As I said in my comment @143, she will need literally MILLIONS of votes to reach the vaunted 5% threshold some have bandied about, and the polling data at this stage in the cycle is so disparate that there is no clear indication of any such "breakthrough". And seriously, I don't see that happening post-conventions, when all the attention is going to be squarely focused on Clinton versus Trump. Assuming there are any actual debates between the two, I expect those to have much more of an impact than anything - or anyone - else going forward to November, and I would be very surprised indeed if either Stein or Johnson from the Libertarian party do appreciably better than their 2012 showings.

In the final analysis most people want to believe their vote will count for something, and as we get closer to November the current undecideds are going to gravitate to the two major party candidates for that reason alone, if nothing else, just as they always do, particularly given the lack of recognition of the also-rans (none of whom could be considered, by any stretch, as comparable to a Ross Perot or John Anderson or even Ralph Nader for that matter). Also, the lack of down-ticket candidates from the third-parties is going to be a perennial albatross around their necks, as the overwhelming majority of voters tend to cast straight-ticket ballots.
Jul 21 COMTE commented on Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No..

Yes, we've all seen the lists - now, please point out to us the names of the GP candidates running for office in WA State that, you know, residents of WA State could vote for?
Jul 21 COMTE commented on Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No..

But that's precisely my point: the Greens have had more than 30 years to try to exert influence at ANY level of our political system and have failed miserably in every attempt. They are NOT in fact "realistically" playing any meaningful role at the local level, as the paucity of candidates running under the Green Party banner clearly demonstrates. Look, this isn't rocket surgery here, the formula is pretty simple: in order to exert political influence you have to convince voters to put members of your party into enough elected offices to be able to wield some power over policy-making; and in order to do that you have to get members of your party to run for those offices and then articulate to voters why they should be elected. And there are a whole lot of offices to run for, about 511,000 nationwide according to the figures I've seen. Running a mere 116 candidates is paltry to the point of being risible, not only because it represents such a minuscule fraction of the whole, but because most of those candidates will never get elected in the first place. If they can't do better than that - and I mean a LOT better (and thus far they've not demonstrated any ability or inclination to do so) - they are never going to play any role whatsoever, in our political system, meaningful or otherwise.
Jul 21 COMTE commented on For Women's Rights, Ohio Is a "Preview of What America Would Look like If Trump and Pence Get Their Way".

I think a lot of it has to do with perceptions drawn from programs like The New Deal, The War on Poverty, the more recent Economic Stimulus, et al. They remember a time when Democrats did in fact spend a lot of money, but conveniently forget that much of that spending kept our economy and infrastructure going at a time of great financial hardship, and severe economic displacement for those on the lowest rungs of the ladder, and actually improved things for a lot of people. But you know, when you're a died-in-the-wool conservative, spending money on other people is wasteful, whereas giving money away to business and the already wealthy is - strangely, I admit - perceived as a proper function of government.
Jul 21 COMTE commented on The Green Party Responds to Dan Savage, Says He's "Dead Wrong".

You have just described the basic characteristic of the American psyche, regardless of political party affiliation or ideology, and made clear precisely why the Green Party, as it currently exists, will never be a major player in electoral politics in this country.

As the late General George S. Patton so succinctly put it to his troops in 1944:

"Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time."
Jul 21 COMTE commented on The Green Party Responds to Dan Savage, Says He's "Dead Wrong".
It's significant, that Ms. Cuéllar, when given the opportunity to toot her Party's horn by providing a list of their electoral victories only chooses to list a mere eight: one mayor, one constable (whatever that is), two school board members, and four city council members (and those from only four states), and then has to pad this out by dropping the names of a pair of FORMER office-holders. Furthermore, her link to a list of current candidates has a mere 116 names, which although it does include a number of candidates for federal office ( mainly U.S. House seats that, based on a very cursory examination, not only do they have absolutely no chance of winning - e.g. Lamar Alexander's seat in the TX 21st District, Nancy Pelosi's in CA 12th, Jared Polis' in CO 2nd, etc., etc. - but will barely be noticed), is also comprised mostly of low level offices.

Okay, so lets give them some credit for getting a few candidates on ballots, but as I've indicated elsewhere, this number doesn't even amount to a drop in a bucket; more akin to a single snowflake in an avalanche, and representing such a small fraction of a percentage of the total number of elected offices in this country that it is almost statistically non-existent. In short, Ms. Cuéllar can crow all she wants about how the Green Party is taking on the dreaded "dupoly", and how "willing" they are to "build a strong third-party alternative", but from the looks of things they certainly haven't made much progress in that direction in the past 32 years of their existence.
Jul 21 COMTE commented on Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No..

I would beg to differ. What possible pressure could the Greens (who, by all accounts will run a very distant fourth in this election cycle) exert over the President and her administration's policies? She's not beholden to them in any way: they will have absolutely no political influence or capital, they won't have any members in elected positions at the national level to exert it at any rate, and they won't have anything more than a very small, very weak voice in the larger national dialog. The Left Wing of the Democratic Party, OTOH, will have far more influence, and therefore be in a position to exert much greater leverage on the administration's policies. We've already seen evidence of this in the adoption of some of Sander's proposals as part of the 2016 Democratic Party platform, and so there would seem to be a reasonable expectation that such leverage is already being exerted on Clinton as a result. It is precisely because Sanders brought them into the Democratic tent that they were able to accomplish that. But, any of Sanders supporters who defect to the Greens (or any other minor party for that matter), by doing so give up any possible chance of continuing to exert that pressure, because they're not going to be aligned with any party with more power than what they would have by working within the existing Democratic Party structure, and in fact, by reducing the numbers of that constituency, they actually weaken its ability to exert pressure as well.
Jul 21 COMTE commented on Dan Savage on Jill Stein: Just No..

Sounds like a case of "Pontius Pilate Syndrome"...