One major similarity between Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein and (former) independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was that they were the focus of the Democratic Party’s legal teams and their allies at the state and national levels. Battle in the courtroom to keep her, Kennedy and Cornel West off the November ballot in states across the country.
Just last Wednesday, as he prepared to suspend his campaign and endorse Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump, Kennedy lashed out at Democrats who made huge noises about voting rights and democracy at the DNC while resorting to unprecedented measures to suppress third-party candidates.
After appearing in a New York court in a voting rights case, Kennedy said: “The DNC is in Chicago talking about its commitment to voting rights while it is spending tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars to disqualify me from voting.”
Meanwhile, Stein posted some evidence on her Twitter/X page showing that Democrats had done far more than just litigate and try to sabotage her candidacy.
READ MORE–>> ‘Stop the gaslighting’: RFK Jr. rips Democrats over election rigging while Jill Stein drops some receipts
In a kind of update on Stein’s fight, she laughed last on Monday thanks to the Supreme Court of Wisconsin:
Jill Stein, the Green Party’s presidential candidate, will remain on the ballot in Wisconsin, the state Supreme Court said after the court on Monday declared a technical objection by Democrats to her eligibility to vote moot.
The three-page decision, which was not signed by the members of the court, represented a significant victory for Mrs Stein’s presidential candidacy, as the Green Party was excluded from the election in Wisconsin in 2020The presence of Mrs Stein – a diminutive left-wing candidate – on the ballot paper could also pose a risk on Vice President Kamala Harris’ prospects in Wisconsin, which was won by a narrow margin in the last presidential election.
“It is ordered that the application for leave to institute original proceedings be denied,” command stated. “We conclude that the plaintiff is not entitled to the compensation he seeks. It is further ordered that all other pending motions be dismissed as frivolous.”
As also noted in the order, the plaintiff in this case was David Strange, “personally and as Deputy Operations Director-Wisconsin for the Democratic National Committee.” Strange had argues that the Greens have no statewide candidates or incumbents and therefore no way to legally nominate electors.
RedState readers will recall that many Democrats, including twice-failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, partially supported Stein for Clinton’s lose The 2016 presidential election went to Donald Trump:
Stein was last on the Wisconsin ballot in 2016, when she received just over 31,000 votes – more than Trump’s margin of nearly 23,000 votes. Some Democrats have accused her of helping Trump win the state and the presidency this year.
Such claims were even made by left-wing media such as Vox.comwhich conducted a post-election analysis in 2016 and found that the allegation was completely inadequate:
This is a stark contrast to the Florida election results in 2000, when only a diminutive portion of voters who voted for Nader—about half a percent—would have had to vote for Gore for Gore to win the election.
And that’s exactly the result of a post-election poll that asked people how they would have voted in a two-party race – with the third option being not to vote. In that scenario, she would have won Michigan but still lost Florida, and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania would have been neck and neck, 48 percent to 48 percent. Clinton would have had to win both states to get to 270 electoral votes. So even in the artificial world of that post-election poll, which excluded Stein and Johnson, Clinton seemed likely to lose.
The Wall Street Journal reported at the time that “third-party votes do not appear to have been the decisive factor in the defeat of Democrat Hillary Clinton”
They also said their “analysis” of third-party votes in key Republican-leaning states “shows that Mrs. Clinton would have had to win over a large percentage of a fickle, independent and often misunderstood electorate to win enough states to influence the outcome of the election.”
However, a clear victory for Trump would be great, but if a third-party candidate could contribute to a defeat for Kamala Harris in one or two swing states, that would be a piece of cake.
As always, stay tuned!
Related: Kennedy family is rightly ridiculed after RFK Jr. abandons his campaign and endorses Trump
