The VPP has certainly benefited from being a single-state party, with its stronghold in a single progressive city. The Maine Greens are following the same lines – in fact, they’re the largest third party in the country by percentage of registered voters. The GP has had a shitload of drama from trying to be a national party – and there are many who point out that it would be easier to build from the ground up, and many who think it’s still worthwhile to run in the big races. But comparing the VPP to the Greens is apples and oranges. By the way, being called spoilers is the price of success. If you don’t want to be called a spoiler, might as well give up.

Have you been listening to our super secret meetings?

LOLOL

Minnesota Open Progressives

In contrast, in 7 years in Vermont, I have seen about 9 different progressives elected to the state legislature, many progressives elected to city and municipal level offices, progressives some close in statewide races and seen the election of Bernie Snaders, who is a progressive in all-but-name only, to the US house several times and to the US Senate.

Why do people think the Greens are a good model for a national progressive party, when they have such a dismal electoral success record? In contrast, why don’t people look at the Progressives in Vermont and say “Hey, we can do that in our state!”???

The term “progressive” does not connote the same thing, for most people, as Green. It doesn’t have the same baggage (e.g., Nader, spoiler, dread-headed suburban hippie), although it carries many of the same positive attributes (e.g., people-powered, non-corporate, pro-environment, etc,) Seems like a good model to try to replicate elsewhere! Nationally, too.

Infighting symbol, the Fall 2004 California Green tabloid with Nader and Camejo AND Cobb and LaPresente on the front page above the fold. Again, Greens are not really a national cohesive unit!

Vaughn was saying that there is already a national progressive party, the Greens. The VPP is progressive, but not national. Considering the effects of the anti-Nader backlash on the Greens, it is clear that lack of real involvement in presidential politics has helped the VPP succeed on the local and state level. And if Bernie Sanders were not a Dem-leaning ‘independent’ but the first senator from a new national party, how much do you think the Democrats would spend to get him out? By going national, the VPP would make itself much more of a target.

There’s just no point to forming another national party with a platform so similar to the Greens. “But the Greens have infighting!” Yes, and so will any party that has to share power among states and select a presidential candidate.

Though on the other hand the Greens in Vermont seems to have have problems my LaRouchian entryists.

I was compelled to bring this up after seeing how libertariangirl had to place an issue in the comments for people to read.

This sounds like a case of election envy.

The Greens in Vermont are a kind of a joke. The progressives, on the other hand, have actual elected state representatives, like Zuckerman, who are actually sitting at the table and influencing legislation. Our largest city had a Progressive mayor. We have more 3rd party state-level legislators than any other state, I believe, and that’s based on the strength of the Progressive Party, NOT the Greens.