Remember the people who were saying we should be nice to Jill Stein?

[BzaDem]

234. What is the actual evidence in favor of that proposition?

To be clear, I am not talking about all voters who consider themselves greens, or all voters who support the policy goals that the green party officially claims to support. Plenty of such people will support Clinton, including some who don't say they will now. Support for third party candidates tends to dissipate as the election nears. So my question is only tallking about actual green party voters.

The evidence I see (their actual actions) indicates that they want to ensure progressive policies never get enacted. Why would anyone include such a person in any reasonable definition of progressivism? Isn't such a person the opposite of a progressive, by definition?

Sure, they might be against progressive policy for different reasons than conservatives. Conservatives believe that progressive policy produces worse outcomes, in their view. Whereas Jill Stein voters (again, actual voters of Jill Stein, not necessarily people who will claim to lean towards her now) don't actually care about outcomes -- they care much more about having an excuse to complain about the lack of the policy they say they favor. Actually achieving progressive policy would remove that excuse.

Such voters have a completely different values system than most voters, since most voters actually do care about outcomes.