After sitting out the 2020 election, Jill Stein emerged from hibernation this year to run once again as the presidential candidate for the American Green Party.
In a departure from her traditional environmentalism, Stein’s platform placed greatest emphasis on social justice, foreign policy, and “demilitarisation.” This included sanctioning and ending all military aid to Israel until it “complies with international law,” ending the “blockade” on Gaza, releasing all Palestinian “political prisoners”, negotiating peace in Russia and Ukraine, removing US troops from Iraq and Syria, and ending sanctions on Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.
Whilst Stein’s platform outlined many potentially conflicting policies, her campaign activity focused almost obsessively on Israel. Though her official platform referred simply to a ceasefire, the release of hostages, and general compliance with international law, her unofficial comments about Israel were far more radical.
Speaking to the Palestine Chronicle less than two weeks before the election, Stein argued Hamas are “just the latest form of resistance” justified by the “murderous and vicious way of life” introduced when the “Zionists came from Europe.” Responding to questions about the brutal attacks against Israeli civilians on October 7th, she stated that “there’s absolutely no evidence” that the October 7th attacks involved rape or the beheading of babies. She also referred to former Hamas leader and US State Department designated terrorist Ismail Haniyeh as “very moderate.”
Stein’s focus on Israel and the radicalism of her stance attracted unlikely allies. On 15th October, David Duke – neo-Nazi conspiracy theorist and former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan – endorsed Stein on his radio show arguing that Stein, who is Jewish, was the best candidate to oppose “Jewish power,” “Jewish supremacy” and “Jewish mass murder.”
Leading up to the election, polls suggested Stein could expect 0.9–1.2% of the national vote share. This would be consistent with the outcome of her last presidential campaign in 2016, in which she received 1.07% of the popular vote with 1,457,216 votes.
In parts of the country, Stein was expected to outperform her 2016 achievements. Many commentators felt that with the salience of the Israel-Gaza war in political discourse, particularly amongst Muslim Americans, Stein could capitalise on the perceived silence of her major-party rivals. Biden’s Israel policies left many Muslim voters feeling alienated from the party they had historically supported, allowing the Greens to capture the votes of a demographic not insignificant in size.
This has proven a worthwhile strategy in other Western democracies. In the UK, four independents were elected on Gaza tickets in constituencies with large Muslim communities. Similarly, the success of the far-left NVP in France has been attributed by some to anti-Israel proposals and their resonance with young voters.
Stein seemed to be aiming to do the same, as, wrapped in a keffiyeh, she attended Pro-Palestinian rallies in the nation’s Arab American epicentres to garner support. It appeared to be working – Reuters polls indicated Stein would be supported by 40% of Muslims in Michigan – a key swing state.
The Greens seemed poised for their greatest election yet. What followed was surely very disappointing.
On 5th November, Stein received only 0.55% of the national vote, with 861,141 votes. In fact, she ended up only slightly eclipsing Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who withdrew his candidacy and was removed from many state ballots. Kennedy received 0.49% of the popular vote, including 1.96% in Montana – the highest state-wide vote share of any third-party candidate.
In 2016, Stein received more than 2% of the vote in Hawaii, Oregon, and Vermont. This year, in her strongest state, she received just 1.07%.
Even in Dearborn, Michigan, the 55% Muslim city which became the epicentre of Stein’s campaign, she finished behind both Trump and Harris with just 22% of the vote.
These electoral disappointments pale in comparison to Stein’s financial embarrassment, with her 2024 campaign receiving only $2.86 million, a mere fraction of the $11.5 million she amassed in 2016.
There are several potential explanations for this failure. Of course, third parties always struggle, however Stein’s past success would indicate she could have received a larger vote share than she did. As this year’s UK election results proved, third and fourth parties and independents can succeed even in a two-party system.
Important too were concerned progressives, expressing fears about the safety of women’s and LGBTQ+ rights under a Trump presidency. With more supposedly at stake and the polls close, ‘wasting’ a vote on a third party could be costly. These fears were voiced even by the European Green Party, who called on Stein to withdraw her presidential nomination and to endorse her Democratic rival. Some progressives may also have aligned more strongly with Harris than they did Clinton, explaining Stein’s fall in support since 2016.
This seems unlikely, however, acknowledging the election’s outcome. Not only was Harris’s overall support lower than both Biden and Clinton, but she lost support amongst young voters. Also, in Dearborn, Michigan, where Stein’s support was strongest, it was Trump, not Harris, who was favoured by voters.
The real lesson of Jill Stein’s embarrassingly low support on an anti-Israel ticket is that Israel is not as salient an issue as media tend to suggest. Polling in the lead-up to the election suggested a majority of voters felt the US should be demanding a ceasefire, yet this sentiment does not seem to be reflected in their voting behaviour.
The reason for this is that concerns about the economy were far greater, at their highest since the Great Recession. Though much of social media discourse surrounding the election placed great emphasis on the trending issues of Israel and Gaza, abortion, immigration, and identity politics, working and middle-class voters remain most concerned about ‘kitchen table’ issues: their income, the price of groceries, and their ability to pay taxes.
The attempt at a single-issue Gaza campaign seemed enticing to just two demographics who are unlikely bedfellows: the KKK and a minority of Michigan’s Muslims.
Jill Stein will undoubtedly return from her hibernation once again in 2028. We shall then learn whether her tactics change, or whether she will again adapt her attire, voter basis, and manifesto to capitalise on the trendiest issue of the year.
