Success, in this case, would be a term of art. Democrats still seethe over the role they imagine that the Green Party played in getting Donald Trump elected in 2016. Jill Stein received 31,000 votes for president in that cycle, larger than the 23,000-vote margin that handed Wisconsin to Trump over Hillary Clinton. Democrats often forget that Clinton more or less ignored Wisconsin during the general election out of arrogance about the so-called Blue Wall -- and not just Wisconsin but also Michigan.

Thanks to Democrat lawfare, the Greens got pushed off the Wisconsin ballot in 2020 with then-nominee Howie Hawkins. It worked, at least presumably, as Joe Biden won by slightly less than 21,000 votes. This time, Stein's back, and a feud has re-erupted in Wisconsin over whether the Greens will end up playing a spoiler role -- again:

Jill Stein is once again on the ballot as the Green Party nominee, reviving bitter memories of the role she played eight years ago. Wisconsin Democrats haven’t forgotten the searing experience of 2016, when Hillary Clinton unexpectedly lost the state to Donald Trump by just under 23,000 votes — a defeat that many attribute to the roughly 31,000 votes Stein won that year as the Green Party nominee.

In the eight years since 2016, the state’s political equation has been somewhat altered. Thanks to its rapid growth, Dane County — which includes Madison — has turned from a reliably Democratic stronghold into a raging turnout machine that has overwhelmed the GOP’s traditional strength elsewhere in Wisconsin. The Democratic margins in the county keep getting larger, and more people keep coming out to vote. The clearest example came in 2023, during the state’s historically sleepy spring election, when Dane County powered Democrats to victory in a closely contested state Supreme Court race, producing even more Democratic votes than in the much larger Milwaukee County, the state’s traditional population hub.

Yet the seat of that newfound Democratic power is uniquely susceptible to Green Party influence. While they have little infrastructure in the county, within the last decade, Madison has nevertheless elected two Green candidates to local office, more than almost any other city of its size in the nation. The Green Party naturally finds the most traction in deep blue pockets like Madison, where voters are more progressive, more anti-war, more interested in pushing Democrats leftward — and more willing to abandon them when the party doesn’t go far enough.

Politico goes on to note that the war in the Middle East has driven some Democrats to the Greens in protest, mirroring the Uncommitted movement in Michigan:

And the Greens remain positioned to swing the race given the dead heat between Kamala Harris and Trump. Whether it’s the narcissism of small differences or a deep-seated disagreement on how to build left-wing power in the country, the Green Party now functions as something of a vessel for embittered Democrats or leftists who never found a home in the party. The issue areas the party trumpets tend to shift based on the election cycle — this year, the war in Gaza serves as the line of demarcation between Democrats and Greens.

Stein has hammered Democrats over Biden’s response to the conflict. While Harris has quieted some fears on the issue, there are still plenty of former Democrats who refuse to vote for her because of their concerns about the Biden administration’s decision to continue providing aid and arms to Israel. And that’s fueling Democratic paranoia about Stein’s prospects in Dane County.

'Paranoia' is the correct term here. The Greens are fringe activists, nothing more, but they have every right to field a candidate in the presidential election if they satisfy the requirements. Democrats have attempted a lawfare campaign this cycle as well to keep Stein off the ballot, but this time they lost. It's the same strategy that Democrats have used against Robert F. Kennedy Jr, and indeed even against Trump in some instances, until the Supreme Court put an end to the ludicrous 14th Amendment disqualification argument. 

They did all this while claiming to champion "democracy," too. That's another manifestation of Democrat paranoia. (Note: Republicans haven't objected to any other candidates on ballots in this cycle, and to my recollection, in any recent cycles either.) 

Anyway, Stein didn't cost Democrats the election in 2016, nor will she cost Kamala Harris a win in Wisconsin this cycle. Clinton lost Wisconsin eight years ago, mainly by ignoring it. If Harris loses, that's on her too. Stein speaks to disaffected progressives, and those progressives almost certainly wouldn't vote for Harris even if Stein wasn't on the ballot. They won't cast those votes with any expectation that Stein can win, but just to register their anger against Democrats over the war in Gaza -- and maybe now over their lawfare campaign to keep Greens off the ballot. 

In fact, one big reason that Democrats face a big risk of losing in this cycle is because they're getting too progressive, and stridently so. Pushing Joe Biden off the ballot probably accelerates that problem in Wisconsin as well as Michigan and Pennsylvania, in terms of disconnects from working-class concerns and issues. But don't forget that support for the Palestinian cause in Gaza is also a fringe position in the American electorate, too. Eight in ten Americans consistently support Israel in this conflict, with more than six in ten opposing a cease-fire without the return of all hostages and the removal of Hamas from power in Gaza. The Democrats and the Greens are competing to see which side can be the most radical.

That may be a great strategy for California and Massachusetts. It seems less smart for the Rust Belt. Democrats would likely do much better by moving back to the center rather than chase the Academia dragon. Their choice in that regard also has nothing to do with Jill Stein, but with the radical-establishment clique that will turn Democrats into a niche party once Trump leaves the scene. If not before.