Literary criticism aside, I consider this sufficiently official. Journalists have been pushing Stein to answer this question throughout the campaign; it has now been answered.

Stein has been increasingly preparing her followers and the public for this idea over the last few weeks. She tweeted on Oct. 14:

Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy is much scarier than Donald Trump’s, who does not want to go to war with Russia. # PeaceOffensive

She retweeted an article by her running mate Ajamu Baraka on Oct 15 titled “Why Hillary Clinton Is More Dangerous Than Donald Trump,” which states:

The danger to the rest of us is not Trump, but Hillary Clinton.

and on Oct. 16 retweeted Baraka’s tweet:

Expecting people of color to fear Donald Trump after all we’ve been through the last 200 years, is absurd.

On Oct. 21 she posted on Facebook an article titled:

What’s scarier than Donald Trump? Hillary Clinton’s plans to gut Social Security

Greens have been spreading this message heavily on social media and in articles like this that state “Donald Trump as president will do ‘less damage‘.”

This may surprise many unfamiliar with Green Party history, but it fully adheres to Green Party tradition. In 2000, Ralph Nader said on several occasions that he would prefer to see George W. Bush in the White House over Al Gore. Green Party leaders were open that their goal was to stop Al Gore.

More history and analysis of this strange and very under-reported aspect of the Greens may be found at The Green Party Openly Preferred George W. Bush in 2000 and Openly Prefers Donald Trump Now. It includes a summary of the political science consensus that yes, Nader cost Gore the election. But more startlingly are the credibly-sourced quotes from Ralph Nader on his preference for Bush, along with analysis from colleagues as to what motivated it. Some excerpts:

When asked if someone put a gun to his head and told him to vote for either Gore or Bush, which he would choose, Nader answered without hesitation: “Bush… If you want the parties to diverge from one another, have Bush win.”

In response to a reporter’s question “…does that mean you would not have a problem providing the margin of defeat for Gore?”

“I would not — not at all,” Nader answered. “I’d rather have a provocateur than an anesthetizer in the White House. “

A news article reported:

After lambasting Gore as part of a do-nothing Clinton administration, Nader said: “If it were a choice between a provocateur and an ‘anesthetizer,’ I’d rather have a provocateur. It would mobilize us.”… in the past Nader has said that a Bush victory could have an oddly beneficial effect for the Green movement… Bush, Nader has said, could be the same kind of “provocateur” if elected.

In an interview with Tim Russert:

RUSSERT: Would it bother you that…Al Gore lost the election? NADER: No, not at all… There may be a cold shower for four years that would help the Democratic Party… It doesn’t matter who is in the White House. RUSSERT: … Would [Al Gore] not be better on [environmental and consumer] issues than George W. Bush? NADER: …no… regulatory agencies under Clinton/Gore are as bad or worse than under Reagan/Bush…

This year’s Green Party mantra that the “GOP is less scary” was entirely predictable and independent of whatever candidate chosen by the Democratic party. History shows us it has very little to do with Hillary Clinton herself.

Greens are currently defending Stein over revelations of her investments in the world’s largest financial backer of palm oil plantations, the number one cause of deforestation in the world.

In another illiberal act, last week Stein bizarrely called for a national “conversation” on “oppressive” comedians, following criticism by John Oliver of her vaccine views and economic plans.

The Green Party has so many affinities with the alt-right that terms like “left” or “progressive” don’t seem fully appropriate. There’s the stated progressive platform, but that takes a back seat so readily to other objectives that a deeper analysis is needed to fully grasp how to characterize them.

I suggest calling them the Puce Party, a brownish muddle of green and red.

It's perfect: there's international confusion as to whether puce is green or red. In Europe puce is a shade of green (where their Green Party would never behave this way); in the U.S. puce is considered a murky reddish brown. Like I said... perfect. Besides, "Pucer" sounds like "Truther. “

[My first DK diary!]