IF Hillary is the Democratic nominee,

[MoonRiver]

and IF all the Hillary haters on DU follow through with their threats not to vote for the Democratic nominee, will it make one iota of difference in the general?

[onehandle]

1. No. nt

[Agschmid]

2. No, DU is a small % of the population...

Now if all those people live in say Florida or Ohio the DEM nominee might be in trouble...

[libdem4life]

3. Just consider it a Republican vote...or 2 or 3...because the haters influence others not to vote.

Same as those who say there is no difference. You can't fix stupid.

[MohRokTah]

4. It will affect perhaps 0.000002% of the vote.

It can make all the difference if the vote turns out to be extremely close, just like how the idiots who are too purist to vote Democratic did to the world in Florida circa 2000.

[HappyMe]

5. I don't know.

The country isn't only comprised of DU. There are probably many more in real life that won't vote for her either.

[hrmjustin]

6. I hope not.

[Smarmie Doofus]

7. Not w. respect to # of votes she'll get. But...

... lots of people here do more than vote. In other words, they volunteer, donate $$$, travel to swing states to canvass, etc., persuade their friends and coworkers who are toying w. not voting to do so.... and also to participate in some or all of the forms of heightened active participation listed above.

And not all... or even a significant percentage of DEM "Hillary haters"..... are here on DU. Lots of folks who are active within and outside the party ... all over the country.... are thinking exactly the same thing:

This .... Clinton (yet again) is NOT the best we can do.

Cumulatively they (we) make a difference.

[MoonRiver]

9. Just curious about how you will feel if your plan succeeds,

and we are saddled with a President Cruz, Bush, Cristie or some equally odious person.

[L0oniX]

37. Some people vote for who can win. Others vote for the best person for the job.

[upaloopa]

52. Yea even though they can't win

If it is a zero sum game then you voted for the repuke too.

[obxhead]

56. It s a zero sum game.

A vote for Clinton is a republican vote. The differences are so small between her and the rest of the republican (yet to announce) field are so small it could be called insignificant.

War, trade deals, tax cuts for billionaires, propping up the insurance industry, you name it she rides the same elephant the republicans do.

[Renew Deal]

14. We'll see how things will shake out

I think many people forget just how impressive of a candidate Hillary is. She is razor sharp, understands the issues deeply, and can fight. She's a great debater. I liked Obama in the debates with McCain and Romney, but Romney was a good debater. I think Hillary would have torn him up.

By the time we get to convention time most people will see the differences in options between the Democrat and Bush/Walker. It will be more clear. If a handful of people can't see the difference then they are not the type of people we want in our camp anyway. They lack judgement.

[whatthehey]

15. Wouldn't it be more productive for them (you) to concentrate on primary opponents then?

If there are enough of them (you) to make a difference, why not make a difference when far less harm will be done and get their (your) preferred candidate to be the nominee, rather than working to ensure a Republican president if they (you) can?

Personally I can think of a good dozen or so high profile Dems I'd prefer to HRC but zero of them who have both any intent of running or any chance of winning if they did, assuming she also runs. I'm more interested in probability than inevitability, but I can extrapolate from data fairly well.

And frankly it matters little to me anyway. Any Democratic slate, be it Manchin/Webb or Ellison/Chu or anything in between, will be opposed as the second coming of Marx/Stalin during the campaign and stymied if they say water is wet when elected if Republicans have even 40% of the seats anyway. So I could care a bit less, but not much, who is the eventual nominee because I make Yellow Dog Democrats look like Nader backers in 2000. I wouldn't just vote/donate/campaign for the dog, I'd vote/donate/campaign for the bacteria in the shit of the fleas on the dog rather than see any Republican in power.

Yes yes purists, I know the drill

Team sport! Nyaaah! Yes it really is. You either get Dem-run commitees or Rep-run committees. You either get Dem nominees to the cabinet and judiciary or Rep nominees. You either get a Dem with a veto pen or a Rep with one. I'm pretty clear on which I prefer. Why aren't you (and if you think they are the same, please refer to Scalithomas versus Kagan/Sotomayor voting records as exhibit a)?

Lesser of two evils! Waahhhgarrrbble! Even if you really think, falsely, centrist or moderate Dems are evil, personally given the choice between a slap in the face and flaying alive in an acid bath, when there are no other options (and absent a major party split a la 1850s or a massive rethinking of electoral practices that would need several new amendments, either the Rep or the Dem nominee will be POTUS), I am again vigorously campaigning for the slap. Why aren't you? The time to pick your "evil" is in the primaries, not after them.

[Smarmie Doofus]

74. I'm way too old for "purism".

And I absolutely expect to support a "real" Dem" ( i.e. not Clinton) in the primaries.

My point is this: DEM progressives are the heart and soul of the party. If you want them MOBILIZED in November, you will ****M O T I V A T E*** them.

You're NOT going to do this by running Clinton again... and rationalizing it as the lesser of two evils.

Wonderful: a choice between a new war against Syria (GOP) and or one against Iran.
( Clinton. She'll "annihilate them; remember?)

Yes the SCOTUS consideration gives one pause. But beyond that.... nothing else does.

[TheKentuckian]

113. No, I'm tired of this dance. Defeat a Turd Way candidate and the one is turned away for a day

Destroy the viability of the Democratic party as a vehicle for the Turd Way and beat them forever.

No more negotiations with cancer, long term survival requires aggressive chemotherapy only then is any serious effort to rein in the "ownership" class even possible.

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. I wonder about this ...

lots of people here do more than vote. In other words, they volunteer, donate $$$, travel to swing states to canvass, etc., persuade their friends and coworkers who are toying w. not voting to do so.... and also to participate in some or all of the forms of heightened active participation listed above.

I have noticed that some of the most vocal anti-Democratic/"I want my party back"/"We need more FDR Democrats" voices, make claims of having "donated to President Obama's campaigns ... twice", also appear on the income inequality threads, crying poor mouth.

Now I, suppose, it's possible that they may choose to spend their limited resources on donating, volunteering and traveling in support of campaigns; but, I don't think that is likely.

So I wonder, just how "active" DUers really are ... beyond posting to this anonymous politic message board.

[Smarmie Doofus]

82. I can't speak for everyone....

only for myself.

Voted for Obama over Clinton in '08. Donated.

Donated to Obama '08 in general election; traveled across "battle-ground" state lines ( to Philly); stayed in motel, did the canvassing thing there, was happy with the outcome ( O carried Pa and got himself elected.)

Then he ( Obama) decides that school privatization ( originally a painfully obvious money-making rw GOP scheme ) is actually a GREAT idea, PS teachers suck, teacher UNIONS suck even more; torture is coooooool, actually, as is perpetual war in M.E. for perpetual profit........ and the ancillary benefit is that it ( i.e. perpetual war) promotes domestic totalitarian surveillance state to boot.

Other than that...... I got no complaints.

Voted for Greens in 2012. It would have been sado-masochistic not to.

[1StrongBlackMan]

87. I think ...

Then he ( Obama) decides that school privatization ( originally a painfully obvious money-making rw GOP scheme ) is actually a GREAT idea, PS teachers suck, teacher UNIONS suck even more; torture is coooooool, actually, as is perpetual war in M.E. for perpetual profit........ and the ancillary benefit is that it ( i.e. perpetual war) promotes domestic totalitarian surveillance state to boot.

You've read far too many DU posts.

[MineralMan]

8. Only to the extent it suppresses Democratic voter turnout.

I don't think there will be much effect. Democrats tend to show up to vote in Presidential elections, even if they're somewhat slackerish in off-year elections.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. Agreed ...

I've often wondered about some mindsets.

We have a segment of DU that spends a significant amount of their time "bashing"/criticizing (however one wants to term it) sitting Democrats, Democratic candidates, and the direction of the Democratic Party, in general, to anyone that will listen ... and then, they are shocked at low voter turn-out ... all while claiming no involvement in voter suppression because their voice can't be heard (because DU is a really small place) ... right after posting a "rally the troops" thread to stop/promote this or that policy and after having claimed credit for stopping/pushing this or that policy.

I don't understand it.

[randys1]

60. And what is weird is the people with the most legitimate personal beef with Hillary, are quietly

supporting her even though they may not want to but the alternative is horrible.

The race baiting she and her husband did in 2008 is an actual, real thing that was done that could be a legitimate reason for someone to NEVER vote for her.

But, I have learned and observed that the vast majority of the people who would take that personal, also realize that the alternative to Hillary from the right is lunacy, insanity, destruction, death, etc.


The new PUMA's per a post I saw earlier this week here are the ones who

well let me use their words, they are perfect

I have not seen one Hillary supporter on this site THIS election cycle say that they will not support the nominee, but have seen plenty of people saying they will not vote for Hillary if she he wins. That is PUMA and it is wrong.

[1StrongBlackMan]

65. The activities of the 2008 primaries ...

does not/did not shock any PoC ... it is what we deal with. We know every vote we cast, is for the lesser of two evils.

[randys1]

69. I think I am wasting my time here.

I am an advocate for many, at least I hope I am.

I have inside information on certain things but I get nothing but defense of the corporations and attacking of the people fighting the corporations here at DU.

For the thousandth time, we need a liberal message board to post on.

[HappyMe]

71. That really makes me feel kind of sad.

I can't imagine living with feeling like it's hopeless, and a bit powerless to do much about it. So much money is involved in elections, it is terrible to think that good voices are shut out because of big bucks.

[1StrongBlackMan]

78. It's NOT about hopelessness ...

But rather, managed expectations.

Being a "systemic minority" means, recognizing the intersection(s) of interests, and embracing them; while never losing sight of the fact that our different circumstances mean that we will also have divergent ... even competing interests.

As such, we (largely) side with those institutional figures that will do us the least hate ... even when that means knowing the figure will not advance our interests.

But understand, it is NOT money that silences us/forestall our interests ... it is the/a system that has us as a "minority".

[HappyMe]

79. Okay, now I understand.

Thanks.

[MineralMan]

68. Oh, I understand it very well.

The goals are quite clear, it seems to me.

[1StrongBlackMan]

80. And while I'm at it ...

nor do I understand the mindset that holds the simultaneous belief that the "system" is a lock for the "TPTB" and advocating that system can be changed using the only institutional mechanism available ... voting for the "right" candidate.

It would seem that those two beliefs are mutually exclusive.

[MineralMan]

83. In the United States, change is an elusive thing.

A lot of people ignore how evenly divided we are on political lines. We oscillate back and forth between Republican and Democratic control of our national government regularly. I do not understand the belief some seem to have that "if only we" do something or another, everything will suddenly change. Such people are ignoring history altogether, it seems to me.

We are not anywhere near to some shift to the left in the U.S. In fact, this country could take a hard right in 2016 by electing a Republican President and keeping control of Congress in GOP hands. That possibility never seems to occur to some people, who appear to believe that all that is necessary is for some "progressive" presidential candidate to suddenly run for the office.

Let's call that candidate Elizabeth Warren, just for grins. Let's say she ran in the primaries and beat Hillary, as unlikely as that seems to me. In November of 2016, she'd lose to whatever mainline Republican got the nomination, who would drag along an even larger GOP majority in Congress.

Since EW knows that, she's not running. Bernie might make a token run, but will be out of the race the day after Super Tuesday. Right not, I can't see any other Democrat who, if nominated, could beat, say, Bush. Hillary can, though, assuming that nothing goes badly wrong during the campaign.

Do I like the choices? I do not. Do I understand why we will have that choice? Yes, I do. Will vote for Hillary Clinton next November. You bet your ass I will. I live in the real world. I don't have time for fantasies. I'm 69 years old. I don't have time to wait 8 years for the next Democratic President.

I'm a realist and therefore a pragmatist. I see no alternative that is workable to being those things.

[1StrongBlackMan]

89. I largely agree ...

no, I completely agree.

If your electoral strategy relies heavily on a magical "income inequality"/"anti-police state"/"individual freedom" (or any combination thereof) message that will get the 38-43% of eligible, but sitting at home, voters to turn out to the polls, while eschewing, or out-right, offending the 58% (the Democratic base) that routinely show up ... well ... lots of luck ... And I'm glad you're posting on DU.

[MineralMan]

97. Thanks.

My point of view is far from popular on DU, but it's history-based.

[1StrongBlackMan]

101. And grounded in the reality ...

born of actually doing (campaign/voter) stuff beyond posting to an anonymous political message board and calling it a day.

[Renew Deal]

10. That's a good point, but looking at Florida 2000 it might.

All those people that thought it would be cute to vote for Nader drove down Gores numbers and ended up costing Gore the election overall. And we are still paying for it with Roberts, Alito, the aftermath of the Iraq war, etc.

[MoonRiver]

11. It's amazing how quickly people forget.

[ieoeja]

23. It is, isn't it? Why would anyone want someone at the top of the ticket that they KNOW will ...

... suppress Democratic turnout? If Hillary gets the nomination, the 2016 election will be a blowout win for Republicans.

Right now Republicans are set to lose big in the Senate. Hillary's nomination might actually change that.

Of course, that election is still amost two years away. And the start of primary a little less than a year away. I imagine somebody will come to the fore before then. Bill is a lot more the Iowa style politician, and he still couldn't win there. I expect we'll see a new front runner come out of Iowa.

[MoonRiver]

24. She's leading all the likely Republican candidates in every poll out there.

You're letting hate cloud your judgement.

[ieoeja]

27. Hate? And she was leading everyone even larger in the polls before her book tour.

Face realitiy. She sucks as a campaigner.

And that was without an opponent campaigning against her! What do you think is going to happen when opponents remind everyone of her attempt to suppress the Black vote in Nevada? How does she downplay "real White Americans"? How will she address the fact that she tried convincing super delegates to overrule the primary results? What will her answer be to violating the pledge not to campaign in Michigan and Florida when they violated the rules?

No Democrat who attempts to subvert the democratic process should even be considered an acceptable candidate. If you want to support her, go right ahead. But I don't see how she stands a chance in hell of getting the nomination once people are reminded of the things she did in 2008.

You're letting hate cloud your judgement.

[MoonRiver]

73. I don't hate anyone, well, ISIS.

Polls for months have shown her beating the Rethugs. She will be our next President, unless something happens to her health.

[1StrongBlackMan]

46. The don't forget ...

they just deny it happened.

[L0oniX]

35. Too bad you can't force people to vote how you want. Right?

[jeff47]

88. Just remember to put the blame on the right place.

The problem was not voters being "cute".

The problem was Gore ran a shitty DLC-style campaign and distanced himself from Bill Clinton despite the very successful record. He didn't earn their vote.

Democratic politicians are not entitled to the vote of every registered Democrat. They have to actually work for votes. "Not as bad as the Republican" as your main campaign theme (AKA, 2000, 2002, 2004, 2010 and 2014) doesn't earn enough votes.

[NanceGreggs]

12. I suspect that a lot of the anti-Hillary contingent here ...

... have never voted for any Democrat, ever.

[MoonRiver]

13. I've suspected that also.

[Renew Deal]

16. I agree. And it has been reported in the past.

For his film (Astro)Turf Wars, Taki Oldham secretly recorded a training session organized by a rightwing libertarian group called American Majority. The trainer, Austin James, was instructing Tea Party members on how to “manipulate the medium”. This is what he told them:

“Here’s what I do. I get on Amazon; I type in “Liberal Books”. I go through and I say “one star, one star, one star”. The flipside is you go to a conservative/ libertarian whatever, go to their products and give them five stars. … This is where your kids get information: Rotten Tomatoes, Flixster. These are places where you can rate movies. So when you type in “Movies on Healthcare”, I don’t want Michael Moore’s to come up, so I always give it bad ratings. I spend about 30 minutes a day, just click, click, click, click. … If there’s a place to comment, a place to rate, a place to share information, you have to do it. That’s how you control the online dialogue and give our ideas a fighting chance.”

http://www.alternet.org/story/149197/are_right-wing_libertarian_internet_trolls_getting_paid_to_dumb_down_online_conversations

[freshwest]

114. Yep, it's EVERYWHERE.

[RadiationTherapy]

20. That seems a silly and presumptuous suspicion to me.

Along with the slightly childish, but rhetorically meaningless, "never-ever." How bizarre. Unless you are writing a poem or something? I don't know. Good luck.

[NanceGreggs]

41. Where did I say "never-ever"?

If you think it's "silly and presumptuous" to believe there are RW trolls on DU, you might want to alert Skinner to that fact - because he's tombstoned quite a few of them over the years for being exactly that.

[RadiationTherapy]

44. You said it in your post I replied to - I guess I ought to have used an ellipsis. Sorry.

"have never voted for any Democrat, ever."

Furthermore, I don't think it is silly to believe in DU trolls, I meant to imply that your suspicion that anti-Hillary voters "have never voted for any Democrat, ever." was a silly criteria. I'm sorry I was unclear.

[NanceGreggs]

48. I didn't say that all Hillary non-supporters are trolls ...

... or that being anti-Hillary is automatically indicative of being so.

But, nonetheless, quite a number of them are.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

21. Too late. Some enterprising person beat you to the punch last night.

Most of DU was exposed as secret sleeper baggers. Nice try though.

[NanceGreggs]

40. Sorry, but I'm not getting what you're saying.

Explanation, please?

[H2O Man]

26. Respectfully disagree.

Obviously, we can only speculate. But I think that if one does support Hillary Clinton for President -- and there are many good reasons to -- that discounting the motives of those who do not want her for President -- and there are many good reasons not to -- can only grow the divide between segments of the Democratic Party.

I live in New York. Last fall, our governor was up for re-election. There was no doubt that he was going to win. But a segment of our party wanted to express their dissatisfaction for him. It wasn't a case of their not being good Democrats; in truth, Andrew Cuomo has openly stated that among his very best friends are NJ's Governor, Chris Christie, and NYS Senator Tom Libous (R-Mob).

Hence, a large number of registered Democrats -- the very people who can be counted on to do the lion's share of the non-glamorous grass roots campaign work -- voted for a 3rd-party candidate. They did the same work for Democrats running in other elections. But not for Cuomo.

That sent a message that Governor Cuomo understood.

Good people get tired of being taken for granted. Reactions to their discontent -- ranging from the very weak "Oh, you want President Cruz?", to the assumption that they have nowhere to go, to "they aren't Democrats, any ways" aren't a good strategy. We need to listen to one another.

[NanceGreggs]

38. I am not discounting anyone's motives for not wanting Hillary.

I am talking about the RW trolls on DU who pose as Democrats, and post nothing but anti-Dem talking points, whether about Hillary, Obama, or any other Democrat.

And there's quite a few of them.

[cascadiance]

81. I think there are probably more corporatist trolls here though, that complain about our "purism"...

... as a way of trying to keep down any push to have a candidate that really works for progressive value that the people want, that in the past would have been what many candidates would have to do to get voters' support within the party.

I don't think there are many people that are chanting for us to vote for any third party candidates like Ralph Nader this time. There is a lot of us who support Bernie Sanders, but we do so knowing that he also knows that if he's going to run and be effective and have our support that he'll have to run in the Democratic primary to do so, to avoid the problems with our two party system that forces us to pick between the two major party candidates to have our votes count.

Now if Nader, or any other third party candidates this time want to be heard and be a champion for something other than being a spoiler, they should run on emphasizing their main issue as our system being updated to support instant runoff voting or another voting system that can be shown to help provide true democratic support that would allow for third parties to be a part of an election and not just be spoilers when someone doesn't pick one of the lesser of two evils, if the major parties don't provide a decent candidate.

If third party candidates come out and say up front that on top of their platform, that the major party which puts in place instant runoff voting would be a party they would likely commit their support to in exchange for pulling out of the race, then perhaps we might get some movement from one of the major parties (I'd like to think the Democrats) to consider putting this in place. It will have to be done with a lot of public attention to this so that the Democrats and Republicans will know that unless they reform the system (if the party isn't allowed to have a decent nomination process) that they will screw things up unless they put in something like instant runoff voting that I'd like to think that the Democratic Party would profit from more than the Republicans if put in place, and in some cases perhaps a third party if they offer an extremely good candidate when the two major parties don't do their jobs in providing someone decent to vote for.

Instant Runoff Voting would make sure that the PTB would not take us for granted, as if a real decent third party option candidate were available, that person could get elected over a bad Democratic nominee in a way that people wouldn't feel that voting for a third party as their first option would help elect a Republican instead of a Democrat as their second choice.

Obviously with Republicans controlling congress, this would be difficult to do at the national level now, but at least in many state or other more local elections, perhaps third parties running in this fashion could help force this issue and get us better representation (either from Democrats or from decent third party options without fear of giving an office to Republicans).

[L0oniX]

34. Nice smear.

[NanceGreggs]

36. Smear of who?

RW trolls?

There are quite a few of them here - Better Believe It.

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. Yes, they have ...

they not only vote for Democrats, they donated and canvassed and phonebanked and campaigned and drove shut-ins to the polls ... BUT NO MORE!

ETA:

[NanceGreggs]

51. Better believe it!!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. Which wouldn't be all that bad; but for the ...

"Who's with me" tone ... followed by, the "Who? little ole me?", when the suppressive/depressive effect is pointed out.

[CrispyQ]

57. I suspect that a lot of the anti-Hillary contingent here ...

... are life time Democrats who are alarmed at how far right the party has drifted, & at how casually the party has abandoned working class ideals for corporate cash.

The Democratic party is on the same gravy train as the Republican party. Sure, they throw us a few more crumbs, but the train is still going full speed ahead & not changing direction.

[JustAnotherGen]

59. I served on a jury for this post - see my comments within

On Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:05 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

I suspect that a lot of the anti-Hillary contingent here ...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6252413

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The hell with this.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Feb 20, 2015, 08:25 AM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: LEAVE IT ALONE! I believe that statement to be true.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: "The person who sent the alert wrote: The hell with this. " This is not a viable alert. I'm sorry - but it's a general perception that falls within in TOS, is not disruptive, is not Spam, etc. etc. - juror was justanothergen
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: How disruptive. Hide
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: People should be free to advertise their own ignorance.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[NanceGreggs]

96. Thanks, JAGen!

Another juror PM'd me the jury results earlier today, so I saw your comments and appreciate them.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

85. You're wrong, Nance.

I do not like Hillary...........and I have always voted for the Democrat.

[NanceGreggs]

95. Actually, you're wrong, Peggy.

Go back and read what I said.

I did not say that all posters here who don't like/want/support Hillary don't vote Democrat.

What I DID say is that I suspect a lot of the anti-Hillary contingent currently posting on DU never vote Democrat - because they vote GOP.

I am talking about the RW trolls who post here. They look at any issue that divides DUers, and focus their attention on fanning the flames. They are the same people who only have negative things to say about Obama, Hillary, Pelosi, Reid - any Dem that gets discussed here. And oddly enough, they never seem to have a single negative thing to say about any Republicans.

Go figure.

[Logical]

100. "A lot" means what? 5? 10? What you said is BS. Another way to stop the dialog about Hillary. nt

[Logical]

104. Just another way to stop the Hillary discussions! Call her opposition a troll or a GOP supporter. nt

[NanceGreggs]

112. Apparently you still can't distinguish ...

... between "all" and "a lot of".

"I suspect that a lot of the anti-Hillary contingent here have never voted for any Democrat, ever."

Oh, and of course, yeah, I figured I would "stop the Hillary" discussions with one mighty sweep of my "reply" powers on DU!!!

Seriously, dude, don't you think your paranoia has gotten the best of you? Do you REALLY believe that anyone who points out the oh-so-obvious fact that there are RW trolls on DU joining in the Hill-bashing threads are trying to shut down any and all discussions about Hillary?

I believe a chill pill might be in order.

[Logical]

99. LOL, yes, if you dislike Hillary you are a GOP supporter. Nice try. nt

[NanceGreggs]

105. Yeah, because that's exactly what I said, right?

Jesus Hussein Christ.

What part of "I suspect that a lot of the anti-Hillary contingent here have never voted for any Democrat, ever" is so baffling?

Did you honestly believe that I was accusing anyone and everyone who is not a Hillary supporter of being a GOP supporter? REALLY?

Some days, it's like reading comprehension has gone right out the window ...

[Logical]

106. LOL, define "a lot". 10%? 50%? Your post was 100% to shit down discussion. nt

[NanceGreggs]

108. I'm assuming you meant "shut" down discussion.

In any event, you've touched on one of the things that "makes DU suck", as the saying goes.

Precisely how does pointing out the bleedin' obvious - the fact that there are RW trolls on DU who jump into every thread that affords an opportunity to diss a Democrat, Hillary or any other Dem - shut down discussion?

How is that well-known fact about trolls posting here causing you, or anyone else, to stop discussing anything?

I think the paranoia here is over the top, and has been for some time. There was a time when DUers recognized the obvious - that any thread bashing a Democrat was bound to attract right-wingers, along with those who honestly have a problem with something a Democrat said or did. Now those trolls are free to say whatever they want that's anti-Dem, knowing they will be protected by the "I'm just another disgruntled Democrat" guise.

By their words, you will know them. Ever notice that there are posters here who ONLY have negative things to say about any Democrat under discussion? Ever notice that those same posters NEVER have anything negative to say about Republicans?

You should have noticed by now - or maybe you just don't want to.

[peacebird]

103. Voted in every election but one since 1975, and voted For the Dems about 99% of the time

I did vote for Mark Warner in the Senate a couple times, but that was before GWB, back when Warner was a moderate and sensible republican.
Oh, and I am vehemently anti-HRC.

[NanceGreggs]

107. I take it you're aware ...

... that there are many RW trolls posting on DU - especially now, as we head into the next presidential campaign. And there will be many, many more to come.

It is those people I was referring to. They jumped on the anti-Hillary bandwagon from the outset - just like they jump on the anti-Obama bandwagon, the anti-Pelosi bandwagon, the anti-Reid bandwagon - and every other Dem they see being discussed here in negative terms.

There are Hillary-bashing OPs posted here every day. Surely you aren't naive enough to believe that they are ALL the work of devoted Democrats concerned that she's not the candidate they want?

I guarantee you that if Hill announced tomorrow that she's decided not to run, and Liz Warren decided that she will run, a good number of the anti-Hillary folks would be posting anti-Warren screeds within a matter of minutes.

The RW trolls are here for one purpose: to diss ANY Democrat that comes up for discussion. They do it to be divisive and disruptive - and a lot of them are doing an excellent job of doing just that.

[peacebird]

109. I am not naive, but your OP smeared all who post against Hillary with a very broad brush.

That is why I replied.
Hillary has a strong contingent of pro-HRC people here, and a strong contingent of progressive left wing liberal Dems who cannot stand her. Add the discontent of the liberal left to the rabid hatred of the Repubs and I fail to see how HRC can win in the general election.
I would greatly prefer she not be the nominee.
I will not vote for her in primary or in the general.

[NanceGreggs]

110. I am preplexed as to why ...

... my statement that "I suspect that a lot of the anti-Hillary contingent here have never voted for any Democrat, ever" translates to smearing "ALL who post against Hillary".

Actually, I take that back - I am not really perplexed at all.

"Still a man hears what he wants to hear, and disregards the rest."

And you have chosen to disregard what I actually said, and have chosen to hear what you wanted to hear.

So be it.

[joshcryer]

115. I disagree, I believe they've voted.

But I doubt they've put a lot of effort into electioneering. Canvasing, calling lists, placing out placards, etc.

But it won't matter if Clinton runs. She'll have a groundswell of supporters. Many whom probably voted with their husbands in the past.

[fadedrose]

17. The democracy will stand

because the other party has a big selection (yuk!) all shapes and sizes. You guys will have to pick out somebody in 2020 to straighten out the mess. I will be in an urn. Good Luck.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

18. It will have the effect of flatulating in a hurricane./NT

[Agschmid]

42. Lol...

[dissentient]

19. No, extremely unlikely. So that is why all those admonishing those who say they won't vote for

Hillary, saying things like - "You are going to make the Republicans win!" or "President Cruz appreciates your support" and similiar, are being very silly, and its just a bunch of nonsense.

[Art_from_Ark]

22. I am not against Hillary per se

But it REALLY pissed me off to no end when her husband came back to Arkansas to campaign against a liberal Democratic candidate for Senator in the 2010 Arkansas Democratic primary. I would much rather have someone like Sanders or Warren instead of Hillary.

[sendero]

25. A better question...

... might be "would any of them give a shit?".

I certainly know the answer from my own perspective.

[Agnosticsherbet]

28. I do not assume that those opposed to Hillary Clinton are motivated only by hate.

I do not agree with their stand, and I think those who swear they will never vote for Hillary Clinton do not understand how our system works, but that doesn't make them beings consumed and motivated only by hate.

Assuming they are motivated only by hate means that not one of them will even enter a discussion without first locking their mind against those who begin by insulting them and calling into question their morals, ethics and beliefs.

I am sick and tired of the "with us or against us" thinking.

[1StrongBlackMan]

49. Agreed. n/t

[think]

29. If the Dems do as good a job of messaging as they did in 2014 it won't matter.... /nt

[bigwillq]

30. Don't think it will make much difference in my state (CT)

Recent trends suggest the DEM nominee will win my state. So the DEM nominee will likely win my state with or without my vote.

[L0oniX]

31. Goldman Sachs 2016 ...because of all the DU Warren and Sanders haters.

[Bobbie Jo]

58. What nonsense

Please point out the "Warren and Sanders haters."

What does that even mean? I swear, some folks aren't even trying to make sense anymore.

[MoonRiver]

75. I love both Sanders and Warren.

Warren isn't running and it's doubtful Sanders can accumulate the kind of money it takes to do more than run for awhile in the primary. I do hope Sanders runs, because his ideas are important.

[Marrah_G]

32. nope

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. I don't expect my one vote will make any difference in any presidential election.

It hasn't in the 13 presidential elections I've voted in.

Has yours?

"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." John Quincy Adams

[1StrongBlackMan]

50. Yes ...

whether my preferred candidate won, or not.

[DanTex]

45. No. Once there's a Republican candidate and the real possibility of a President Bush III

or President Cruz or whatever sinks in, the delusion that there's no difference between the parties will fade away pretty quick.

The only real danger in terms of losing liberal votes is from a Nader-style spoiler candidate.

[jeff47]

53. Did it make a difference in 2010 or 2014?

Democrats ran a DLC-style "not as bad" campaign. And got stomped due to low turnout.

Clinton is a DLC-style "not as bad" candidate. Golly I wonder if there would be any effect on turnout?

[Agschmid]

55. Your comparison is flawed, those were midterms...

Hard to compare that to a presidential year. I would argue that it turns out Obama is pretty middle of the road himself and he got elected twice.

[jeff47]

64. And Obama didn't run a "not as bad" campaign either time.

If you'd prefer, we could talk about Gore's "Not as bad" campaign. Or Kerry's "Not as bad" campaign.

[MoonRiver]

77. You're the one who's calling it "not as bad."

I'm not, and no Hillary supporter I know is.

[jeff47]

86. Actually, that is usually the first response when someone complains about Clinton in GD

That she is better than the Republican options. Which can be phrased as "not as bad".

If you'd like an example, read post #9 in this thread. You wrote it.

[MoonRiver]

90. I only read it here, usually from diehard Hillary haters.

In the real world Hillary supporters are gung ho for her to run and win the Presidency.

[jeff47]

91. So you didn't read your own post?

Since you couldn't be bothered to scroll up, here lemme quote it for you.

9. Just curious about how you will feel if your plan succeeds,

and we are saddled with a President Cruz, Bush, Cristie or some equally odious person.

Your argument here is Republicans are worse than Clinton. Or to say the exact same thing a different way, Clinton is not as bad as the Republicans.

In the real world Hillary supporters are gung ho for her to run and win the Presidency.

Yet their first response to people who are not gung ho is to argue she is not as bad as the Republicans.

[MoonRiver]

92. Says nothing about the lesser of two evils!

Fact is if the Democratic nominee, whomever it is, loses that is who we will be saddled with.

[jeff47]

93. Actually, that is the entirety of the argument.

When your argument is a Republican would be worse, you are making a lesser of two evils argument.

If you want to not make a lesser of two evils argument, give a reason to vote for her instead of a reason to vote against the Republican. An easy way to do this is to make your argument without mentioning any Republicans.

[MoonRiver]

94. Anyone who knows me, knows that I do NOT think Hillary is evil.

I think she will make a great President and I will do whatever I can to bring that about.

[zappaman]

54. Nope. n/t

[TheNutcracker]

62. no....nor will it make a difference if she's elected

[Capt. Obvious]

63. About as much difference as your post makes

[KamaAina]

66. How many of them live in Florida?

[Ramses]

67. you can be assured the left will be blamed either way

[HappyMe]

72. Absolutely.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

70. no, they are not a statistically significant number

[bravenak]

76. No. I do not think so.

My republican neighbor likes Hillary over Jeb Bush. She says he's dumber than W. She needs to pull in younger voters and start getting her message sewn up.

[winter is coming]

84. Ah, the wonderful elasticity of the "fringe left":

small enough to ignore as "insignificant", but large enough to blame when Dems lose.

If the people who've indicated they're unlikely to vote for Hillary in 2016 are insignificant, then it's wasted effort to browbeat them into supporting a nominee whose policies are anathema to them.

If they're not insignificant, perhaps Hillary's not the strongest choice after all.

[Logical]

98. How many people here have really said that? 5? 10? 20? nt

[Drunken Irishman]

102. No more than those Hillary voters who promised to never vote Obama...

[joshcryer]

111. Yep, the no voters are the new PUMA's.