General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forums"You should vote for and support the best candidate presented in the primary"
"You should probably vote for and support the Democratic Candidate in the General, but it's your vote."
Is this a reasonable stance?
Bryant
1 vote, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
Yes that is reasonable; and I accept that some good DUers may pick a different best candidate than I will | |
1 (100%) |
|
Yes that is reasonable; but the best candidates will be pretty obvious, so I assume good DUers will support that candidate." | |
0 (0%) |
|
No this isn't reasonable; we need to support the right candidate now if we want to hold onto the white house | |
0 (0%) |
|
No this isn't reasonable, for reasons I will detail below. | |
0 (0%) |
|
What isn't reasonable is this bullshit poll. | |
0 (0%) |
|
I like to vote! | |
0 (0%) |
|
0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Although we don't all get the same ballots in primaries, depending on our registered affiliation. Ohio has party-specific ballots, so as a registered Dem Socialist, I don't get the Democratic Party ballot.
For the second half, I'd merely change the word 'primary to general' and repeat the first statement as being the 'most reasonable' stance.
Why should you want to vote for and support the best candidate in one race, but not in every race?
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)There have been times when the Socialist or Green party might well have represented my views better, but not at the cost of allowing Republicans access to the white house (or my districts house seat or senate seat).
Or that's the rationale.
Bryant
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)'Run the best possible candidate as a Democrat'.
That way, people voting for the best possible candidate will vote for them. Democrats will vote for them in the primary, and everyone will vote for them in the general.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)While I think that Warren for example would be a great candidate, and I'd really like to support her in the general, other people feel just as passionately that Clinton should be the candidate. One of our candidates will get the nomination; if it's not yours, than at that point your choices are to support the Democratic Candidate in the General or to support a third party candidate.
Bryant
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)While we might 'live in a democracy', the 'primary' is not truly democratic. Because a primary specifically limits who gets to vote. You don't get to vote in a Republican primaries, I don't get to vote in either Democratic or Republican primaries.
If primaries were actually democratic, every person would get to vote in every primary. I'd get to vote for the best Democrat to be on the general ballot AND the best Republican to be on the general ballot. And the best of any other party.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)And I'm not sure the logic follows that most poeple would vote for the best Republican if they were Democrat or the best Democrat if they were Republican.
Or to put it another way, isn't the best Republican candidate the most easily defeated?
Be that as it may, at some point after the primary process concludes you end up with a candidate who may or may not have been the one you wanted. At that point you have to make a call. Is it worth the risk to vote third party, knowing what a Republican President might do to the court, for example.
Bryant
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)the them up and the one who has the most votes runs as the nominee. You seem to be suggesting the assignment of a nominee according to your view of who is the best possible instead of the collective view as demonstrated by the election cycle.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)A primary is a deliberate limiting of who gets to have a vote to those who are in a specific subset of the voting public.
alc
(1,151 posts)And more important, will my definition of "best candidate" even be allowed in the primary?
As long as I can use my personal definition of "best" I'll vote for the "best" on the primary ballot. But I'll have a much better feeling about the party if the "best" on the ballot is someone I'm excited about. It's easier to rally around the winner if I had options and my choice didn't win.
If my options were reduced before the primary even happened and there were no discussions/debates around the issues I care about then I don't feel represented by the winner and will be falling back the voting for the "lesser of two evils".
Marrah_G
(28,581 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Different opinions Nd competition is good for the party.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If the general election candidate can not earn votes on their own, they are not entitled to votes because there is a D after their name.
Just ask Gore. He has repeatedly said 2000 happened because he ran a bad campaign. He has not been screaming "Fucking Nader voters!!!"