General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo does it come down to this - the best candidates for our principles "can't win", so we must
get behind a lesser candidate (with regards to the checklist of our principles) because they can win? That's really disappointing, isn't it - having to "settle" because the process is totally screwed up? Is the game rigged or what!
And that right there is why I am spending far, far more time gardening, listening to music, mentally escaping than I am on news and politics.
cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)leftofcool
(19,460 posts)As a Hillary supporter, I don't see him as the lesser candidate. I don't think he could win a general election but that does not in any way make him a lesser candidate. If you are supporting the candidate who best reflects your values how are you settling?
NRaleighLiberal
(60,018 posts)"a vote for Sanders, or Warren (if she decided to run), etc is a vote for Republican" types of posts.
leftofcool
(19,460 posts)He has already stated he would not do that and be a 'spoiler" as was Nader.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)That was a shame. We could have president gore at a critical time if only the state he called home voted for him.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Don't they pride themselves on contributing to Gore's loss in Tennessee?
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)But it is part of being a grown up.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)All the Nader voters want to pretend that it was OK they voted for him, but if he hadn't run, there would have been no Bush v. Gore.
Let that sink in.
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)Suddenly it's not America in the world you seem to be living in.
So don't blame Rove. But do blame the Supreme Court, at least.
upaloopa
(11,417 posts)Vote for who is on the ballot in the General
No compromise.
I voted for Jesse Jackson in the California primaries and Bill Clinton in the general.
I don't feel I compromised.
Agschmid
(28,749 posts)Don't give in to stupidity.
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)Vincardog
(20,234 posts)1939
(1,683 posts)you need to lose in order to win. Probably a bannable offense to explain it, but a third party has to really hurt an established party to either get the established party to adopt their platform or to destroy the established party in order to replace it. Either way, the GOP will win a couple of cycles until you sort out the way the party is going.
appal_jack
(3,813 posts)After the Nader run of 2000, we got Chimpy. The fault was more Gore/Loserman'sn, and the Supreme Court's, and the corrupt FL officials, but still: for a good dozen years afterward here, the canon was "Fuck Nader!" and nothing more.
If anything, the Democrats have drifted even further from the Green/Nader platform in the years since.
I wish that we could scare the Democratic Party insiders into valuing labor, greens, and progressives, but they seem resolute in ignoring us on every day except election day. I'll keep trying though...
-app
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)Make no mistake, if the Teapublicans get control of All three branches, our country is fucked for 2-3 generations at least. Real people will suffer in your quest for ideological purity. That's insanity.
ladyVet
(1,587 posts)I've been doing it for decades now, and the party is sliding more to the right all the time. Picking a candidate because "at least they're better than a Republican" is only making things worse.
Personally, I'm voting for Bernie in the primary, and if he doesn't win the nomination I'll vote for the Green candidate, or I won't vote at all. I'm tired of doing the right thing, and always ending up in worse shape.
I understand the consequences of where this country is going. I'm female and only five years away from Social Security. How do you think I feel when Democrats talk about "entitlements" and putting SS on the table? When they let insurance companies get away with their policies that make my health care less than a mans?
It's not a warm, fuzzy feeling, ya, sure, you betcha. I feel like I've been robbed, and yet I'm supposed to sit down and eat my peas (for at least as long as I can still afford them, I guess), and let the party that wants my money give it all up to the corporations.
And I still haven't gotten my pony.
treestar
(82,383 posts)History should have many of them if true.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,237 posts)Support who you like. You're the one who called him "lesser". That's a problem, coming from a "supporter". It's pretty simple really. This is still DU, where you'll read a lot of stuff you disagree with. Get over it.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,018 posts)but that's the way it seems to be with certain supporters.
TBF
(32,086 posts)I have been spending some time in the Bernie and socialists groups, but other than that I am finding other activities. I just get frustrated when I go to GD and get constantly assaulted if I don't say the right thing about the party's chosen candidate. I am going to continue to support Bernie but I don't want to be part of this vicious in-fighting because it will only encourage me to not vote at all if Bernie is not the candidate (and it doesn't escape me that certain folks that I've had to put on ignore this week probably aren't even Dems to being with - they are likely only here to provoke).
Hope the gardens and your family are doing well.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,018 posts)I've never, ever been able to stand the whole cheerleading thing - especially when it is such thin skinned cheer leading (have you noted the numbers of blocked members here and there on certain groups?)
TBF
(32,086 posts)I just look at a bunch of the "about me" in groups. The blocked members resemble my ignore list!
Regarding the # of blocked members for the HC group ... you gotta wonder. Saw an on-point article in the Times this morning: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/politics/the-right-aims-at-democrats-on-social-media-to-hit-clinton.html?ref=politics
It is amazing how much new technology is affecting elections in our country. It is always in the back of the mind that anything could be happening to electronic voting machines & now propaganda vis a vie social media is a huge issue.
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)I will vote for the candidate of my choice, win or lose, D,R,I, write-in.
I live in CT, it doesn't make much difference anyway--DEMs win most of the time in my state, so it's sort of a win-win anyway.
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)DCBob
(24,689 posts)It's politics.
LWolf
(46,179 posts)The logic of those who work tirelessly to marginalize the better candidates.
And a logic leaving me to ask: What, exactly, do I WIN when I lose?
I'll stick with fighting for a true win, myself.
Ruby the Liberal
(26,219 posts)Vote for who I want that is still on the ballot when the primary rolls around, and if there isn't a candidate left standing that I can stomach, bury my head in the sand until after the conventions. By that point, I will be over the loss and paying attention to the level of insanity that the Republicans have put forth and will be rejuvenated to get back to the polls in November.
I wouldn't have volunteered for Hillary in 2008 (and likely won't if she is the nominee in 2016), but by taking a break, I will definitely be able to vote for her with my head held high considering the alternative option.
So far I am in with Bernie as my #1 unless Elizabeth Warren jumps in, and I do like O'Malley. We shall see who is still competing next year when our primary rolls around!
Thespian2
(2,741 posts)Plenty of cheerleaders around...
We are finally getting some warm weather, so I am getting my gardens ready for planting...have to wait until the threat of frost is over...short growing season here in the Maritime Provinces...
Autumn
(45,120 posts)So we don't settle, we work to get Bernie elected.
brooklynite
(94,703 posts)Are you claiming that your candidate is so popular that the only way he could lose if the election was rigged?
As much as YOU may not like her, Hillary Clinton is polular with a wide range of Democrats. And other than he dreams of some people here, I've seen no evidence that Bernie Sandees is approaching that number (hint: he'll need as many voters as Obama got in 2008).
But even if we assume he wins the nomination, there's this thing called a General Election where they let Republicans and Independents vote. Hillary Clinton has appeal to the middle of the road voters she'll need in addition to the Democrats she'll get; no rigging required.
NRaleighLiberal
(60,018 posts)and since many, many people parrot or believe anything they read or hear (even if it is not in their best interest), then the game is rigged.
It is not about "like" - it is about who represents my views. My wife, my two daughters, are all fatigued by the same old message, same old approach (and I am NOT referring to age). We are very much aligned with Sanders or Warren'sabo message, though of course if Clinton wins the nomination, she would get all of our votes.
But...it is about money, and controlling the message.
brooklynite
(94,703 posts)...to support a candidate who can raise he money we'll need to compete with the Republicans AND who's committed to overturning Citizen's United.
DJ13
(23,671 posts).....to support a candidate who can raise the money we'll need to compete with Republicans"
And we wonder why our political system keeps being dragged further and further to the right.
"We'll just act like conservatives long enough to win, then we can go back to traditional liberal values afterwards."
It never works that way, theres always another election coming up where we have to act like the other side so we can win.
brooklynite
(94,703 posts)Sorry, I won't unilaterally disarm.
DJ13
(23,671 posts)Winning or losing means nothing if you compromise your principles.
Thats how I've always seen it.
brooklynite
(94,703 posts)Both Sanders and Clinton have pledged to do that through their SC nominees. So there WILL be a change in the future. However, one candidate will have the resources to win to be ABLE to make those SC nominations; the other candidate will not. I'll accept that short-term condition.
BTW - by your standards, millions of people would not have health care today if we insisted on "not compromising our principle" and insisted on a single payer strategy which would never have passed.
TBF
(32,086 posts)we don't have the money to elect the people we'd really like to have (it is a huge longshot with Bernie - and that's with so many of us individually trying to chip in)
treestar
(82,383 posts)About other voters, both Democrats and others. Just an insistence that DU liberals represent most of the world.
BrotherIvan
(9,126 posts)Or a Bernie tomato fundraiser. Summer is coming and your tomatoes are le bomb. You might get some interest and maybe Sanders group supporters can help.
(I hear you, I'm starting to get depressed about the whole situation that only big money is even considered "serious" in this country. I think we are well and truly screwn.)
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)State Elections are a bit better, depending upon the state.
Take Florida, for example. There is no way possible for Alan Grayson to win a statewide election in Florida. If, however, we were talking about Massachusetts, he'd stand a very good chance and an even better chance in Vermont.
It's in smaller Congressional districts where we can get some of the most liberal candidates elected, again, depending upon the district.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)politics is a team sport. If you don't play as a team, you lose.
KMOD
(7,906 posts)I back HRC because I believe she is a strong candidate for our principles. She has been a very strong advocate for democratic principles, and has a unique and diverse amount of experience. She is also very highly respected, not just here, but world wide.
That said, it's quite early, and Senator Sanders and Governor O'Malley have plenty of time to become more well known. Should Sanders, or O'Malley win the nomination, I will gladly vote for them as well, because losing the White House is not an option for me. There is too much at stake this time.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Last edited Sat May 16, 2015, 11:47 PM - Edit history (1)
When did anyone in the universe promise ideal candidates or ideal anything.
In the primary, I will choose the best candidate from those that are running.
In the general election, I choose the best candidate from those who are running.
I see the lesser of two evils argument as a form of voluntary self inflicted voter suppression.
Perfection does not exist.
840high
(17,196 posts)Sobax
(110 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)You don't have to settle. No one does.
It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Imagine if this time everyone just voted for the candidate who most represents their principles.
It's that simple, and we know that a majority of Americans agree on the major issues.
Just vote for whoever best represents you. More people are going to be doing that this time than ever before.
And yes the best candidate CAN win.
brooklynite
(94,703 posts)nobody claiming "he can win" can explain how he raises the money he'll need to win which States with what kind of voters.
Doctor_J
(36,392 posts)Hillary over Sanders. Unless you believe that TPP, school privatization, continued war and military spending, fracking, more drilling, another wall street cabinet, and for profit health insurance are in your best interest, shouldn't Sanders be your candidate?
brooklynite
(94,703 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)The House will likely remain in Republican hands due to gerrymandering until after the next census. That alone will make progress difficult.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)Hillary is a great liberal Democrat, and she can get a liberal policy agenda implemented, just as Pres. Obama has done.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)St. Ronnie of Rayguns? George W. Bush?
Would Strom Thurmond be center right or just barely conservative at this point? Fucking Birchers have been mainstreamed and we have supposedly liberal Democrats calling middle of the road New Dealers the radical leftist fringe and people wonder why things are fucked up and getting worse all the time.
People like you are dragging the country to the right and have been radicalizing the regressive elements in the process.
The more "center" the Democratic party goes the more batshit crazy the other morons get and I'm not going to enable it or pretend it is a lesser evil anymore because in the big picture it really isn't because we are preventing ourselves from being able to actually mount any practical opposition to right wing politics.
Your school of thought has had full sway for over a generation and it has proven to be a failure almost across the board with the only real progress made on gay equality and that is because the people that pushed the hardest ignored the fuck out of you and fought like hell with no regard to offending the fake center conservatives that supposedly ever sell out and fuck up is designed to appease but actually it seems the independents are the first people sent scurrying away in response.
NYC Liberal
(20,136 posts)But according to accounts from other board members, Clinton was a thorn in the side of the companys founder, Sam Walton, on the matter of promoting women, few of whom were in the ranks of managers or executives at the time. She also strongly advocated for more environmentally sound corporate practices. She made limited progress in both areas. In 2005 she returned a $5,000 contribution from Wal-Mart, citing serious differences with its current practices.
- Voted YES on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies. (Jun 2007)
- Voted YES on making oil-producing and exporting cartels illegal. (Jun 2007)
- Voted YES on factoring global warming into federal project planning. (May 2007)
- Voted YES on disallowing an oil leasing program in Alaska's ANWR. (Nov 2005)
- Voted YES on $3.1B for emergency oil assistance for hurricane-hit areas. (Oct 2005)
- Voted YES on reducing oil usage by 40% by 2025 (instead of 5%). (Jun 2005)
- Voted YES on banning drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (Mar 2005)
- Voted NO on Bush Administration Energy Policy. (Jul 2003)
- Voted YES on targeting 100,000 hydrogen-powered vehicles by 2010. (Jun 2003)
- Voted YES on removing consideration of drilling ANWR from budget bill. (Mar 2003)
- Voted NO on drilling ANWR on national security grounds. (Apr 2002)
- Voted NO on terminating CAFE standards within 15 months. (Mar 2002)
- Supports tradable emissions permits for greenhouse gases. (Aug 2000)
- Keep efficient air conditioner rule to conserve energy. (Mar 2004)
- Establish greenhouse gas tradeable allowances. (Feb 2005)
- Require public notification when nuclear releases occur. (Mar 2006)
- Rated 100% by the CAF, indicating support for energy independence. (Dec 2006)
- Designate sensitive ANWR area as protected wilderness. (Nov 2007)
- Set goal of 25% renewable energy by 2025. (Jan 2007)
- Let states define stricter-than-federal emission standards. (Jan 2008)
- Gas tax holiday for the summer. (Apr 2008)
- Count Every Vote Act: end voting discrimination by race. (Jun 2007)
- Voted YES on granting the District of Columbia a seat in Congress. (Sep 2007)
- Voted NO on requiring photo ID to vote in federal elections. (Jul 2007)
- Voted NO on allowing some lobbyist gifts to Congress. (Mar 2006)
- Voted NO on establishing the Senate Office of Public Integrity. (Mar 2006)
- Voted YES on banning "soft money" contributions and restricting issue ads. (Mar 2002)
- Voted NO on require photo ID (not just signature) for voter registration. (Feb 2002)
- Voted YES on banning campaign donations from unions & corporations. (Apr 2001)
- Voluntary public financing for all general elections. (Aug 2000)
- Criminalize false or deceptive info about elections. (Nov 2005)
- Reject photo ID requirements for voting. (Sep 2005)
- Post earmarks on the Internet before voting on them. (Jan 2006)
- Establish the United States Public Service Academy. (Mar 2007)
- Prohibit voter intimidation in federal elections. (Mar 2007)
- Prohibit 'voter caging' which intimidates minority voting. (Nov 2007)
We review the record and conclude that she deserves plenty of credit, both for the passage of the State Childrens Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) legislation and for pushing outreach efforts to translate the law into reality.
- Voted YES on overriding veto on expansion of Medicare. (Jul 2008)
- Voted NO on means-testing to determine Medicare Part D premium. (Mar 2008)
- Voted YES on requiring negotiated Rx prices for Medicare part D. (Apr 2007)
- Voted NO on limiting medical liability lawsuits to $250,000. (May 2006)
- Voted YES on expanding enrollment period for Medicare Part D. (Feb 2006)
- Voted YES on increasing Medicaid rebate for producing generics. (Nov 2005)
- Voted YES on negotiating bulk purchases for Medicare prescription drug. (Mar 2005)
- Voted NO on $40 billion per year for limited Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Jun 2003)
- Voted YES on allowing reimportation of Rx drugs from Canada. (Jul 2002)
- Voted YES on allowing patients to sue HMOs & collect punitive damages. (Jun 2001)
- Voted NO on funding GOP version of Medicare prescription drug benefit. (Apr 2001)
- Voted NO on cutting $221M in benefits to Filipinos who served in WWII US Army. (Apr 2008)
- Voted NO on removing need for FISA warrant for wiretapping abroad. (Aug 2007)
- Voted YES on limiting soldiers' deployment to 12 months. (Jul 2007)
- Voted YES on implementing the 9/11 Commission report. (Mar 2007)
- Voted YES on preserving habeas corpus for Guantanamo detainees. (Sep 2006)
- Voted YES on requiring CIA reports on detainees & interrogation methods. (Sep 2006)
- Voted YES on reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. (Mar 2006)
- Voted NO on extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision. (Dec 2005)
- Voted YES on restricting business with entities linked to terrorism. (Jul 2005)
- Voted YES on restoring $565M for states' and ports' first responders. (Mar 2005)
- Federalize aviation security. (Nov 2001)
- Rated 100% by SANE, indicating a pro-peace voting record. (Dec 2003)
Still, Hillary and her class were responsible for greater changes at Wellesley than any in its history. Black Studies was added to the curriculum. A summer Upward Bound program for inner-city children was initiated, antiwar activities were conducted in college facilities, the skirt rule had been rescinded, grades were given on a pass-fail basis, and interdisciplinary majors were permitted. One of Hillarys strengths as a leader, still evident, was her willingness to participate in the drudgery of government rather than simply direct policy.
VoteMatch Responses
Strongly Favors topic 1:
Abortion is a woman's right
(+5 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 2:
Require hiring more women & minorities
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 3:
Same-sex domestic partnership benefits
(+5 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 4:
Teacher-led prayer in public schools
(+2 points on Social scale)
Opposes topic 9:
Mandatory Three Strikes sentencing laws
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 10:
Absolute right to gun ownership
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Favors topic 5:
More federal funding for health coverage
(-3 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 6:
Privatize Social Security
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Opposes topic 7:
Parents choose schools via vouchers
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 18:
Replace coal & oil with alternatives
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Opposes topic 19:
Drug use is immoral: enforce laws against it
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 11:
Make taxes more progressive
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Favors topic 12:
Illegal immigrants earn citizenship
(+2 points on Social scale)
Strongly Favors topic 16:
Stricter limits on political campaign funds
(-5 points on Economic scale)
Strongly Favors topic 14:
The Patriot Act harms civil liberties
(+5 points on Social scale)
Sources: http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/hillary_clinton.htm
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
R B Garr
(16,973 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)Voting in this country is a group thing. Primary elections let voters choose the candidates who will be on the general election ballot. So, you should always vote for the candidate you support the most in primary elections. If the group of voters also votes in the majority, or the plurality, for that candidate, he or she will be on the general election ballot.
However, if the candidate you prefer in the primaries does not win, the group of voters have decided in favor of another candidate. One person, one vote. In general elections, almost always, you have a binary choice. You can vote for a Democrat or a Republican in most partisan races. There may be third party candidates, too, but they are unlikely to win in most races.
You may have very strong views, but that does not mean that your views will prevail. It is the entire group of voters that decides who is the winner. That's the system we use. In any election, you can choose not to vote at all, of course. In that case, however, your voice is silent and you have no role in the decision. Nobody hears or benefits from your opinion.
Voting is a choice in the United States. Make your choice count for something.
FLPanhandle
(7,107 posts)Well said
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)Adrahil
(13,340 posts)We have a two party system, like it or not. That's the reality we have to deal with.
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)I'm Fighting.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Do I think Sanders is likely to win? No. But I'm glad he's running as I think it will help strengthen the nominee (whether it's Sanders, Clinton, or somebody else) and will promote a greater range of ideas.
MH1
(17,600 posts)That said, I tried for a few years to get dems (IRL and at DU) to support ranked-choice voting and there was less than zero interest.
So screw it. You get to vote your principles in the primary. Then whoever the majority of the voters pick is your candidate for the general. If that's the "lesser" in your opinion, too bad. You can then either cast a vote that helps the less bad candidate, or a vote that helps the worst candidate. Whoever you go to sleep with that night, you wake up with yourself.
If we used rank-choice voting then you could vote for your principles with your first choice, and the pragmatic choice with your second. In that way elections would more accurately reflect the will of the voters. But in a country where large swaths can't even comprehend the basic principles of biological evolution, and/or think that 7 billion human beings rampantly and recklessly spewing tons of carbon into the climate while geo-engineering the planet couldn't possibly make a difference to climate ... yeah I'm not holding my breath for us to implement a voting system that requires 2 brain cells to rub together in order to understand it.
aikoaiko
(34,183 posts)In primary elections, vote for the most principled person who can win the general.
treestar
(82,383 posts)No way around that.