Are there really people on DU who won't vote for the Democratic candidate if

[BigDemVoter]

it's not the candidate they want? I've heard people say they wouldn't vote for Secretary Clinton, but I haven't heard Clinton supporters say they wouldn't vote for Sanders. By the way, I AM a Sanders supporter, but I WILL vote for the DEMOCRATIC candidate.

I don't see any way we could justify not voting even if we have to hold our nose to do so. The Repuke candidates are so bad that ANY Democratic candidate would be a better alternative.

[cantbeserious]

1. Personally - I Am Tired Of Being An Afterthought To The DNC DWS DLC Third-Way Party Establishment

Last edited Tue Nov 3, 2015, 03:12 AM - Edit history (1)

So the answer is yes - even more so now that the DNC has refused to let Lawrence Lessig participate in the democratic process.

[1StrongBlackMan]

92. You're tired of being an after-thought, so your response is to position yourself ...

to be NOT thought about at all ... and the rest of us are at risk?

Brilliant!

[JonLeibowitz]

94. If you promise to vote for the democratic nominee you deleverage yourself with the DNC n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

125. And when you proudly announce that you will not vote for the Democratic nominee ...

unless it is "X" ... you never had any leverage ... and, you are even less of a factor by the day, as the polling indicates you are in the significant minority.

[randys1]

184. And probably somoene who wont immediately be deeply harmed by rightwing

policies.

[virtualobserver]

202. Democrats have a choice to make

do they need to move left to win, or do they need to move right?

[1StrongBlackMan]

205. All of the Democratic candidates will move the needle to the left. n/t

[virtualobserver]

208. Hillary is just barely doing it now, with a full array of caveats

She will veer right in the GE if she gets the nomination.

[1StrongBlackMan]

210. And you know this because ...

I know ... her positions are not genuinely held positions.

[virtualobserver]

218. this ain't my first time at the rodeo?

I've seen Hillary in action?

It is standard procedure for mainstream politicians to move to the center for the GE?

The Lord spoke to me in a dream?

All of those, actually.....except the Lord didn't mention Hillary by name....

[merrily]

219. ".....except the Lord didn't mention Hillary by name..."

I think I love you. In a postery way, of course, to be consummated only by a chaste emoticon kiss on the cheek.

Oh, and I am not poster monogamous. I love quite a number of Bernie supporters.

I don't want to lead you on.

[virtualobserver]

230. poster monogamy would be pretty boring

there is so much Bernie love to go around

Even when the Lord does name names, even if it is your own... you have to listen carefully to the tone of voice.

Just ask Pat Robertson.....Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Scott Walker, John Kasich and Ben Carson.

Note to Republicans.....The Lord is either just checking to see if you get , or you should start checking your
rye bread for mold.

[pnwmom]

301. How does promising not to vote for the nominee leverage yourself with the DNC? n/t

[JonLeibowitz]

304. The scenario you describe does not leverage yourself with the DNC

In case you are confused: "All X are not Y" (or more clearly, "No X are Y&quot is not the logical negation of "All X are Y". That would rather be: "Some X are not Y"

To be more clear: every candidate must earn my vote in every election, primary or general. It matters not to me whether a party has nominated them or not. Heck, if Kucinich ran as a Republican I would vote for him (though I would begin to suspect he didn't consent to his lobotomy).

To be even more clear: what leverages yourself with the DNC is saying "I'll vote for candidates that represent my concern for the issues and my values"; if that is your nominee, good for you!; if not, your loss -- better pick a better nominee next time.

[cantbeserious]

113. I Will Vote My Conscience - If That Puts People At Risk - That Validates The Lesser Evil Argument

eom

[1StrongBlackMan]

127. I'm certain you will ...

If That Puts People At Risk - That Validates The Lesser Evil Argument

Actually, it doesn't validate anything, beyond your willingness to get everything you DON'T want because someone doesn't give you Everything you do.

[cantbeserious]

155. One No Longer Needs Or Solicits Your Moralizing

eom

[randys1]

185. WE will work overtime to make up for your selfish act.

[cantbeserious]

204. What Is More Selfish - Knowingly Electing A War Hawk And Corporatist

eom

[randys1]

224. Or allowing a con president to nominate SC justice who allows killing Women in alleys

[AOR]

232. More like working overtime...

to protect the status quo and business as usual at all costs. That you attempt to pass your posts off as leftist is beyond laughable. The views you represent have done more damage to leftist political movement and the working class than any Republican ever could.

[randys1]

234. I will let you insult me all you want, but here is what you need to do after you insult me

do what the most liberal, leftist Americans do, what I learned from them

Work 24/7 to elect actual liberals, to pass actual liberal laws and enact non capitalist, democratic socialist policy.

Do it all day, everyday, all week, every week, all month, every month, all year, every year.

Then on election day, you take 5 minutes out (8 hours if you are Black) and you vote for the least harm so as to assure there is a liberal philosophy to still work for.

That is what ACTUAL liberals who are engaged in the cause do and in my case have done for approximately 40 years.

Do that and insult me all you want, no problem on this end.

[AOR]

237. Calling out the political impotency...

and the business as usual rhetoric that is represented in your posts is a far different matter than "insulting you." Effecting social change is not about YOU.

Beyond that...electing liberals and liberal laws will do absolutely nothing to enact "non-capitalist socialist policy" and demands. That is what is meant by getting to what is real and what isn't. Liberalism IS and REPRESENTS capitalism and there is not a single narrative in history that says otherwise. Why are not people honest about this FACT ? If one truly stands against capitalism then they can't represent liberalism. Anti-capitalism and liberalism are incompatible.

You have called yourself a leftist and a socialist here many times and here you are talking about representing liberalism and liberal electoral choices as a 24/7 pilgrimage to the promised land. Which is it ? You can't have it both ways. Liberalism does not aim to change capitalist social relations. Liberalism attempts to make capitalist social relations more kind and benevolent, which completely ignores the foundations of exploitation, theft, and oppression of the working class that capitalism is.

If people identify with liberalism then fine but why is liberalism being represented as a leftist political movement and the final word of "the left" ? It IS NOT and that is a very serious problem hindering any leftist movement from forming. Yes, this is Democratic Underground and not the turf of leftists and there are other places to post so it is what it is in that regard. It's not personal. Clinton and Sanders supporters are going at it a hell of lot more intense than anything I'm throwing out there.

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/04/misrepresenting-the-left-we-are-not-liberals/

We Are Not Liberals! Misrepresenting the Left by RON JACOBS

(Snips)...

" Despite the current media-induced confusion, liberals are not leftists. This misconception is not only embarrassing to those of us who are genuinely leftist in our politics, it is also discrediting the Left. From the New York Times to FOX News, the portrayal of the US Democratic party and Barack Obama as leftist is creating a perception in the US populace that leftists are ineffective politicos who have no principles they won’t modify. Of course, the Left has not done that great of a job explaining the situation in any other way, thereby leaving the way open for the misconceptions put forth by the media to appear as truth. "

" If one wants to know what a liberal is, they need only to look at The US Democratic Party. From Hilary Clinton to Dennis Kucinich, that party is in no way leftist. How can I say that? To begin with, liberals differ from leftists in fundamental ways. For starters, liberalism is founded on the sanctity of private property. According to John Locke, who is quite possibly the godfather of liberalism, it is the possession of property that gives humans their freedom. Indeed, in its early days, liberalism only saw freedom as being deserving to propertied males. While not disparaging the positive aspects of liberalism’s early days–its opposition to monarchy and the role of the Church, to name two of the most important ones–it is crucial to acknowledge the shortcomings of a philosophy grounded in the ownership of property. Since the fact of private ownership was a qualification for entry into self-governance it obviously excluded many members of those societies where the politics of liberalism replaced the monarchy and the Church. Add to this fact the denial of political power to women and (in the newly created United States) the acceptance of slavery, and the shortcomings of liberalism as a philosophy guaranteeing liberty and equality become glaringly obvious. It is understood by those that utilize a Marxist analysis to understand history that liberalism is a bourgeois philosophy, primarily because it protects the dominance of that class in those societies where it flourishes. "

" The Left believes in justice. According to most liberals, so do they. However, the Left also believes that there can not be genuine justice for all unless there is economic justice for all. To put it briefly, human rights can not exist for all regardless of class until economic inequality is addressed and minimized. Ideally, this means that the motivation of profit is eliminated altogether. It does not deny the right of people to own their own property, but it does deny those who would profit from letting others use that property through rent. Unlike liberalism, leftists publicly acknowledge the fundamental nature economics plays in how political structures operate. This doesn’t mean that liberals don’t understand the essential role capitalism plays in maintaining the liberal state in all its guises, it just means that leftists know that to lessen the inequalities that exist under capitalism, it is necessary to change it with the eventual goal of ending its predominant role in determining social relations. In short, leftists understand that capitalism is a fundamental source of social inequalities, while liberals tend to believe that, if capitalism cannot cure those inequities, it can surely help lessen them. This belief exists despite the historical empirical evidence that the opposite is true. "

" Like liberals, there are several varieties of leftists. All, however, share an understanding that capitalism is an essentially unfair economic system that rewards those who already have capital much more frequently than those who just work their tails off. They also understand that capitalism needs wars to survive and requires inequality to function. This is why they oppose it. As stated before, liberals have a much rosier view of capitalism and have historically been willing to do whatever it takes to save it. So, while they may be the Left’s occasional allies, they are not the Left, no matter how many times FOX News and the New York Times say they are. "

[hifiguy]

238. Thanks for that link.

Gonna read that one carefully.

So sick of the argument that it's better to get one slice of the loaf than nothing, and that "pragmatism" requires that we must not only give the rest of the loaf to our feudal overlords, but not even ask for more than the one slice they MIGHT deign to give us lest we hurt their widdle fee-fees. One slice of the loaf IS NOTHING! WAKE THE FCK UP PEOPLE!

[AOR]

244. Cheers hifi...

just throwing some different things out there. Peeps can take what they want and leave the rest or take none of it at all. I don't profess to have all the answers. I'm just a bee in a hive. We need to get to what's real and what isn't though and we need collective action to force change. Much more than simply depending on a corrupted - by capital at all levels - electoral process. I'm also convinced that anything short of confronting capitalism as the problem -head on and without remorse -won't get the job done.

There are a lot of good people here and elsewhere - who care what's going on out there - and are on the fence amongst a mass of political confusion and impotency. I'm certainly not arrogant enough to exempt myself from that confusion on many occasions. One thing that needs to be called out every time though is defense of ruling class power and privilege under the veil of the left. It comes in many forms and that needs to be exposed. The more that gets exposed the better off we'll be.

[1StrongBlackMan]

187. LOL ... Then, the IGNORE feature is your friend. n/t

[hifiguy]

139. So many people around here are in complete denial of the

logical truth that the lesser of two evils is still an EVIL.

[tabasco]

148. That is like, so deep, man.

Demand utopia NOW.

[hifiguy]

150. I do not demand utopia.

I do, however, demand that the accelerating descent into dystopia and feudalism stop NOW. 35 years of it is quite enough.

[Squinch]

226. And you think helping get Trump or Rubio elected (which is what you will be doing) will solve your

problem.



Okay then.

[hifiguy]

236. The difference between Trump, Rubio or any of the Repigs

and HRH is only the rate at which we proletarian frogs will be boiled. Faster might be more merciful than the long, slow, continued cooking HRH promises. A quicker death involves less suffering.

[ccinamon]

310. My current feelings as well....

after 35 years of moving more and more and more to the right, as the Democratic Party collects more and more and more money from Wall Street...I believe that the ONLY way to get people off their asses and pay attention and to stop the decline and descent into serfdom, is to either 1) elect someone like Bernie who believe is People Over Profit...or 2) get to the total serfdom faster/sooner with Republican control.

The slow decline our country and society faces with the DNC / DLC / Third Way Lame-ass, Weenie Democrats is delaying real change for the better....they are mostly all talk, very little action -- in regards to people. In regards to corporations, they are ok with no crack down on Wall Street, the greed of corporate boards and executives, slashing social programs to help the poor and the needy and the children.

I'm at the point where "burning down the house" seems a viable solution....the faster you hit rock bottom, the sooner you can make the necessary changes....isn't that the whole point of organizations like Alcholoic Anonymous, hit rock bottom so you can be a better person?

[tabasco]

313. So, you want our society destroyed so that it can be rebuilt.

Are you sure will be happy with what you find in its place.

You are too comfortable to be hurt by a republican administration. People lose jobs, people lose deserved benefits and people die when republicans control this country. But just sit back and be happy when the country goes down the shitter because you're so pure, so truly liberal.

[hifiguy]

323. What exactly will BE the difference

between the 'pigs and an HRH administration on the issues of the vanishing middle class, the increasingly virtually enslaved working and poor classes and the horrible state of the rapidly expanding underclass? I see none whatsoever. The oligarchs own and totally control HRH as surely as they do any GOOPer.

Her bellicosity and long-established hawkishness guarantee another war within six months if she's elected to go along with continuing the ones we already have dragging endlessly on.

The country is one more corporatist president away from being openly fascist as the term was defined by Giovanni Gentile: fascism is more properly defined as corporatism because it represents the fusion of corporate and governmental power

[Squinch]

325. Ugh. There is so much idiocy in this, and yet I feel certain that there is nothing to be gained

by trying to get you to see it.

[hifiguy]

327. Explain to me just how the country has not

continued "going down the shitter" during the administrations of the last two Corporate "Democratic" presidents.

NAFTA, welfare reform, the Telecom Act, banking and commodities deregulation that benefits only the billionaire class. Not one bankster prosecuted after the '08 crash, continuing and expanded drone wars and a new boots/ground war in the wings, more jobs shipped overseas every day, with the shippers collecting tax breaks for hollowing out the country, TPP and TISA. An ACA written by Big Insurance and Big Pharma. Trillions of dollars stashed overseas by the plutocrats. And I am just beginning.

Wow, THERE's a record to be proud of.

[Squinch]

328. As I said, I'm pretty sure you are a lost cause and not worth the effort.

We'll talk again after President Rubio has been in office for a few months. You'll get it then.

[hifiguy]

330. Without going into details that are none of your business

or of anyone else here, let me assure your smug self that it is impossible for my current situation to become any worse, and it hit rock bottom under the current president.

Done with you now.

[Squinch]

331. Sorry about your troubles, but things will definitely become worse under a Republican.

[840high]

267. I'm not in denial and my vote

goes to Bernie only.

[struggle4progress]

225. Lessig dropped out of the race before I even realized he was running

He actually gathered almost 0.5% in a mid-October CBS poll, which is pretty good for someone with no elective office or political campaign experience. But despite raising $1 million online, he doesn't seem to have thought through the financials:

... Mr. Lessig said he and his family had been scraping by since kicking off his campaign last month. Harvard cannot pay his salary while he is on leave to seek office, and campaign finance rules say that he cannot pay himself with donations until November ... “I can’t even borrow money, except from credit-card companies,” said Mr. Lessig ...
Hoping to Be Invited to the Debate, Lawrence Lessig Waits by the Phone
By Alan Rappeport

[cantbeserious]

293. With Thanks To The DNC DWS DLC Third-Way Adherents In The Party Establishment

eom

[Historic NY]

269. Note Larry quit.....but perhaps you'll get a channe to vote for him as an independant.

he didn't even register on the radar to be on an undercard.....so he was going to make it to a podium.

But political realities are not Lessig's strong suit: in 2014, a $10m Super PAC he set up as a way to get campaign-reform candidates into US Congress did little but throw another $10m onto the election bonfire.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/11/02/lessig_quits_us_presidential_race/

[cantbeserious]

289. The Democrats Did Not Have An Undercard So Ones Argument Is Flawed From Inception

eom

[WhoIsNumberNone]

2. If Bernie doesn't win, I'll hold my nose and vote for Hillary. 100%.

I'm sure as hell not standing idly by while Trump or one of those other idiots sweeps into the White House because nobody voted.

[TheBlackAdder]

179. Whomever wins the Primary--It's better a D gets in the White House than an R. nt

[MattSh]

3. Well there will be a Democratic nominee...

Last edited Tue Nov 3, 2015, 03:25 AM - Edit history (1)

but no guarantee that that nominee will actually be a Democrat.

On edit. I'm not talking about Bernie. Bernie is more of a Democrat than Hillary could ever hope to be in her dreams.

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. Actually no....Hillary IS a Democrat

Sanders is not now...nor has he ever been one.

[fredamae]

53. The problem is that Now

in 2015/2016 is that Party Affiliation means Less now than it ever has.
People are gonna vote (hopefully by majority) in their Own best interests as opposed to "blindly voting for a party".
The old way of thinking-the old practice of looking to past election trends/cycles/outcomes etc...are - well...old, outdated and no longer in practice once you step outside corporate media messaging, into the real world and talk to "regular folks".
At least that is what I'm discovering in my community. People in general Now understand Both party's are corrupted.

[VanillaRhapsody]

55. Says the person voting for the person UNAFFILIATED to a party....yet NOT winning!

hahahahahahaha!

OMG...please stop...you are killing me!

You do know this is "Democratic" Underground right?

[fredamae]

59. I'm saying use caution

before the great façade of confidence is felt for This election cycle. No one knows whats going to happen. No one. Things are not what they seem-not this year-not with corpomedia. Things are not what they used to be.

[VanillaRhapsody]

66. Been a Democrat all my life...

never voted for anything but them. I am a Socialist DEMOCRAT

I don't think I need to take election advice from someone who supports a NON-Democrat about how the Party is doing.

[Act_of_Reparation]

74. That's pretty obtuse.

I don't think I need to take election advice from someone who supports a NON-Democrat about how the Party is doing.

That a non-Democrat has this much support from Democrats is actually a very strong indication of how the Party is doing.

[VanillaRhapsody]

82. Not obtuse at all...

why should I listen to a Non-Democrat about what Democrats should do? Should I listen to Republicans as well?

[Act_of_Reparation]

122. Congratulations.

Next to that post about the effect of felid purrs on cell repair, that was the most laugh-out-loud hilarious thing I've read all goddamned day.

Sadly, I lack both the time and motivation to explain what you should have learned Poli Sci 101, so I'm just going to capitulate and agree with you. That 20% of Democrats support a non-Democrat for the office of the President carries no implications whatsofuckingever. It doesn't indicate a shift in the political sensibilities of Democrats, or a widening rift between progressives and the party establishment. We Democrats are always right and we all agree with each other on absolutely fucking everything, so it's all good in the neighborhood. We don't need to listen to anyone.

[VanillaRhapsody]

140. But THIS time....we are not all Democrats are we?

Its NON Democrats that are making these complaints ABOUT the Democrats.....

[Act_of_Reparation]

161. So. Fucking. What.

For reasons that continue to baffle and astound me, you keep harping away on this point. Why? It was a nonsense ad hominem three posts ago, and it's a nonsense ad hominem now. If the criticism is valid, it doesn't matter who the fuck is making it. THE END.

And the 20-some-odd percent of people throwing their lot behind Sanders, it stands to reason, are largely Democrats. So you're not simply illogical, you're wrong, too.

[VanillaRhapsody]

164. So fucking what???

Polls....

So you are claiming that ALL supporters of Sanders are Democrats???? No Indies, Socialists or Anarchists at all!

[Act_of_Reparation]

197. Yes. So fucking what.

Remember that part where your argument is an ad hominem? Yeah, that hasn't changed.

[VanillaRhapsody]

199. WTF are you talking about?

makes no sense....but I can tell your feelings are hurt.

[Act_of_Reparation]

250. I'm talking about you continuing to say stupid things.

Do you not understand what an ad hominem is?

[VanillaRhapsody]

251. I do...

But this is not one...but this is a very flimsy attempt at distraction though.

Apparently now any criticism of Sanders is ad hominem because you think so....

[Act_of_Reparation]

261. On the contrary

Your argument is not an ad hominem because I think it is an ad hominem. Rather, it is an ad hominem because it addresses no particular point or argument, but a personal category that does not establish credibility (or lack thereof).

[Marr]

314. +1, excellent point. /nt

[fredamae]

80. Been a Dem since 1959.

Because I choose to no longer list my party preference doesn't mean I'm no longer a Democrat.
I still support Democrats, just not those who call themselves a Dem while supporting and voting with the GOP for the benefit of wall street et al.

The club no longer represents Democrats, imo. As I said above...it's no longer about which letter is placed next to anyones name anymore.
And as far as taking advice from anyone else? The feeling is mutual. I don't believe it is my best interest to follow any advice from those supporting what I consider to be the republican Wing of the Dem Party. So, I don't.

[VanillaRhapsody]

83. Yes actually it does.....

it means you are "unaffiliated" like Sanders.....just voting for them doesn't make you one necessarily anymore than appearing on a ballot does...

[fredamae]

87. Imo-You are placing way too much

importance on which Letter a person places next to their name as opposed to ones positions on the issues. Why is party affiliation so important and why does it matter so much in 2015?

The political climate in both party's has shifted. A lot.

I spent Decades (4) voting straight Democratic party ticket as I was asked to do. It didn't turn out as promised. I won't do that anymore. Say what you will. Form any opinion of me that you wish. I frankly don't care. I will no longer violate my principals (hold my nose and vote against the worst candidate) in order to stay loyal to something that is no longer representative of my issues.
I may/may not be in the majority-I do Know, however-I am not alone in my evaluation of the 2015/2016 election cycle.

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. Well funny.....we have been doing that for like what? Forever...

I don't care what YOU personally feel...thats anecdotal. The PEOPLE in the Democratic Party....disagree with you....people are not turning away from the Democratic party...quite the opposite in fact.

[fredamae]

93. The Registration Archive Stats in my state

show a Sharp decline in Dem registrations...with a slight slowing post Sanders announcement but still falling.

What do you base your assertion on?

[VanillaRhapsody]

102. in your state....

[fredamae]

103. Yes, In Blue Oregon

http://sos.oregon.gov/voting-elections/Pages/default.aspx

[VanillaRhapsody]

141. Oh Oregon

a state with less than half the population of New York City.

[rhett o rick]

216. Disparaging the state of Oregon is a long way from whatever your point was.

We desperately need change. 50 million Americans living in poverty and if we elect another conservative Democrat, that number will continue to grow. Those that support conservative candidates not only don't care about the millions living in poverty, but their hopes for greater and greater profits will undoubtedly push more people into poverty.

We are losing the class war. The middle class is dying and the working class is struggling. The Billionaires are not on our side of this class war. Which side do you choose?

[hifiguy]

170. You ain't just a-woofin

Take a look at the 1956 Republican platform on which Eisenhower ran:



As far as I can see, HRH supports only #7 and runs away from all the others as fast as ever she can.

And here's another Republican she can't manage to agree wirh (way too far left I assume):

[fredamae]

89. Well, folks that hold similar opinions

as I do--don't really care: A) what others believe about their affiliations anymore and B) What does it mean to be a Dem or Indie or GOP or NAV in the bigger picture when the rubber hits the road on the issues?

Does party affiliation matter when we all get a good old fashioned "bi-partisan" screwing?

[VanillaRhapsody]

90. and why should the party care about what those folks think of them?

We seem to be doing just fine with whom we are electing....

[fredamae]

97. Will they sing the Same song

on election day?

Good to know, my vote for a Dem under Any circumstance is No Longer Needed! Thank you for relieving me of That decision. I'll be sure and let the DCCC/DSCC know that's the message I'm/we're getting out here the next time they call seeking money

[VanillaRhapsody]

98. Yes they will.....

Do what ever you want.....

But we Democrats will not be held hostage like the Teaparty does to the Republicans! Your threats of taking your dollies and going home falls on deaf ears.

[fredamae]

99. Have great day...Great chatting with you n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

100. wish I could say the same....

[fredamae]

101. No worries. :) n/t

[demwing]

121. And why should they care if we vote?

They don't need us, and I'm OK with that.

[Doubledee]

138. Defintion of words

It does not say Democratic Party Underground though you imply the hidden meaning. As a newcomer here I thought it was a place for those who believe in the process and the validity of democracy as an institution to express themselves.

I will not dwell upon the lack of advancement of the progressive agenda made when a democratic President had a democratic majority in both Houses, but I do stand up for those who vote their consciences and ex[press their views.

You imply that voting is some sort of contest, one in which you vote only for the candidate you think will win. I reject that rather peculiar position.

[VanillaRhapsody]

193. It does say for the purpose of ELECTING Democrats....

its not about BEING Democratic....its about ELECTING more of them.

[Doubledee]

227. Is it?

Is this forum the exclusive purview of those who want to see only democrats elected or is it a place for all to speak on issues and opinions?

If this is supposedly restricted, as you imply, then it seems a well kept secret.

[VanillaRhapsody]

233. Yes....read the TOS....its not secret at all...in black and white

It is for the express purpose of electing more Democrats....not just to talk smack about them as some seem to think....

[alcina]

201. I don't know how I missed your post

Had I seen it, I wouldn't have wrestled with my increasingly uncooperative computer to write my own response.

I absolutely agree with you here. The person to whom you (and I) are responding seems quite intent on rebranding this as a community solely for members of the Democratic party, as opposed to people who value democratic principles. S/he's not wrong; just being selective about the mission statement.

[Hekate]

248. You were not there on St. Crispin's Day, were you? This site, DU, was founded to elect DEMOCRATS

No one else. It's right there in the TOS., and has been from Day One.

"Underground" refers not to some anarchist pipe dream but to the selection of G.W. Bush by the Supreme Court, enabled by the Gov of Florida, his brother Jeb. The GOP was and still is the worst threat we face, not any Democrat.

Democratic Underground was founded to elect Democrats. Not Independents. Not Greens. Not Socialists. Not Libertarians. And certainly not Republicans just because we have to destroy everything in order to start over and create Utopia (I have actually had that conversation here and IRL).

[alcina]

191. So what is a democrat?

From Merriam-Webster:

democratic - adj

1: of, relating to, or favoring democracy
2: often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the United States evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism
3: relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people <democratic art>
4: favoring social equality : not snobbish

I suspect I'm not the only one here who prefers to focus more on definitions 1, 3, and 4 above, when speaking of democrats. And while DU's Mission Statement does indeed include as one of its goals "helping elect more Democrats," that is only one part of its mission of being "an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change." Furthermore, it says that DU has "no affiliation with the Democratic Party. Democratic Underground is a truly grassroots community where regular members drive the discussion and set the standards."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus

In other words, despite what I've seen posted by others on DU, there does not appear to be any requirement that those of us participating be card-carying, line-toeing members of the capital-D Democratic party. And anyone who dismisses those of us who question a so-called democratic process that expects us to vote blindly for someone just because the DNC says so are, IMO, acting far more authoritarian than democratic.

Now that's not to say I won't vote for the Democtratic candidate whomever he or she may be; though I will admit I'm having some doubts lately. In my lifetime, the "liberal" party in the US has drifted slowly but certainly to the right. And each election we are told, but think of the alternative. And each election I think, is this really my only option?

[VanillaRhapsody]

192. If you are not committed to voting for whomever WE Democrats select in our Primary election

by definition you are an Independent....ie: not dependable.

[alcina]

213. You are partially correct

Anyone who does not accede to the diktats of the party cannot be considered to be a reliable party supporter. However, equating "Independent" with "not dependable" is slightly misleading. The word more accurately means "not affiliated" or, again per M-W, "not subject to control by others," the others in this case being the DNC.

But back to your earlier comment about this being "Democratic" Underground: Yes, it is. And the more complete definition of the word -- and broader interpretation of the DU Mission Statement -- gives us a very different perspective than those who might choose a more stringent interpretation.

[VanillaRhapsody]

214. No...I am correct...

His campaign wiki page STILL says "unaffiliated"....ie Independent...IE NOT a Democrat...

Has Sanders called himself a Democrat yet?

Nice try but you failed....

[Doubledee]

229. Independent equals undependable?

I do not wish to insult you, nor will I descend into poor conduct but sheesh!

There have been many fine independents in our long history. None deserve your shallow insult. Maybe you just are having a bad day.

http://ivn.us/2013/07/26/ten-influential-politicians-in-the-independent-movement-to-watch/

This article speaks to people of both major party branded as independents, and proud to be such, none seem "undependable"....

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/07/politics/election-2016-more-independents/

A new analysis by the Pew Research Center finds that 39% of Americans considered themselves politically independent in 2014, the largest share to say so across more than 75 years of polling data.

[VanillaRhapsody]

231. Have you read the definition?

They chose that term for a reason...yes "independendt"

Lets break it down so its easier for you to understand...

The root word is "depend" from there we get the word "dependable".....now how do we also say "undependable" "in dependent" meaning we cannot depend on your vote...thererfore....not a Democrat any more...because you have become an Independent.....just like Bernie Sanders is....you just caucus with us .like he does....but he is still not a Democrat and doesnt claim to be one...

[Doubledee]

312. a bunch of words

strung together proving nothing, all sound and fury to borrow from the bard.

In my mind your position is that no one on this forum has a right to do anything but applaud the democratic party and its candidates for office...I truly hope that is not shared by those who created and moderate this forum.

I will continue to post my opinions and positions here until told by someone in authority I am in error by doing so. I think you are taking partisanship to unreasonable and very authoritarian levels and think your position absurd, frankly.

[840high]

268. ...^ that

[Quackers]

56. So you won't vote for Bernie in the general?

You're saying he's not a Democrat, so.......

[VanillaRhapsody]

67. Yes I am saying....and so is HE by the way

He is not a Democrat.

[Quackers]

71. I just wanted to verify. You won't vote for him.

[VanillaRhapsody]

72. did I say that?

I will vote AGAINST Republicans if I have no other choice...(but that still doesn't make him a Democrat much to your dismay)

How about you?

[Quackers]

76. That's what I was trying to clarify.

If that is what you're saying, then I have a new respect for you for keeping your convictions.

As for me, no, I won't vote for Hillary if she's the nominee. As we had discussed a few months ago, I will voluntarily leave DU if she is the candidate, out of respect for Skinner and everyone else.

[VanillaRhapsody]

78. but I still vote for O'Malley before Sanders....

So sad to see you go....

[Quackers]

79. Don't count me out just yet, VR.

Lol

[VanillaRhapsody]

86. Actually yes....I am....

its nearly over already....

[Quackers]

105. You're right! Go Hillary 2008!!!! Wait a sec.......lol

[VanillaRhapsody]

107. Yep Go Hillary 2016!

If you expect Bernie to do as well as Barack Obama did in 2008.....you have another think coming your way!

[demwing]

120. Party blah blah groupthink blah blah rhetoric blah

[Purveyor]

128. Do you really think that .gif of total arrogance really helps YOUR candidate? Really? I'm sure

it will be used quite frequently by the GOP in the GD but carry on just the same.

[Alittleliberal]

129. An honest question

If a first time politician from a state without personal party registration runs on a Democratic ticket are they also not a member of the Democratic party?

[VanillaRhapsody]

194. No because there is no clause that says that they MUST be to be on the Democratic Primary

therefore just running on that ticket doesn't automatically make you one....

however some states DO require you to be a Registered Democrat to get on THEIR tickets...

By the way....Sanders describes himself as a Democratic Socialist....which is not a Democrat.

[hifiguy]

144. In name alone.

Anyone who serves the interests of the plutocracy and the MIIC with such unbending fidelity is unworthy of the designation "Democrat" IMO.

HRH with wanted War Criminal Henry Kissinger, whom she calls a "defender of human rights"



HRH with BFF Lloyd Blankfein, head of vampire squid Goldman Sachs, who is "equally comfortable" with HRH or Jebthro

?v=1429201091

There are few better indicia of a person's character than the company they voluntarily choose to keep.

If that is the best the party of FDR, Truman. JFK, RFK and LBJ can do, no, thank you.

[AgingAmerican]

245. Hillary is not a Democrat

She is a Moderate. Sanders is a democrat.

[VanillaRhapsody]

247. WTF???

This is ridic.


Hillary isnt a Democrat..


Please stop bogarting that smoke!

[restorefreedom]

181. agreed. calling oneself a dem does not make it so. nt

[Maedhros]

4. In the General Election, I will vote for that candidate which best represents my views.

If that candidate is a Democrat, then great. If it's not, so be it.

[pampango]

20. Well said. And none of the republican candidates comes anywhere near 'representing my views'.

I voted 3rd party for president once in my life and the Democratic won anyway so I didn't feel bad about it. I would have felt much, much worse if the Democrat had lost, like in 2000, and the republican had done his best to essentially destroy our country. All these republican candidates seem worse than Bush.

[HassleCat]

176. It is conceivable I could vote Repubican

Oh, not for any of the current crop. No way. But it's possible a Republican progressive could emerge from wherever he or she has been hiding for the last 30 years. The original Progressive movement was composed mostly of Republicans, although it was a much different party 100 years ago.

[4now]

5. As a Clinton supporter

I will proudly support and vote for whichever candidate wins the nomination.

[DFW]

6. Absolutely, yes, there are.

Unless " The DNC DWS DLC Third-Way Party Establishment" (don't forget "corporate&quot has denied you the same number of votes in the primary as the rest of us (hopefully that's 1), you are never an afterthought. In 2004, my guy (Howard Dean) bombed in the primaries. It didn't make me an afterthought that I voted for him, and it was definitely NOT a rationalization not to vote for Kerry in the General.

In the next General Election, anything other than voting our nominee is "my way or the highway," and more Scalias and Alitos confirming Citizens United instead of repealing it. NOTHING is worth that. Sure, it's ABSOLUTELY everyone's right to do so, but there are a lot of other people out there who would benefit from there NOT bring a Republican in the White House in January 2017. If, four years from now, someone gets pulled over on the street and killed "accidentally" by the cop, and the Supreme Court in 2019 says the killer cop was within his constitutional rights to shoot someone for running a red light, you can always say "not my problem." But in 2016, you became part of the victim's problem. I applaud the OP's realization of that.

I hope all supporters of Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley at least ponder that before choosing not to vote our nominee in case THEIR woman/man does not receive the nomination.

[Rebkeh]

7. Some people are tired of

being taken for granted, that the conservadems can rely on their votes anyway so why answer to the people? If the elected representatives have nothing to lose, why would they respect their constituents at all? So these voters make a strategic decision to not allow that to happen, the problem is it doesn't work. As can be seen by 2014 election. Then again, if Dems don't start giving voters a reason to show up in the first place, they will lose - also can be seen by 2014. It just depends on which perspective you go with: do the pols earn votes or the voters perform/demonstrate their civic duty/party loyalty?

I am not one of those voters, but I can certainly understand. There was a time I didn't vote at all because I hated all of them, I've matured since then. I still would much, much rather vote FOR something than vote against something. But I will still vote for whoever wins the primary, it will be hard if it's not Bernie, but I'll do it.

[cantbeserious]

299. I No Longer Vote Against - I Only Vote For - This Go Round There May Nothing To Vote For

eom

[smirkymonkey]

8. I would like to see Bernie as the candidate, but will vote for Hillary if she ends up being the

Dem nominee. Anything is better than a republican.

[Betty Karlson]

9. "The lesser of two evils" is still evil. eom

[No Vested Interest]

10. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Attributed to Voltaire.

[Betty Karlson]

11. Sanders isn't perfect. But Clinton is no good. n/t

[peacebird]

117. My sentiment as well

[hifiguy]

147. Exactly.

She is a totally corrupt servant of the oligarchy - and herself - to the marrow of her bones. But absolutely no one else.

[840high]

272. yep

[jtuck004]

15. Just get it cut. We will measure it later.

Attributed to a source who wishes to remain anonymous.

[Go Vols]

91. Thats a major fuckup

Searched the image and found other strange things.

http://www.weirdworm.com/20-strange-architectural-and-construction-gaffes/

[jtuck004]

109. When I hear the bs "The perfect is the enemy of the good", this comes to mind.

That's what has happened to a lot of people's lives as that saying has become an excuse for not doing the right thing.

[BlueCaliDem]

256. When I hear "the perfect is the enemy of the good" is b.s., this comes to mind...

[840high]

274. Amen.

[SheilaT]

51. I once had that bullshit saying thrown at me

when I questioned why a brand-new map of our hospital showed room assignments that were more than two years old. And in politics, people often throw that out to justify the status quo.

It's not asking for perfection to ask that every single person in this country be able to get basic health care. It's not even good that some 30 million people still don't have any health care.

It's not asking for perfection to ask that those who brought about the economic collapse seven years ago be jailed for what they did. It's not even good that they are still out there, fleecing millions, and enriching themselves in the process.

It's not asking for perfection that those who work earn enough money to support themselves, and perhaps a spouse and a kid or two. It's not at all good that the richest among us pay the lowest taxes and constantly clamor for a roll-back in the minimum wage, Social Security, and disability payments. It's downright evil that those richest cheerfully cut funding for Veteran's care.

Bernie isn't perfect, but Hillary is far enough from good to make me think a lot more than twice about voting for her in the general election.

[ladyVet]

81. Thank you!

I'm tired of the lesser of two evils. I'm tired of the "but the other side is worse!". I'm too old and too tired and too disheartened to keep voting this way. Nothing ever changes. The road down just moves a tad slower sometimes, but it's still moving down.

No matter what, my vote will be cast for Bernie Sanders, to hell with the primary results.

Whatever happens, I will have done what was best for this country. Those who continue to vote out of fear or ignorance can carry on, but if we end up with more of the same, only different, it's on you this time.

My conscious is clear.

[whatthehey]

135. Never fathomed that way of thinking

Only two people have any chance whatsoever of being elected. The D nominee and the R nominee. If you, hypothetically, considered them 50% and 90% evil respectively, what, exactly, is your objection to reducing the final evil by 40% points? Why is less evil than the only alternative EVER a poor choice? It's not that there is any chance of a 0% evil write in dream candidate doing a damn thing. The butt on the Oval Office chair is going to be either 50 or 90% pure evil in your mind whatever you do. Who would choose to help the 90% option by either commission (voting for them) or omission (not voting for the only possible option that can stop them) and call themselves sane?

When the choice is to be hit by a bus and die or jump over the bridge and break both legs, what blithering idiot would piss and moan about not being given the choice to have a piece of apple pie instead because of darned DINO DLC Blue Dog Conservadem Republican Lite Corporatist Oligarchy 1% bankster bus schedules until it's too late and they are splattered across the roadside anyway?

[Xyzse]

173. I tend to agree with this sentiment.

[BigDemVoter]

333. +1000

Thank you!

[haikugal]

255. Well said SheilaT....I concur! nt

I rec this post!

[840high]

275. Thank you. +10

[m-lekktor]

319. it's a tired, bullshit cliche especially when there isn't anything/one "good" in the equation. nt

[demwing]

124. Thats an excellent reason to vote for Bernie!

Last edited Wed Nov 4, 2015, 01:58 AM - Edit history (1)

He may not be your perfect candidate, but he'll bring about the greatest good for the country.

[BlueCaliDem]

287. How? And with what Congress?

Or do you actually believe he can circumvent Congress' constitutional powers in order to make all those beautiful promises reality? A $15 dollar minimum wage? Congress needs to legislate that. Free college for everyone? Congress needs to legislate that. Single payer health care? Congress needs to legislate that. Regulating the banks? Congress needs to legislate that. Raise the cap on Social Security tax? Again, that falls under the constitutional powers of Congress, not the president.

Bernie knows that. He's hoping his supporters don't.

[Scootaloo]

296. So you're counting on Clinton... what? Watching TV in the oval office for four years?

[BlueCaliDem]

298. I asked a pertinent question. With what Congress will a President Sanders "bring about

the greatest good for the country?" Maybe you can answer that? Because I don't see it.

[Scootaloo]

300. Except it's really not pertinent

You're trying to browbeat someone into supporting your candidate... who will face the exact same problem.

But alright. Sanders motivates liberals and the left. Quite a bit, as you may have seen. This is a group of people with traditionally poor voter turnout due to, well... chronic disappointment paired with overt hostility from the Democratic Party. But Bernie's motivating them. he's also motivating Independents, whose voting patterns are mostly formed by their own sense of disappointment with the current political structure. So, we get the left out there. And we get these sanders-positive Independents out there, voting for Sanders. What happens with the Democrats downticket?

By contrast, Clinton is disfavored by the left. She's not going to get the turnout from them that Sanders would, whether or not you like it or agree. Similarly, Independents are likely to see her as a "dynasty" candidate, and certainly recognize her as a career insider. Traits which are not real good for getting independent support.

How will Sanders handle congress? By having broader coattails than Clinton would, and hopefully adjusting the party makeup of the Legislature.

[BlueCaliDem]

308. Actually it is, since I addressed the bold claim of that poster who might actually believe

that Sanders will "bring about the greatest good for the country" as if he gets a magic wand when he's inaugurated. For the record? I don't "browbeat" anyone to do anything. It's just not my style. I can only hope to help make people think by injecting a little bit of reality in a discussion that threatens to veer off into Wonderland, and then let the chips fall where they may.

I'm always curious, though, how naive some Sanders supporters are, buying into his feel-good rhetoric and accept it as gospel without questioning how he actually intends to keep his campaign promises (those very promises that has drawn them to begin with). It makes me wonder if they have any idea how our government is set up. It doesn't appear as if they do, and worse, it doesn't appear as if they care. They're setting themselves up for major disappointments.

Sanders motivates liberals and the left. Quite a bit, as you may have seen. This is a group of people with traditionally poor voter turnout ~~snip~~So, we get the left out there. And we get these sanders-positive Independents out there, voting for Sanders. What happens with the Democrats downticket?

Of course you're assuming that they'd vote for Democrats on the downticket. I don't. Why should they? They refuse to vote for Democrats for president (traditionally poor voter turnout, remember?) so why would they suddenly have a change of heart and vote for Democrats on the downticket? That doesn't make sense and it's not going to happen, except for a few exceptions here and there.

How will Sanders handle congress? By having broader coattails than Clinton would, and hopefully adjusting the party makeup of the Legislature.

Sanders has hit the ceiling at 25%. That's all he's going to get. That's the extent of his support in just about every electorally important State with demographics far more diverse than Iowa and New Hampshire. I don't see those "broader coattails" you're alluding to.

The reality is, IF Sanders wins the presidency (and that's a big IF), Congress will remain pretty much the way it is now. I don't see how he'll be able to "bring about the greatest good for this country" with this Congress. I seriously don't. And I want a president to actually get things done. I don't believe Sanders is that person.

[Scootaloo]

295. A fine argument for someone supporting the worse of two positions.

[No Vested Interest]

305. You may be mistaken re whom I'm supporting, if anyone.

In fact, I haven't taken a position on any of the three Dem candidates, but I plan on voting for whomever the Dems nominate, even though I realize that there are pluses and minuses with each of them.
The theme of the OP is voting for the Dem candidate who is eventually nominated, and that I will do.

I've lived a long life and seen some of my choices in the general election defeated, more often than I would have liked. In younger days I was heart-broken; now, though I regret such losses, as in the KY governorship tonight, I move on.
Am no longer as emotionally involved with an individual, as I know they all have vulnerabilities.

I sincerely hope those who take the time to patronize to DU come to see and support the larger picture, otherwise we'll have another Bush or Reagan, or even a Nixon.

Dems have the numbers, but many are lackadaisical, others are idealistic to a fault; some are single-issue voters; some not sufficiently motivated; many do not see the large picture of the benefits of voting for and electing an imperfect person who will choose cabinet members, justices, ambassadors that will be infinitely better than those chosen by a Republican chief executive.

[newfie11]

34. ++++++++infinity

Sadly here in deep red Western SD my vote won't matter.
Doesn't mean I won't vote. I do every election.

[VanillaRhapsody]

43. Not according to MOST Democrats...

[Hekate]

249. You think our Democratic candidates are "evil"? Really? Please explain this. nt

[Eko]

12. If you are so distraught

that you candidate didn't win the primary that you will not vote to keep a tea publican out of the white house, you have a problem. Not us, not the Democrats, you. Its called reality, and you should join us. 3rd way, 2nd way, 1st way, whatever. Tea publican. Do I need to say it again, yes, Tea publican, nightmares that should dwarf any 3rd way or socialist democrat to any sane person. You shouldn't even be on here if you believe that way, you should be on the "mycanidateistheonlyoneunderground.com, it is democraticunderground.com for a reason, notice the democratic part?.

[sunnystarr]

16. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

68. I second that emotion!

[BigDemVoter]

108. +10000

[moonscape]

198. Yes yes and YES! n/t

[BigDemVoter]

334. You hit it out of the park. . . .

My sentiments exactly!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

13. Are there people who are still going to claim America wants Conservatives to rule?

[Live and Learn]

14. People should vote for the candidate they think will do the best for the country.

If that is the Democratic candidate I will, as I always have, vote for him/her.

If the only choice I have is between candidates that I think will do harm, I have no idea what I will do. It will be a first for me.

[TreasonousBastard]

17. You do realize that anyone can sign up with DU and say...

they are anything they want to say. Say you're a conservative and you will get banned, but say you're a Democrat and no one checks. So we really have no idea what's going on with anyone here, unless we know them personally.

The Democrats that I regularly deal with out here in real life are rarely as adamant as those on anonymous discussion boards. We work on real campaigns and understand that perfection is so far away that nothing is gained by trying to reach it.

Heading more or less in the general direction of perfection is pretty much the best we can do.

Hillary? Bernie? We work with what we got, and at least what we got beats hell out of the clown car.

[murielm99]

19. Thank you.

I don't care which candidate you support. Your post makes perfect sense.

[pampango]

21. Damn. Well put. n/t

[CrispyQ]

58. "Heading more or less in the general direction of perfection..."

Wow. That's where you think we're headed?

[yuiyoshida]

18. I Will vote for the Democratic candidate

Because we don't need Donald TRUMP sending my people back to where ever he thinks we might be from..

[DFW]

96. Amen to that!

Especially since my daughters were born in another country and are citizens of that country, though one of them lives in the USA. My brother's wife is from Japan, and though their sons speak only rudimentary Nihongo, they very much look the part. NO ONE has a right to even threaten to deport any of them, especially some dirtbag Republican who thinks "foreign policy" is an insurance contract issued in Liechtenstein.

[Skittles]

22. yes

me, I am getting used to holding my nose while voting

[KG]

23. yes, one DUer even proclaims it in their sig line.

[treestar]

24. Never seen a Clinton supporter say that

Sanders supporters, I have seen say that.

[djean111]

25. I believe that is only because the Hillary supporters cannot envision the nominee being anyone but

Hillary.

[JoePhilly]

73. We'd happily support Bernie were he to win the primary.

Its just that simple.

[cantbeserious]

26. HRC Supporters Are Comfortable Voting For The Lesser Of Two Corporate Evils

eom

[Martin Eden]

27. Only **IF** Illinois is up for grabs

If there is any chance of a Republican winning my home state of Illinois, I will vote for Hillary if she is the Democratic candidate. Otherwise, I'll cast my presidential vote for a 3rd party candidate and check the Dem box in other races.

I would LOVE to see an end to the "winner take all" system and the Electoral College, and have the president elected on nationwide popular vote. Until that time comes, a handful of swing states will decide the election. I'd also love to see Instant Runoff Voting (ranked choice) so I could select a 3rd party candidate first and the Dem candidate 2nd. If we had this in 2000, Gore would have been elected instead of GW Bush (Nader voters would not have put Bush ahead of Gore).

Hillary lost my vote in 2002 when she jumped on the Iraq war bandwagon. I am sick and tired of holding my nose when I cast my ballot, but if that what it takes to keep a Rethug out of the White House I'll do it.

[liberal N proud]

28. I think there is a lot of posturing that takes place daily on this board

I also think there are a lot of posers on this board.

Either way, the election just comes down to turn out, getting the voters to come to the polls. There is a reason the republicans keep trying to stop people from voting and it has nothing to do with voter fraud, NOTHING!

Get Out the Vote and the Democrats win, it is that simple!

[a la izquierda]

29. Only if Senator Clinton has a chance of winning in WV.

Which I seriously doubt will be the case. Hell, it's bad enough that I'll have to actually vote for a "Democratic governor" in this state, I can at least stick to principles when it comes to president.

[eridani]

30. Probably not many. The Sanders supporters who will not vote for Clinton are mostly--

--alienated voters with no party affiliation.

[B Calm]

31. Not saying all these posters are right-wing trolls. . .

but, it makes you wonder.

[kelliekat44]

32. Yes. They will be voting for Sanders...who, in fact, is not a Democrat. nt

[Maedhros]

152. That's a feature, not a bug. [n/t]

[merrily]

209. That is not only an incorrect statement, it's a ludicrous one. You can't run for the Democratic

Presidential nomination as anything but a Democrat. Keep lying about our candidate and keep asking us to vote for your candidate no matter what. See how well that works.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

33. Right here, boyo.

Though it's more that I won't vote for Clinton specifically. I'll vote for Bernie happily, or O'Malley warily. But I know enough about Clinton to know she'll just continue dragging the party to the right, screwing over the middle class, the working class, and the poor.

ETA - she may have a D after her name, but she's another 80s Republican at heart.

[restorefreedom]

183. +1000 nt

[Township75]

35. "I'm not voting for that candidate" is complete bullshit by narcissists that want to be the prize

We have to listen to this shit every 4 years. Hey are lying and can go fuck themselves. They will be voting for the dem candidate. If you don't believe me then check in late October or early November and see how many people are saying they won't vote for the candidate then. Chances are that you will find these people expressing their support then and being cheerleaders.

[Vinca]

36. I might not be voting "for" the Democractic candidate. I could be voting "against" the Republican.

[Etraker]

37. Me

If Sanders does not get the nomination I will most likely not vote. It has really gotten this bad for me. If we as a nation are not ready for a political revolution, and I feel that nothing short of a strong political revolution in which we elect public servants who will take back our government, which has been bought by capitalism, then I say let them have it for it will surely hasten a different kind of revolution. To me there is no point in prolonging the inevitable. Continuing to elect POLITICIANS like Hillary Clinton will only prolong the suffering. It will take several more years for the stupid to catch up with those of us who read and post on here, but if we just let THEM have it THEY will get what THEY deserve sooner. I will just prepare to GIVE it to THEM when the time comes.

[saturnsring]

39. you do understand that just because bernie's the nominee that doesnt mean he will win the

general, correct? you are not "showing them" by not voting youre just giving your vote to the republicans

[Etraker]

40. Yes, I get that.

Its a win win. If he wins good. If he looses same result.

[saturnsring]

41. no not the same result -

[Etraker]

44. umm

Did you read my post. Maybe you read it but did not comprehend what it said. Go back and read my original reply slowly and see if you get what I am saying. Your replies to mine lead me to believe you misread, if not then just move on.

[hifiguy]

156. Thst depends entirely on the state in which one lives.

States like NY, CA and MN are rock-solid blue in presidential elections. I live in MN and have the glorious luxury of voting my conscience while giving the Repigs el zilcho as I do so. And there are still plenty of real Dems to vote for downticket who DESERVE my vote.

[treestar]

47. It's not that bad

There is not going to be a revolution

And at least vote for a third party. Otherwise you are just irrelevant

Bernie is a politician too. Geez.

[ProfessorGAC]

61. Vainglorious Tilting At Windmills

You should be proud.

[Maedhros]

153. For my own part, 'pride' has nothing to do with it.

Democrats with exceptionally low standards for the candidates they will support are the root of the problem. I simply choose not to be part of that group.

I have standards. If a candidate doesn't measure up, they don't get my vote. As long as we don't expect our candidates to give us what we want, we will never get it.

[elana i am]

175. damn straight! eom

[Le Taz Hot]

38. I don't vote for Republicans.

The letter next to their name means nothing.

[hifiguy]

159. BRAVO, Taz! Me, neither.

[Maedhros]

189. Republicans are the cartoonish distraction intended to keep our attention away

from the insidious tendrils of the oligarchy strangling the Democrats from within.

It is imperative that we fight the real enemy: the powerful interests pulling the strings of our candidates and making them ignore our needs. That's why I won't vote for Hillary - she is part of the problem, not the solution.

[VanillaRhapsody]

45. Thanks for creating these kinds of OP's

Helps me determine who else needs to be on my ignore list!

[Reter]

52. That's all it takes?

You might agree with some of these people on many other issues, and even share a laugh or two.

[hifiguy]

162. Issues mean nothing.

You're either a belieber or you're not.

[Etraker]

134. you can add me.

Hillary sucks

[hifiguy]

163. Please add me to your list.

[jeff47]

254. You could put me on your list, but that would get in the way of your email stalking. (nt)

[VanillaRhapsody]

257. As soon as you say....

You wont vote Democrat if its Hillary....its on

But you know what else....you can block emails....DU built that in....welcome to use it..

When you get hide talked for bullshit....perhaps i will have more sympathy...

[jeff47]

258. It's really not that hard to avoid hides.

Take a half-second to think about what you're writing, and you can heap all sorts of insults into your post without getting hidden.

Btw, thanks for confirming the email stalking!

[VanillaRhapsody]

259. Well check mine and see..

Ask bravenak too.

I dont avoid them....I say whatever I think...I wont be cowwed.

[jeff47]

262. You don't have to be cowed. You have to take a moment to be eloquent.

Yes, I know it's difficult to actually take a moment to think about your posts, but doing so results in not actually getting posts hidden.

'Course that does get in the way of the victimhood.

[VanillaRhapsody]

263. I dont have to do anything....I vote Democrat

[VanillaRhapsody]

264. And bullshit ....

I dont pull punches.....i tell it like it is...this is politics not Tiddly Winks

You're "eloquent"

[jeff47]

265. Well, I am throwing in things that could get me a hide

if I didn't take the time to phrase them properly.

It's especially fun when the person replying doesn't notice. Even more when the person is pretending to be both a victim and tough.

[VanillaRhapsody]

266. Dude you have no idea what you are talking about

Seriuosly....this is my experience not yours...you do not walk in my shoes ...

But you are welcome to come find out how "tough" I am.
..do you think I've never had a male try to intimidate me before with such drivel? Not impressed...

[jeff47]

270. Why would I want to walk in your shoes?

I'd have to make posts about how I'm such a victim for being so tough. I'd prefer not to make such posts, so I'll continue to wear these slippers.

Besides, your shoes won't fit. My feet are an unusual size.

[VanillaRhapsody]

271. Then dont pretend you know my experience

What gall..

[jeff47]

277. It's gall to take you at your word?

So, what are you lying about then?

[VanillaRhapsody]

278. Do know wjlhat the word gall means?

[jeff47]

280. Yep! I can actually use a dictionary!

Now, for me to actually display the "gall" you complain about, I would have to actually be using something other than your own posts.

I'm not.

Post 257 you talk about being a victim of alert (s)talking. Post 259 you talk about how tough you are.

Noticing the contradiction between those two posts is not gall.

[VanillaRhapsody]

282. Excuse me...YOU were the initial whiner...I was just

Letting you know how pathetic that whining was...poor baby...I never asked for your advice...thus the term gall.

[jeff47]

290. Yes, the one complaining about alert stalking for posts like

"fuck you" is not at all whining. It's a bold, noble truth that must be told!!

[VanillaRhapsody]

273. BTW I aint no one's victim

I am a survivor....least of all yours!



Experience tells me.....your shoes arent as big as you think...

[jeff47]

276. Then you better go edit post 257.

Specifically:

When you get hide talked for bullshit....perhaps i will have more sympathy...

So tell me again how you aren't a victim when you complain about hide (s)talking?

Also, I recommend discovering DU's "Edit post" function.

[VanillaRhapsody]

279. Stating fact is not complaining

That whining sound came from you Mr victim....

[jeff47]

284. Might be true if you were stating a fact.

But I'm quite familiar with your posts and the emails you have spammed me. You do an excellent job of getting yourself hidden, then pat yourself on the back for "telling it like it is".

That whining sound came from you Mr victim....

I'm not the one complaining. You are. I'm also not the one getting manipulated into posting something hide-worthy.

[VanillaRhapsody]

285. I was....thats the point....you know there

Are records of such things on DU right?

[jeff47]

292. Yep. In fact we can all see what you really got hidden for.

Wanna talk about specific ones that were such noble truths they should have been broadcast to all?

[pengu]

46. I'll vote for Sanders or O'Malley only

[840high]

283. I'll join you.

[Amishman]

48. if hillary gets the nomination I do not know what i will do

I am suspicious of her motives and i flat out do not trust her, especially when her personal or business connections are involved.

[abelenkpe]

49. Yes.

[TipTok]

50. I find her more offensive than most politicians...

Obama, Biden... Hell, I would have voted for Webb...

Hillary not so much...

[CrispyQ]

54. "...ANY Democratic candidate would be a better alternative."

"We suck less" is a terrible way to motivate your base. Perhaps if the democratic party represented their base as enthusiastically as they represent Wall St. & the MIC, they wouldn't have to resort to the lesser of two evils argument every damned election. Every time voters capitulate to that line of reasoning, the party moves further to the right. Today's democratic party looks more like the republican party of the 50s.

This is the result of playing that game:



I don't have an answer. I don't want the wackos in charge, but I am disgusted with the dem party taking my vote for granted. The leader of the DNC has supported repubs over dems, for fucks sake, but I'm supposed to vote for the dems because they are better than the repubs?

[Xyzse]

182. That though I agree.

Truth of the matter is, there are only two realistic choices in the general election. The Democrat or Republican. A third party has a snowball's chance in hell in winning. Hence, to me a 3rd party is either equivalent to not voting, or a vote for whomever you don't want.

This is why the primaries are so important, since it is in the primaries that we get the closest to what we want.

In 08, I was so unhappy that it was Clinton and Obama who were the front runners for the Democratic nomination as there was no chance that I would vote for the Republican.

This year, even if Clinton is my last choice, I am still very happy with O'Malley, Clinton and Sanders as they are light years ahead of any one in the Republican field.

They don't even have a John Huntsman this time. The current Republican field is a boatload of crazy, and I will not be a part of allowing themselves to get legitimized by winning the Presidency. Whatever helps to avoid that, that is where I will go.

If one wants to have more progressive aspects in a candidate, then support the candidate that fits your view best during the primaries. Even if they don't win, they will then at least put the debate closer to your cause.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

57. Why isn't this in GD-P? nt

[BigDemVoter]

110. I put it here,as it's a general question--not "really" about the primaries.

I hope I wasn't mistaken on where to put it . . . .?

[Nye Bevan]

60. The "I may not vote Democratic" thing is exclusive to Sanders supporters.

I have seen that sentiment expressed here many times by Sanders supporters but never, ever, by a Clinton supporter.

Personally while I support Hillary I think Sanders is a good man who would be a fine president and I would not hesitate to vote for him a year from now if he is our candidate.

[Etraker]

64. As far as I am concerned....

if Hillary is the nominee then there is not one flipping difference in the candidates other than what they are saying to try to get elected. I will not vote for a politician from either party, and no Sanders is not a politician. He did not vote for the war in Iraq nor the Patriot act, Hillary the politician did.

[Nye Bevan]

65. Hillary will never sign a bill that allows health insurers to once again discriminate

based upon pre-existing conditions. Any of the Republicans would. And that's just one example.

[BigDemVoter]

111. Not to mention the SCOTUS. . . . Imagine the justices the Repukes would nominate. . . .

[Robbins]

130. don't be so sure

Clintons supported welfare reform which hurt single women.

If corporations were to be for it and GOP congress passed it she would sign it.

[Nye Bevan]

145. She was busting her ass back in 1994 trying to get universal health coverage,

and protecting people with pre-existing conditions. She would obviously veto any such bill.

[PowerToThePeople]

63. Not this shit again.

[Rebkeh]

69. Any of the democrats currently

running can beat the republicans. They (republicans) are a mess, the question is who can beat them by the widest margin (my bet is Bernie, you are free to disagree).

Therefore, it really doesn't make sense to base your vote in the primary on who can beat the republicans in the general. Purity standards and aims for perfection are okay for now, but come next November, we have to settle.

See? We can do both. Now let's stop arguing.

[Kalidurga]

70. So, most people live in either a deeply blue state or a deeply red state

they can vote for who ever or write in their own name or leave it blank it will make no difference. It is a vanity vote in any case. Now if a lot of Bernie supporters in swing states do this in the event Hillary is the nominee this might be a problem. I doubt it will be though most people in swing states understand how important their vote is and they aren't going to give the country over to the RW barking Moon Bats.

[Lizzie Poppet]

75. Agreed. Voters in genuine swing states will hold their nose and vote their party.

Even if the party makes a stupid choice...

[Kalidurga]

77. Yep if I lived in a swing state I would proclaim my love for Hillary if she wins the nomination.

But, I don't so I don't have to do that.

[Lizzie Poppet]

84. I'll keep an eye on the polls, but I doubt my state's in play, either.

I'm almost certain to have the luxury of voting my conscience of a non-progressive gets the Democratic nod. It's the one redeemable aspect of the Electoral Anachronism, er...College.

[BigDemVoter]

114. Good Point

I live in Berkeley, CA, so I don't imagine there's ANY risk of a Repuke winning here. Nonetheless, I always show up on election day, and I vote.

After Secretary Clinton's vote for the Iraq war, I swore I'd never vote for her in an election, should she run. I guess I've mellowed over time, and while I find that vote a complete atrocity, I WOULD vote for Secretary Clinton in the general election.

I've gotten more pragmatic as I've gotten older. I lived in a deep red state for a few years and always felt enraged on election day, as my choices were usually between "bad" and "less bad." Again, while Clinton has done some things that have really pissed me off, I don't see it as a "bad" and "less bad" situation if it were between her and the current crop of Republican clowns. There is NO comparison. I have to think of what nominees we would have for the SCOTUS should one of the clowns win, not to mention what they would do to social security, Medicaid, Medicare, taxes, etc. Hillary, despite her numerous faults, would at least go as far as Obama has on THESE measures I just mentioned.

Again, I am a Sanders supporter, but I'm not going to paint myself into the corner and then cut off my nose to spite my face. I lived in Arkansas for a job a few years ago, and I was "forced" to vote for Mark Pryor for Senator. I was absolutely furious that I was in that situation, and I was actually more angry with Pryor, the so-called "Dem" candidate than I was with the Repuke. Nonetheless, my very, very liberal parents sat down with me and outlined what was at stake, and I did hold my nose and vote for Pryor. I couldn't say I "supported" him, but I understood the consequences of not voting, and a right-wing Democratic asshole like Pryor is FAR, FAR, FAR preferable to a right-wing, Repuke asshole. At least Pryor was pro-choice. And at least Pryor represented SOME of the things I supported versus the Republican who represented EVERYTHING I despised.

Sorry for the long response-- I got off track and just started pontificating!!

[Kalidurga]

123. Well I don't think she is going to win the nomination.

She tends to rip defeat out of the jaws of victory a lot. So we will see what happens down the road. The bottom line if you are in a deep blue or deep red state it does not matter who you vote for. It really doesn't unless for some unexplained reason several hundred thousand think the same thing and write themselves in.

[Jim Lane]

168. I'm in a non-swing state but I'm still inclined to hold my nose and vote for Clinton

If the nominee is O'Malley or Sanders, I'll vote for him enthusiastically, no question about it.

If the nominee is Clinton, the considerations are different. I'd certainly rather see her as President than any of the Republicans. As against that, my vote won't affect the election. The only way my state is close is if Clinton's campaign has tanked so terribly that it's a nationwide Republican romp. I don't care about voting for Clinton just to keep the Republican candidate below 500 electoral votes.

Nevertheless, I lean toward the hold-my-nose vote because I don't want to encourage the Greens or whatever other no-hoper alternatives are on my ballot. It may not matter in this particular election, but there certainly are cases in which such a candidate has let a Republican snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

I believe very strongly that progressives should work in the Democratic primary rather than in the general election. I will vote for O'Malley or Sanders in the primary, even if both have withdrawn from the race by then. That way I can express my displeasure with Clinton and make it easier for me to vote for her in the general.

[Kalidurga]

172. Well then that pretty much settles it for me.

I do want to encourage the Greens.

[ChiciB1]

85. Haven't Made Up My Mind YET... But I AM

toying with the idea. I'm a very, very long time activist and have been feeling that the best I can do after the FL Primary is "throw in the towel" because I've pretty much HAD IT! I'm tired, worn out and EXTREMELY JADED as never before.

Right now because what I'm seeing, kind of think THIS country deserves what it gets! Most people have NO clue about what's going on and it's kind of come down to a "popularity contest" and that's SO HIGH SCHOOL, IMO.

Can you say Miley Cyrus, Kardashian or make your own list!
JMHO

[Stellar]

95. I will vote for who ever is left on the Democratic ticket and I don't have a dog in this race...

for once. I'm not excited about anybody this go around. But I'm paying attention.

[ryan_cats]

104. I

If the primary is held today, I vote for Bernie. If the election is held today, I vote for the Democrat.
My worry is that is people get overconfident about the Presidential polls, the local elections could shift to the right.

[pinebox]

106. Me

I will vote third party and vote Dem on a local level.
She doesn't represent me but Jill Stein does.
I'm also a indy liberal and not a Dem.

[GummyBearz]

112. I will vote for the best candidate

Even if that means writing in a name.


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

[demwing]

115. At DU, I've learned that Hillary doesn't need my vote

I'm ok with that.

[Purveyor]

133. If Rubio is the nominee, and I think he will be, she will need every vote she can muster

however I still don't think that will be enough.

Too many people just don't like her nor her arrogance.

[hifiguy]

157. The arrogance of the 'You WILL vote for HRH

but we don't really need you anyway" crowd is both amusing and nauseating, ain't it?

[demwing]

177. Yep, and i'm done with it

I'll vote for the person who will best help this country, party politics be damned.

[restorefreedom]

186. oh hell yes.

or, as frank burns put it

"....we can make sure you remain loyal to the country that's gonna hound your every step."

[840high]

286. It's a big turn-off.

[KamaAina]

116. I'm afraid so.

DU is a very big place. It would make a decent-size city. And like San Francisco or New Orleans, it has quite a few, um, eccentrics.

[Romulox]

119. Not voting for Hillary. nt

[hamsterjill]

126. I am a Hillary supporter, but I would definitely vote for Bernie if he is the nominee.

I feel like it is absurd to hand the election to the Republicans by not voting for the Democratic nominee. That's my opinion because that's how I see it happening.

For those who won't support the Democratic nominee, please don't come here and whine when a Republican wins, because without ALL of us sticking together, that is a possibility.

[HassleCat]

131. I will vote for Clinton

It's going to be difficult. She represents everything, well almost everything, wrong with the Democratic Party. I feel like punishing her for her calumny by not voting, but I can't stand the idea of the Republicans controlling Congress and the presidency.

[Purveyor]

132. Can't say at this time I will vote for her and I think this time Michigan is

definitely going to be up for grabs.

That said, it is a year before I must make that decision.

Now I have to go vote on a Public Safety millage in the township. (which I will be voting NO, btw...)

[willvotesdem]

136. I can't control the slimey liying bastards in the republican party. I can

withhold my support of the DNC and DLC when they do everything in their power to pre-select the corporate candidate. I have voted straight Democratic in every election since 1972.....look where that has led to.

[hifiguy]

137. My state is as blue as the sky in presidential elections

and has been for decades. Therefore I have the freedom to vote my conscience as my vote can't have any effect on the outcome.

And I will NOT vote for that woman. But I WILL vote for every other Democrat on the ballot. I would never miss the opportunity to vote for Rep. Keith Ellison.

Others are free to consult their own consciences, but I cannot vote for anyone whose principal agenda is continuing to sell the middle and working classes into feudal peonage to her corporate owners. Not if I wanted to live with myself, at any rate. No corporatists, no warmongers, no economic royalists.

[The River]

146. Same Here

Blue State, no worries. I'll vote all the down-ballot races and propositions
but at top of the ticket I'll vote for Mickey Mouse...again.

[No Vested Interest]

142. Recall how it was that Bush was elected President, and remained so for 8 years.

A great enough number of persons voted for Ralph Nader, the "purer" candidate in their eyes.

Those who knew how close the election was encouraged, begged Nader to endorse Al Gore at the end.
His ego wouldn't allow it, and we all know the result - 8 yrs. of Bush, Irag War, Great Recession, etc. etc.

Republicans are very disciplined when it comes to voting.
Democrats are undisciplined, even inclined to not bother to vote.

We all know the result.

I will vote for the Democratic nominee for President!

[jeff47]

302. Nader got 20,000 D votes. W got 200,000 D votes.

And you blame Nader for getting 1/10th the registered Democratic votes.

[No Vested Interest]

306. Many persons were angry/disgusted at Bill Clinton's behavior and could not get past that.

Nader voters bought into the purist idealism which has never won an election.

Our earliest founders all had weak spots, as we know, but together they brought forth a government which largely worked for the greater good over the long run - certainly not always perfect or even the best at any given moment.

[jeff47]

315. And you still are still ignoring W got 10x more votes

How about talking about Gore running such a lousy campaign 200,000 FL Democrats voted for the Republican?

[No Vested Interest]

320. W got 10X more votes? Where did that occur?

Gore tried to distance himself from Bill's antics. - How did that work out for him?

Remember W's bro Jeb! was governor; Jeb!'s Sec. of state, with Jeb!'s okay, removed thousands of eligible voters from the rolls.

[jeff47]

321. :facepalm:

So...unable to read the post above where I explicitly state how many registered Democrats voted for Nader versus voted for W?

Nader got 20,000 registered Democrats. W got 200,000. 200,000 is 10 times 20,000.

Yet you're only upset about the 20,000, and apparently can't even read the number 200,000.

Remember W's bro Jeb! was governor; Jeb!'s Sec. of state, with Jeb!'s okay, removed thousands of eligible voters from the rolls.

And this changes W getting far more votes from registered Democrats how?

[No Vested Interest]

324. I'm sure you have a point there somewhere, but not sure what it is.

Meanwhile, I have a life to live rather than engaging, so will allow you the satisfaction you will feel at my future non-answers.

Have a good day

[AzDar]

143. It's bullshit like this that prevents any change to the status quo. I don't care WHICH consonant is

next to your name: if I find most of your political positions to be unacceptable, I WILL NOT BE VOTING FOR YOU.

[Nonhlanhla]

149. It's not about you

I wish people would realize that their vote is not just about them. The vote that you cast is yours to cast, of course, but it has an impact on other people's lives. So yes, you have the right to vote or not vote, to write in a name, to do whatever you want, but there is no such thing as a clear conscience when you choose to help let the GOP win, whatever your reason. Do what you want, but at least own up to the consequences - take responsibility for them.

[Shandris]

151. Yes. And I don't need to 'justify' anything to the Anointed Priesthood.

I'm rejecting the Priesthood in its entirety. When it's replaced with someone not corrupted by the faucet of eternal money, I'll consider dropping them a vote again. They don't care about me, I have no desire to keep them in power (and would prefer to see both sects of the Priesthood wither and die, metaphorically speaking).

Until then I'll vote for the least electable person possible. Maybe even nominate someone, like "Tuna Salad on Rye".

(The Priesthood is the Professional Political Class ('Establishment'), for those not used to my occasionally-odd slang. )

[merrily]

154. These kinds of threads should end. Really. It's been a year or more. Enough really is enough.

[BigDemVoter]

212. I must have missed them. I've been around since 2001 and am back

after a "reincarnation." I don't often post on DU, and I occasionally read things but was just wondering after seeing some posts. I was unaware that this topic had been "beaten to death." I'm beginning to understand!

[merrily]

217. Not only in OPs but in reply after reply, to the point of hectoring at times. Also, in polls.

Each time, it has reminded me of Joltin' Joe McCarthy. Take the loyalty oath. Promise to vote (*D) even if they run Godzilla. Show what a good Democrat/person/DUer you are.

Then came the many posts of "They won't even say they'll vote for her if she's the nominee. They're (insert insults here)."

And, I'm waiting to see how they will use the info they've been collecting from threads like this to get people banned from this board entirely if Hillary is the nominee.

Sorry if all that it took you by surprise. However, thank you for giving me the opportunity to show that I do indeed post as I do out of principle and not only because it's usually a Hillary supporter who is asking/demanding that I take the loyalty oath.

Another thing you may or may not have missed: DUers pretending to be supporters of Senator Sanders, even though they were supporters of Secretary Clinton. Observed the phenomenon, but never understood it.

[Marr]

317. I'm pretty sure I've seen one of them 'convert' several times over.

They seize on the smear du jour and say, 'that's it, I can no longer support him-- now I'm supporting Hillary'.

I really don't know who they think they're kidding, but it's hilarious.

[merrily]

322. Bread and Circus's "Have you flipped" thread is hilarious, too.

People are citing reasons for "flipping" that occurred months after they supposedly "flipped." I think I started to understand the reasons for the phenomenon, but they're irrelevant.

[lumberjack_jeff]

158. Let's cross that bridge when we come to it.

We're in the process of selecting a nominee, and one stands head and shoulders above his competition in terms of electability, and exemplifying the stated views of most democrats.

[jberryhill]

160. Oh heck yeah

[No Vested Interest]

165. Thank you for that. Teddy Kennedy understood and did the right thing. nt

Apparently many do not get that in 2015-2016.

[jberryhill]

169. The right thing?

[No Vested Interest]

171. 1976. nt

[frylock]

166. Present..

Not a registered Democrat, never have been, but you're welcome for all those votes that I cast for your candidates.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

167. Judging by at least some of the posts here

it seems like there are a few. Won't do anybody any good, however, nor the country. Republican voters will mindlessly vote for whatever creature emerges from their primaries and virtually guarantee them around at least 40-something percent of the vote. Enough of a reason to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate no matter how DLC-ish or Third Way-ish he/she is. I'm supporting HRC in the primaries but there is NO doubt in my mind whatsoever that I would vote for Bernie in a heartbeat if he were the Democratic nominee. Given what we have seen over the past decade plus, should there even be any doubt as to which party is at least sort-of trying to help make things better for the country?

[Le Taz Hot]

174. . . .

" Republican voters will mindlessly vote for whatever creature emerges from their primaries and virtually guarantee them around at least 40-something percent of the vote."

And never sees the irony.

[AzDar]

178. Right? OMG, the cognitive dissonance ...

[Marr]

318. +1, lol. /nt

[elana i am]

180. do you not see ANY irony in your statement?

Republican voters will mindlessly vote for whatever creature emerges from their primaries and virtually guarantee them around at least 40-something percent of the vote. Enough of a reason to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate no matter how DLC-ish or Third Way-ish he/she is.

dnc/dlc/third way is whats WRONG. why on earth would i vote to make something more wrong??? why??????

i think i am finally beginning to understand now why there is such an insurmountable chasm on this message board in the clinton vs. sanders war.

[restorefreedom]

188. good grief, do we have to have one of these EVERY day?

can we just make one day "loyalty oath day" and be done with it?

and to answer the op, i will not vote for a corporate owned hawk, i don't care what letter they choose to put after their name

no more corruption in politics
no more war
no more citizens united
no more status quo

[bbmykel]

190. No, I won't

Senator Clinton forfeited my support when she chose political expediency over leadership and voted for the Iraq war (as, of course did Kerry and Edwards--not a glorious moment for Democratic "leaders&quot . Would Howard Dean have even been possible if any one of them had stood up and lead an opposition?

What I have learned since 2004 via places like DU but mostly the Democratic Party itself is that I am no longer Democrat. I would have once believed that was unthinkable. What I am is a Liberal, and proud of it. I will support individual candidates (mostly Democrats, I'm sure) that are proud liberals. I don't owe anyone blind allegiance.

Now, before anyone gets too riled up, let me point out that my vote virtually counts for nothing. I live in California and any Democratic nominee for President that is fighting for California has probably already lost so I do have the luxury of "voting my conscience". If I was in a swing state, I honestly would have a tougher time figuring out what to do.

Also, once I realized that I really wasn't a Democrat anymore (after all Rahm Emanuel called people like me "retards" or some such thing so it's not like I was wanted), I really do try to respect this space and not post much, but I did want to answer what sounded like a sincere question.

[cpwm17]

195. War is the worst thing caused by man.

There is nothing worse. It is a massive crime. It's racism in its most extreme form.

War supporters should never receive anyone's vote – never.

[merrily]

207. Wasn't racism Muhammed Ali's take on wars against people of color, or akin to it?

[cpwm17]

220. I know he said he didn't want to go 10,000 miles from home and kill innocent brown people. n/t

[merrily]

222. Went to jail for it. Still revered. Times change. We're "morally flexible gasbags" now, to quote

Matt Taibbi.

[JonLeibowitz]

246. Gosh, what a patriot. I am floored by his devotion.

Sorry, i have a huge crush on Taibbi. That guy calls it like he sees it. Great journalist.

[aikoaiko]

196. DanTex has completely convinced me that it won't matter to my life if a republican

or Hillary is in the Whitehouse.

He goes on to say that its important to others, but they hate me because they think I'm a racist and white supremacist.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

200. I'm tired of the passive aggressive lesser of two evils shit

The greatest evil would be another Sam Alito nominated by Jeb! or fucking Rubio.

[FlatBaroque]

203. Thanks for the fresh take

[merrily]

211. I guess I missed the fresh part? Hold your nose and vote Democratic, no matter what, regardless of

the candidate and the sh*t coming out from the DNC and Democratic politicians against Sanders, regardless of the sh*t coming at his supporters?

So far, 2123 views, 207 replies, and fewer than 20 recs. You don't even have to do the math.

[Mike Nelson]

206. I will vote for the DEM. Candidate, and....

...won't have to hold my nose. It's the alternative that stinks.

[Kelvin Mace]

215. When you vote for the lesser of two evils

you are still voting for evil. Some of us will not be a party to another war mongering president who is in the tank for banks and is prepared to sell out anyone if the price is good enough.

[840high]

288. ...+1

[Chan790]

221. Yes.

There is at-least one primary candidate that I cannot vote for or support under any condition.

[Zorra]

223. I'll vote for any Dem candidate except for one. nt

[hifiguy]

240. Seconded as vociferously as I possibly can.

[Squinch]

228. A number of brand new posters here who are advocating not voting for the Democratic nominee.

Things that make you go, "hmmmmm."

[BigDemVoter]

242. I was wondering the same thing. . . .

When I see fewer than 200 posts with some eyebrow raising statements, I DO wonder. . . .

[Squinch]

329. And more than 5 of those people running around saying, "Don't vote for the Democrat!!!"

And lots of people saying, "Wha? Oh. OK. Yea!"

[Logical]

235. I do not like Clinton, but will gladly hold my nose and vote for her over any GOP idiot. nt

[RichVRichV]

239. Hillary supporters will only vote for a Democrat.

Many of them don't consider Bernie a Democrat.

If Bernie wins the Democratic nomination, does this create a catch-22 for them?

Will they vote for Webb who is a Democrat running independently or for Bernie who is an "independent" running as a Democrat?

The intricacies of party first politics is fun.

[Hekate]

241. Yes, and they keep calling the rest of us "Third Wayers" as a generic insult....

You shall know them by that and by their insistence that they "won't sign any loyalty oaths" despite the fact that no one has asked them to.

I'm becoming ever more convinced that a bunch of them are set to sit out the General Election if you know who isn't on the ballot.

[climber3986]

243. This isnt a monarchy. Clinton has already had 2 terms.

If 2016 is clinton vs bush ill just stay home, no matter who wins the end result will be the same, banks will get de-regulated, we will be fighting overseas for the next 8 years, and citizens united wont get overturned.

The only difference is the top marginal tax rate may go up or down by a few percent and the minimum wage may go up by 1-2 dollars depending on who wins.

what a joke our political system is.

[Smarmie Doofus]

252. I'll vote Green if Clinton's the nominee.

I can't stand her.... or her politics. That being the case, there's no point in my voting for her in NYS..... since if she can't win here she can't win nationally anyway.

OTOH, I'll rec. people in swing states vote for her, though. Only because of SCOTUS.

[merrily]

281. You could write in Bernie.

[840high]

291. Exactly what I plan to do.

[liberal_at_heart]

253. There sure are. I'm one of them.

[Prism]

260. If Clinton doesn't apologize for her DOMA remarks, I won't.

I don't vote for ass-covering homophobic horseshit.

Not in 2016.

Never again.

[CTyankee]

335. Oh, I think she will. She is a realist and will see the handwriting on the wall and the

SCOTUS decision.

I was totally demoralized by the DOMA remarks. It made me sick. But I feel better now and think "If I don't vote for pro-choice Hillary, this country might get an "anti Choice President." That scares the hell out of me.

[Scootaloo]

294. One fellow proudly wears such a declaration as his signature line

I agree. I'd just barely rather have clinton than a Republican, if my back is against the wall and I have to choose one or the other. It's like the difference between Miller and Coors - they're both fucking disgusting, I would never ask for either by name, but if I gotta drink one or the other, it's Miller time. And like the beers, I hope that my vote will result in a four-year blackout that ends with better options.

[Zavulon]

297. I won't vote for Hillary under any circumstances.

My boss is a conservative who voted for Obama in 2008 out of spite. He said "If the GOP has nothing better to offer us than McCain and expects us to vote for that piece of shit just because the other guy is worse, I'll vote for the other guy with a smile on my face and both my middle fingers extended to the Republican party."

That's exactly how I feel about Hillary. I'll vote for any Democrat except her. If she's the nominee, I'll vote for the GOP candidate out of spite (yes, even if it's Trump or Bush), because if she gets nominated we'll have hit a point where I won't have a preferred party anymore. I can't support a party that would nominate her and expect us to support that. As a Virginia resident I'm having enough trouble tolerating Terry MacAuliffe as it is.

I EXPECT the Republicans to nominate an asshole. I won't tolerate the same from Democrats, and will no longer put up with "This is the most important election of our lifetime, blah, blah, blah, and even though we don't give a rat's ass about you, you need to vote for any piece of shit we shove in your faces because their guy is worse!" They can nominate anyone except Hillary and I'll be glad to vote for the Dem candidate. But if it's Hillary, I'm going to treat the party with the same contempt they'd be showing me by nominating her.

[JDPriestly]

303. I'm in Clalifornia. The winner of the GE for president does not depend on California's voters or my

vote. The winner is usually obvious by the time the votes are counted in reliably Democratic California.

I will vote for all Democratic candidates up and down the slate, but I will not vote for Hillary.

i will not vote for her.

I do not want a vote for Hillary on my conscience.

Bernie is our last chance to get something close to clean, non-corporate-owned government.

Bernie is our last chance to avoid being sucked into the TPP and its kangaroo court.

Bernie is our one and only chance to restore at least some of the protections of the Bill of Rights especially the Fourth Amendment.

Bernie is our last chance to defend net neutrality.

Bernie is our last chance to get corporate money out of our elections.

Hillary means more corruption, TPP, a surveillance state, questions and cheating on net neutrality (not sure where she stands on it but probably in favor of corporations although she will deny it) and corporate money in our elections as well as the money of the very wealthy in our elections.

So the choice is clear to me.

There is only one Bernie.

There is only one candidate who puts his money where his mouth is when it comes to Citizens' United.

I will support all Democratic candidates except Hillary.

[silvershadow]

307. It won't affect me, because in Indiana we usually don't have a choice. The idea that all

Americans get to choose their President just is not true. Due to the long and staggered primary season, the nominee is usually selected before the "primary" gets here, so we just rubber-stamp the choice from a few states. I am in favor of one primary day, and make it about 3 months before the general.

[eridani]

309. As a Democrat and a strategic voter, I will support the nominee. Thinking of working for Clinton--

--just makes me tired, though. First I have to do all the GOTV stuff to get her elected, and the very next day start organizing against her administration.

She has indirectly called for Social Security cuts (no, NOT the quibble about figuring out how to raise the retirement age for non-manual workers). The key tip-off was the comment about raising benefits for the poorest. This is Pete Peterson bullshit from the 2010 Catfood Commission, for those of you who don't remember. What it means is

1. Cut Social Security for everyone
2. Add some money back for people in the lowest quintile so they get the same amount on a lifetime basis should they live to be 85.

The only consolation is that it will be easier than organizing against a Republican administration.

[GOLGO 13]

311. The worst Democrat is still better than the best Republican

Just saying.

[Marr]

316. If Hillary Clinton loses, it's because she employed a losing strategy, period.

Sure, there are plenty of people on DU who will not vote for HRC, should she win the nomination. And I expect there are a lot more of them out there-- DU is only a microscopic sample.

There's a very broad sentiment in this country that the political process is just a rigged game for billionaires and that regular people don't really matter. Many will simply fail to show up and vote for HRC-- not as a statement, but because establishment candidates like her simply don't inspire them to leave the house.

Given that HRC also energizes the right-wing base in a way that their own candidates cannot, it seems to me that her supporters are inviting a loss. You can put up all the preemptive blame you like, but ultimately, if a politician loses, it's because they employed a losing strategy.

You cannot blame the voters any more than you can blame customers for not making your 'trout-flavored doughnuts' a success.

[Cosmic Kitten]

326. Is this a tombstone troll?

[BigDemVoter]

332. I'm not sure what that is, but it doesn't sound nice!

I only asked, because I was curious. . . .!