hypothetical

[boston bean]

in order to win votes in states where LGBT marriage isn't popular, should Dems support an anti LGBT marriage candidate over one who takes a stand with LGBT and the law of the land? because the anti gay marriage candidate has other progressive standards and gay marriage is thought to be preventing a dem from winning?

also...

in order to win votes in states where civil right for black persons, should Dems support a racist candidate over one who stands with black persons and the law of the land? because this racist has other progressive standards and strong support for civil rights is thought to be preventing a dem from winning?

If the answer No, then why should women accept the wheeling and dealing of their rights lawfully granted to them away?

[elleng]

1. Top Democrats, Bernie Sanders Defend Anti-Abortion Members Of Their Party.

From the article:

WASHINGTON ― Top Democratic leaders said Sunday that their party welcomes people who are pro-life, despite the party being strongly defined by its support for abortion rights.......

Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said it’s fine if an elected Democratic official personally opposes abortion, but from a policy standpoint, he or she must support a woman’s right to choose.........

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) went to Omaha last week to rally for Heath Mello, who is trying to unseat the city’s current GOP mayor. He said Sunday that he didn’t think the intraparty scuffle was that big of a deal.
“I have a 100 percent lifetime pro-choice voting record,” Sanders said on CBS’ “Face The Nation.”


So in the name of growing the Party, some Democrats are willing to accept that not every Democrat personally agrees with every position, but every Democrat should be willing to promote official Democratic platform policy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/democrats-pro-life_us_58fcd709e4b06b9cb917a7ee

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028987748

[LostOne4Ever]

2. If the other option is to let the bigot party the GOP win...then yes.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]Many of us have had to hold our nose while voting for candidates over and over again. Kerry wasn't Pro-SSM back in 2004, nor was Obama in 2008.

We voted for them with a close pin over our noses.

Not voting for a democrat just because they disagree about you on one or two issues (that may be the issues you care most about) only allow Republicans to win which hurts those issues even more.

Just look at this recent election. Dump had about the same number of votes as Romney, we should have won. But we didn't because the voters we had in 2012 didn't show. How many of those sat out (or voted green) because our candidate didn't agree with them on this issue or that?

They cost us the election. Choosing not to vote for the democrats in races where the republicans are competitive because of a differences of opinion on an issue hurts us and is an act of privilege.

I don't have that privilege. I have to vote democrat whether I agree with them 100% or not because I know the Republicans in power will hurt the issues I care about far more than a solitary member of Democratic party will. Because in the end the dems have my back on those issues.

I have no pride. I will gladly put my ego aside and vote for someone like that if it advances those my issues overall. So long as there is overall progress being made I will vote for whatever democrat I have too.[/font]

[boston bean]

3. This is about a choice in the primaries where one democrat is not a bigot and who political leaders

back.

[LostOne4Ever]

4. Then each person needs to weigh all the issues and pick the person who represents them best.

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]If one candidate is anti-choice but pro-LGBTQ and the other is anti-LGBTQ but pro-choice you will have a hard decision to make. One might possibly decide to sit out that primary and vote for whoever won in the general.

There are tons of issues and people put different weights on each. It depends on your values and how much need each issue has.

I am first and foremost a social liberal. I value things like civil rights most. As much as I like Bernie, I might not agree with him on his endorsement on that pick. But it really depends on all the issues.[/font]

[delisen]

12. I am sure the people in Omaha can make their decisions

intelligently without the rest of us getting involved.

The issue before us is whether, as a party, to back burner Human Rights to get the votes of a group of voters who some people think vote on economic issues and are turned off or hostile to, for example, human rights for women.

Woodrow Wilson was part of the great progressive movement of the early 20th century. He focused on banks, trade issues. He was hostile to women's rights until a large segment of suffragists backed his war. He is also infamous for segregating the federal workforce-segregation which did not end until the Truman presidency.

Some stands of economically-focused progressive movement Democrats can have horrendous outcomes for Americans.

[LostOne4Ever]

15. I agree let the people of Omaha make their own choice!

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4]But I completely disagree that the issue before us is to back burner human rights.

The issue before us is winning local elections to undo the gerrymandering the GOP has done. Otherwise they will undo everything we fought for up till now. We have to get back the presidency and the supreme court and at least one of the two chambers of congress.

If we don't do that we will be kissing both human rights and the social safety net goodbye! This means doing whatever it takes to win local election. If as a social liberal I have to back a socially conservative economically liberal dem I will. If I have to back a socially liberal economically conservative dem, I will.

If either type of liberalism is to survive we HAVE TO GET BACK OUR GOVERNMENT!

As for Wilson, yes his racial policy sucked back then. BUT, I also know that his actions helped tons of people and set the way for FDR, Truman, and then JFK/LBJ. The latter two, of course, are the ones who changed the democratic party for the better on racial policy. He is also considered by historians as one of the US's best presidents

But lets also be honest, Wilson's Republican Opponent, Taft, was just as bad on racial issues. If any white person had an issue with an african american with a federal job, he would and did remove them. Teddy Roosevelt (whose record was not perfect) was the best candidate for social liberals and he was running 3rd party. It was not a good year for those supporting racial equality no which candidate you supported.

But of course all of this is ignoring the gorilla in the room. Both types of liberalism/progressism have benefits and one can be both an economic and social liberal.[/font]

[alfie]

5. OK, just my 2 cents worth

If someone really considers themselves a Democratic, has been one all of their adult life, believes strongly in the Democratic ideals...except one. Be that a major one such as woman's choice, or sexual preference, or skin color, if they are not actively taking the part of endorsing their particular belief, if they can agree that they would not vote against a bill protecting choice, sexual preference, etc., then let them claim to be Democratic. They must own up to their particular prejudice and agree that it is a deeply private issue with them and not something they feel the need to bring into politics. I really think a person could be very uneasy with an issue and still support the law of the land.

Just saying.

[boston bean]

7. That is the definition of choice. It is nothing new.

We are talking about as a party supporting anti choice anti abortion politicians who have and would vote against a womans right to choose.

[treestar]

6. Effect should go into consideration

IMO there is little likelihood that a 40 year old precedent can just be overturned, so for the most part, their views are irrelevant. The ship has sailed, and the anti-choice people should realize their only hope is trying to convince women not to get an abortion - they will never have a Supreme Court with 9 Scalias, and a mayor will have no effect whatsoever. They are just not going to see abortion be against the law again.

Gay marriage should also be safe after the SCOTUS decision. Again, it cannot simply be overturned. Even Alito will know precedent when he sees it. The right wingers have to get a life, realize time is passing and the 1950s are long gone and will not return.

They need to be like Biden and Kaine. OK they are not comfortable with it, but if other people are, it's their decision.

[Demsrule86]

14. It could be overturned, in fact being gay could be re-criminalized with someone like

Gorsuch on the bench...and imagine if they get a second pick.

[treestar]

16. To make it 5-4

would take Gorsuch, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and a second pick. Roberts has not been completely unreasonable. They are on the court for life, so they don't have to answer to whatever side appointed them.

Kennedy
Ginsburg
Sotomayor
Breyer
Kagan.

Presumably with the second pick it would be Ginsburg not on the court.

Also they would have to write a decision. How would they get around clear precedent and argue the new case is different?

Even Orange Donald admitted that ship has sailed.

[Demsrule86]

17. It could happen if Kennedy retires.

[treestar]

18. Maybe, but I am optimistic

They've never actually overruled a precedent. Because they respect the precedent. They admitted the Japanese internment cases were wrong, fortunately, no need to review them has come up as a justiciable question.

Remember they are on that court that Justice Marshall, Frankfurter, etc., once sat on and are part of it. Opinions refer to precedent as "we" decided that, even if it was long ago - once on that court, they hopefully develop a pride in being on that bench with the great justices of the past.

[Demsrule86]

19. I hope you are right...but it will be 6-4 then.

[Starry Messenger]

8. Being soft on women's rights isn't considered bigotry, unfortunately.

Because it is.

[Demsrule86]

13. And one would expect women not to do this.

[MedusaX]

9. Why would anyone cast a vote for a candidate simply because they were told to do so?

Ultimately, each individual must decide what action to take when presented with a situation which pertains to them.


Theoretically, if a party's leadership is committed to the protection of all individual rights...
then one would expect that any candidate affiliated with that party would share that Commitment....

There will always be those who support the protection of individual rights yet they personally would not exercise certain ones.
That is their individual right to choose for themselves....

That being said, if multiple candidates affiliated with the same party are running and their personal choices vary ... then most likely the one that most closely reflects the voters positions will win the primary....

In cases where the structure allows for multiple candidates from both parties...
or in cases where the positions of the other party's candidate more closely matches your positions...

Then you have to determine what the best choice is at that point in time...

We each have exactly one district's worth of choices to make most years...
& Every 4 we get to cast a vote for POTUS...

That means we each get to exercise a tiny bit of control over all of about 4 federal races and 4 state races over the course of a couple of election cycles...

Beyond that ... we have no control nor opportunity to provide input via the election process.

[delisen]

10. Dems once depended on Dixiecrat racist votes to pass

its economic agenda. Let's not do the Time Warp again.

[boston bean]

11. Yep.