The Bernie or Bust blackmail is not going to work.

[DanTex]

Well, there's one thing it might accomplish, and that's to throw the presidency over to Trump. And I imagine some people pushing the idea actually want that to happen. But I don't think most of them do, instead they think that maybe something else might be accomplished. Well, it won't.

It's not going to push the party to the left. First, people don't like being blackmailed. If you want to win over more Democrats, the way to do it is with positive persuasion, not with threats and blackmail. Second, this has already been tried, in 2000, by Nader. He did succeed in siphoning off enough Dems to throw the election to W, but that's all he accomplished. Did the Dems make a hard left afterwards? No. If anything, the opposite happened.

Most of them were so disgusted with Nader that they didn't want to have anything to do with him or the far left. Also, W was so destructive that it made the contrast with Gore and Clinton so obvious, and the "both parties are the same" meme lost whatever tiny amount of credence it ever had. Notice that Nader's 2004 run didn't even get off the ground, by then everyone treated him like a tool of the GOP, which is what he effectively was.

America is not an alcoholic that needs to hit "rock bottom." This analogy gets thrown around, but it's completely mistaken. America is a nation of 300M+ people, not a single individual. It's simply absurd to pretend that what we really need is for Trump to burn everything to the ground so that a socialist can rise from the ashes and take us all to salvation. The political reality is that there's a constant push and pull, and all victories, small or large are hard-fought. If Trump or Cruz become president, there will be significant setbacks, especially in the SCOTUS, and when a Dem next gets elected, what they will be doing is fighting a tough trench battle in order to gain back all the ground that we have lost under Trump. Change and progress are difficult, and putting ourselves further behind because the current Dem nominee isn't pure enough is totally counterproductive.

The moral justifications for facilitating a GOP victory are grotesque. The stakes in this (and every) presidential election, are high. The possibility of Trump (or Cruz) make them even higher, as both are significantly worse than Romney, and there's also the fact that the GOP controls congress. It would mean ten million people forcibly deported, tens of millions of people losing the health coverage they gained under Obama, tens of millions of women forced into back alley abortions, and that's just the beginning. There simply is no way to brush that under the rug with some "means justify the ends" moral calculus, whereby all that horrible stuff is just a necessary sacrifice because it might lead to something better down the road. It won't, and this is not a game, there are real people who will be harmed in real ways.

[NWCorona]

1. I wouldn't call it blackmail

[Baobab]

119. I dont think you understand- Support for Bernie is STRONGER

than support for Hillery.

And its based on reality, not some fantasy that shes going to change, she wont.

[Rebkeh]

133. Exactly nt

[Merryland]

156. or some "shenanigans" at the polls

[Yavin4]

164. "Support for Bernie is STRONGER" by what measure?

She leads him in actual votes by over 2.5 million. She leads him in total delegates and states won. Where do you get this idea from?

[Hortensis]

257. Zealotry strength.

Say it often enough and you believe it. Say it with great conviction and you believe it very quickly.

[Gothmog]

167. Democrats would be insane to nominate Sanders

Dana Milbank has some good comments on general election match up polls https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-would-be-insane-to-nominate-bernie-sanders/2016/01/26/0590e624-c472-11e5-a4aa-f25866ba0dc6_story.html?hpid=hp_opinions-for-wide-side_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.

The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “P eople want to criticize me, okay,” and “F ine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

Sanders would be a very very weak general election candidate

[Baobab]

192. Sanders platform definitely ignores the last 20 years of neoliberalism, but that means its closer to

what Americans expect from governments because the last 20 years have seen RADICAL right wing changes that the entire country has not been told about yet. And if I enumerate tem in this post you likely wont see it. So do your own research.

>Sanders and his supporters boast of polls showing him, on average, matching up slightly better against Trump than Clinton does. But those matchups are misleading: Opponents have been attacking and defining Clinton for a quarter- century, but nobody has really gone to work yet on demonizing Sanders.

99% of all Americans dont have a clue as to what the Clintons represent and instead view the Clinton years as good for the middle class and high employment bla bla bla.. I did too for most of that time, however at one point I accidentally recorded the first half of a discussion on Pacifica that just didnt fit in, and eventually I realized what they had been discussing was right, and that knowledge informed me as to the real reason of the Clinton cuts n welfare, although it took a few more years for me to really get it, thats when I started realizing we were being fed a bill of goods in a major way.
because what that show was talking about was the facts of what they were doing with GATS. Not the fake cover story.

>Watching Sanders at Monday night’s Democratic presidential forum in Des Moines, I imagined how Trump — or another Republican nominee — would disembowel the relatively unknown Vermonter.

Trump is an idiot but he's doing well precisely because he's seen as an outsider and basically all of America now is aware of what the inside the beltway folks still don't get, we know they are waging war on us now.

The first questioner from the audience asked Sanders to explain why he embraces the “socialist” label and requested that Sanders define it “so that it doesn’t concern the rest of us citizens.”

What the Beltway folks dont get the most is that that label doent have the desired effect of scaring people away because they realize that basically what it means is people first not corporations. People realize that we need progressive taxation and that corporations are getting away with paying no taxes, what they dont know is that a new system has been set up that puts them on top, above politicians. And who set that system up? Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, and the two Bushs and Obama. And we're not going to vote for another one.

>Sanders, explaining that much of what he proposes is happening in Scandinavia and Germany (a concept that itself alarms Americans who don’t want to be like socialized Europe), answered vaguely: “Creating a government that works for all of us, not just a handful of people on the top — that’s my definition of democratic socialism.”

Scandinavians and germans by and large are doing far better than Americans in many ways, at least they arent bankrupted by an illness, or forced out of the job market by a horrible health care system that kills 100,000 people unnecessarily a year.

>But that’s not how Republicans will define socialism — and they’ll have the dictionary on their side. They’ll portray Sanders as one who wants the government to own and control major industries and the means of production and distribution of goods. They’ll say he wants to take away private property. That wouldn’t be fair, but it would be easy. Socialists don’t win national elections in the United States .

Why not? its not like a permanent change. If this country is a democracy, that means we let the people decide who gets to be president every four years. If we cannot do that, if 'democracy" means you just get to choose between Coke and Pepsi, then its not democracy. Sorry. You are just ranting - Personally, I think that what Americans like is a simple kind of private ownership and that we never signed on to "capitalism" as its being crammed down our throats today, why? because thats a system that is concentrating wealth beyond what is right or sensible. There needs to be balance which we are not seeing. Hillary Clinton is not balanced, she is a neoliberal trying to portray herself as flexible who is not. Lets be honest, she is not honest.

>Sanders on Monday night also admitted he would seek massive tax increases — “one of the biggest tax hikes in history,” as moderator Chris Cuomo put it — to expand Medicare to all. Sanders, this time making a comparison with Britain and France, allowed that “hypothetically, you’re going to pay $5,000 more in taxes,” and declared, “W e will raise taxes, yes we will.” He said this would be offset by lower health-insurance premiums and protested that “it’s demagogic to say, oh, you’re paying more in taxes.”

I have news for you, Single payer health care DOES NOT COST MORE it costs a lot less. Anybody who is telling you it costs more is lying. Why? because insurance companies create havok in health and in waste. A key part of single payer is it has to be free to the end user. (thats also a key part of GATS - public services have to be "supplied neither on a commercial basis, nor in competition with one or more service suppliers" or the entire system is set up to privatize them and then soon, globalize them by bidding the work out to the lowest bidder, internationally. So it has to be free for that reason, too. Oh, and it would have had to exist in 1998 when it was signed, but since they didnt tell us about that, I think Sanders is right to ignore it, let the ****** who set up that scheme and hid it be the ones who have to explain it to our country.

Imagine going to the doctor when you get sick. Imaine getng prescriptions filled without worrying about the cost. You simply dont get how important that is to this country.

Most Americans now cant do that. People in every other civilized country can. What that means is our leaders are failures. they have failed this country. they are so wrapped up in their games that they cannot see it. Sorry, it needed to be said.

Well, yes — and Trump is a demagogue.

Sanders also made clear he would be happy to identify Democrats as the party of big government and of wealth redistribution. When Cuomo said Sanders seemed to be saying he would grow government “bigger than ever,” Sanders didn’t quarrel, saying, “People want to criticize me, okay,” and “Fine, if that’s the criticism, I accept it.”

Sanders accepts it, but are Democrats ready to accept ownership of socialism, massive tax increases and a dramatic expansion of government? If so, they will lose.

I think we need to return to the priorities that made this country great and dump the financial manipulators and the shell game players. and I do not see anybody other than Sanders and Warren and people like them as doing it. When Americans see Elizabeth Warren teling the bankers to deliver the information she is seeking, tearing them a new a***** we're seeing government AS ITS SUPPOSED TO WORK. What you seem to want is the big government- as far as being an army for corporations while eliminating all that is good and that helps people about governments.

If i were those making decisions I would drop the deals and step away from the whole scam and admit it was a mistake to try to take over the world's future with cheap tricks. Now.

[Baobab]

195. I think he's clearly the best candidate we've had in decades

And I am not the only one.

[geek tragedy]

2. Bernie or Bust isn't a tactic, it's a narcissistic temper tantrum nt

[Xipe Totec]

3. +1

People who support Bernie based on policy and not personality cult know their best interests at the moment are with electing the best Democratic candidate they can get.

[bullimiami]

4. "the best democrat you can get" will be the one that is nominated.

[Beowulf]

81. I disagree.

Strongly.

First, a Hillary supporter hasn't a clue what my best interests are.

Secondly, Hillary addresses none of my issues. If the Democratic Party chooses to nominate a candidate who is opposed to my political views, don't expect my support. Blackmail is what the DLC has been practicing for 30 years. If Hillary is the best the Democratic Party can do, then count me out.

There are other choices out there besides the GOP.

[840high]

111. .+10

[Xipe Totec]

183. Go for it. nt

[highoverheadspace]

193. I agree, she is not a uniter.

She is a divider, same as Trump. Bernie could unite everyone.

[cosmicone]

20. +1000 n/t

[Baobab]

121. Do you know what narcissistic personality disorder is?

Here, this is a site on NPD and NPD people


http://www.halcyon.com/jmashmun/npd/

One thing that having experience with them teaches you is never ever trust NPDs.

They are the best liars in the world. By far.

A huge percentage of politicians are NPD, although the percentage in the real world is fairly small.

[Loki]

163. Zealotry in all forms is always destructive.

[ThePhilosopher04]

235. Then why are you supporting a chameleon?

[Loki]

237. Why do you support someone who voted against the Amber Alert Bill?

It only saves children's lives. Maybe because I don't put labels on myself and I am proud that I am not so rigid that I can't change. I was a nurse for over 25 years. Rigidity doesn't work well in that profession. I have evolved with the times, I find that to be what the term progressive means. I'm not purity person, I know I can't have it my way or the highway. I realize we are not perfect specimens by any means and that's about it. You support your candidate, I support mine, but I don't support republicans in any way, shape or form, and I don't use their talking points against our candidates.

[coyote]

243. And voting for Hillary is insanity

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Albert Einstein


I am not going to vote for the continuation of leoliberalism and empowering third way democrats to continue doing the same.

Fuck that.

[aikoaiko]

5. Just support people in voting their conscience/

If what you say is true, then it will work out fine.

[DanTex]

8. If their consciences tell them to help elect Trump, I'm sorry, I can't support that.

[revbones]

10. 0 + 0 = 0

Simple math.

Not voting for Hillary is not the same as voting for Trump.

[DanTex]

12. Not voting for Hillary is equivalent to a half-vote for Trump.

It doesn't matter if you sit out the election, vote third-party, or do a write-in. The difference between a D vote and an R vote is two net votes for the GOP. The difference between a D vote and a third-party vote is one net vote for the GOP.

No, it's not as bad as voting for Trump. It's half as bad. Which is pretty bad.

[cherokeeprogressive]

16. No, it isn't half a vote for Trump. It's the lack of a vote for Hillary. Nothing more, nothing less.

[DanTex]

18. Mathematically, it's equivalent to half of a vote for Trump. Doing that is facilitating a Trump

presidency, just not as forcefully as casting a full vote for Trump.

As Howard Zinn said, you can't be neutral on a moving train.

[Dynamite Dave]

37. Math!

You don't understand the concept of zero vote for Trump or Clinton is zero vote for status quo.

When you get that, let me know, otherwise, your transparency page is well-deserved.

[DanTex]

40. One of two things will happen next fall, either a D or an R.

As I quoted Howard Zinn saying, you can't be neutral on a moving train. The R means millions of deportations, back alley abortions, people losing health insurance, etc. There is no "status quo."

Voting third party directs half as many net votes towards that outcome as voting directly for Trump, as compared to voting D. It's precisely half as harmful.

[Dynamite Dave]

45. Whatever you think.

Your type of thinking is completely wrong. They neither gain or lose any votes if a voter simply decides to sit it out.

Here's your problem:

Over 40% of Americans are Independent (and it's growing rapidly)

29% of Americans identify themselves as Dems

26% of the Americans identify themselves as Reps

If no independents (Clinton currently has 5-6% of the independent support for the purpose of discussion 10%) and let's say a 1/3 of the Dems don't want her as a candidate, Clinton is guaranteed to lose in the GE.

Bernie, on the other hand, has the 1/3 of the Dem support, 90% Independent support , even 10% of the Republican support, he wins the GE. Easily.

See where I'm getting at? Even if I don't lend my vote for Clinton, she doesn't win anyway because of the lack of crossover appeal, which is key.

[DanTex]

57. Mathematically, my thinking is correct. This is a winner-take-all two party

system. It's not a parliamentary system where there is proportional representation. In that situation, voting for a smaller party can make sense, because it can increase that party's representation, and force a larger party to form a coalition with them in order to govern.

But we don't have that. There's a binary choice coming up. If you don't vote for the Dem, you're directing one net vote towards someone who will cause millions of deportations and back alley abortions. That's the reality.

You're right, Clinton might lose even if you vote for her, and she might win even if you don't. But if you don't then you are facilitating a Trump victory.

[Dynamite Dave]

65. No I am not. You are not to assign blame on us Sanders voters

who quit choosing the lesser of the two evils, as we have been doing since 1980.

[DanTex]

67. We'll have to see the outcome before any blame is assigned. In 2000, there is no doubt

that Naderites tipped the scale towards Bush, although of course it wasn't their fault alone, there was blame to go around.

I don't expect the Bernie or Busters to be as decisive this time around, mainly because Bernie is going to endorse Hillary and campaign for her, rather than go third party. But still, any Dem or progressive that sits out or votes third party is, in fact, making a Trump presidency more likely.

[brush]

66. Nah, going by what you wrote, all those indenpendents who don't vote for Clinton would . . .

then vote for Trump?

Who says? You?

[CajunBlazer]

132. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

It's as simple as that.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

51. Regardless of which candidate you support, this is true. For instance if Bernie were to be the

nominee and thousands maybe millions of Hillary supporters said fuck off, no way, not voting for him, you would see these same people mad as hell, rightfully so.

[DanTex]

54. Absolutely. If Bernie were the nominee and there was a Hillary or Bust movement,

I would feel exactly the same about it. Doing anything that would help a Republican get into office is inexcusable.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

61. Right, and that is how liberals are. I know a liberal who hates Hillary so much

he may have to have two people carry him to the polls , one on each arm, at times lifting him entirely up off the ground, just to get him to do it.

But if he is the liberal he has always told me he is, he will do that.

If he doesnt, then he is full of shit.

[Gothmog]

169. Most if not all Clinton supporters will support the nominee of the party

To be clear, I will support the nominee of the party no matter who that nominee is

[DinahMoeHum]

39. Absolutely. The voting machine does NOT tabulate. . .

. . .who you vote against. . .only who you vote FOR.

In a three-way near dead heat, whoever gets 34% WINS.
It does NOT mean 66% against. That vote got split up, thereby giving the 34%er the victory.

Again, the voting machine does NOT count who you vote against, only who you vote FOR.

[CajunBlazer]

136. why would you vote FOR someone who has no chance of winning and...

would not be qualified to be President of the United States if by some miracle they won. Explain that to me if you would.

[DinahMoeHum]

184. Better ask the political purity princesses that question.

AFAIC, they are the ones voting third-party or write-in candidates, not me (and hopefully, not you).

[CajunBlazer]

185. Definitely not me!

[brush]

58. Which is quite a lot if millions of Sanders supporters carry through with not voting

That would translate to millions less votes for Clinton which will undeniably help Trump or whoever the repugs nominate.

So the "nothing more, nothing less" is much, much more than "nothing more, nothing less".

[PeaceNikki]

63. If all of them did that, it would be a problem. Thankfully most Sanders supporters aren't idiots.

[Adrahil]

101. you can justify it however you like....

but if you don;t vote for the D in November, you are helping the R, 'cause one of them is going to win. Welcome to reality.

[revbones]

26. Wow, you might want to catch your breath after all those contortions.

0 + 0 = 0

you can try to spin it however you want, but you're still using bogus math and just trying to use fear and insults to motivate people to your way of thinking.

[DanTex]

78. Well, the math is on my side. There are two outcomes, and not voting for the D is

facilitating mass deportations and back-alley abortions. I'm not OK with those things.

[revbones]

80. Not sure about your definition of math there.

Since it's pretty much established as a fact that 0 + 0 = 0

[kcr]

197. So, are you saying that no one is running for president?

If not, then your math makes no sense. Because 2 people are running for president, and 1 of them will win. No 0s in there.

[revbones]

208. I'm saying that not voting for someone is not the same as voting for the other person.

And I'm tired of the ridiculous logic that some will twist themselves into pretzels over to try to argue that not voting for Hillary, should she be the nominee, would be the same as voting for her opponent - which is not true.

[basselope]

74. No, its a vote for another candidate.

Hillary NEVER had my vote... ever.

So, she isn't getting it.

[DanTex]

79. Third party candidates have no chance of winning. They can only be spoilers.

A third party vote is half a vote for Trump, which means it is a vote for mass deportations and back alley abortions.

[basselope]

97. No, its only a vote for Trump if I vote for Trump.

Which I am not planning on doing.

However, it is certainly debatable which is the lesser of the two evils, Clinton or Trump.

[DanTex]

103. It's effectively a half vote for Trump if you vote third party.

However, it is certainly debatable which is the lesser of the two evils, Clinton or Trump.

That's silly. Trump wants to deport 10 million people. He wants a return to back alley abortions. He wants to assassinate the families of suspected terrorists. He equivocates about the KKK. He wants to kill Obamacare which will result in tens of millions losing their health insurance. He's a climate denier. He wants large tax cuts for the rich.

Be serious. If Trump wins, real people will be hurt in real ways.

[basselope]

106. No.

If Clinton wins real people will be hurt in real ways.

Right now I view Trump and Clinton pretty much the same... saying whatever they think they have to say to appeal to the voters they believe will vote for them.

I don't believe a word coming out of either of their mouths.

I'm not voting for Trump because of his rhetoric.

I'm not voting for Clinton because of her record.


I know Clinton can't win the general election, so I am preparing myself for a Trump presidency and then.. hopefully the democratic party will have learned its lesson and find its way back from the destruction that started in 1992.

[Merryland]

162. the lesser of two evils is still evil.

I forget who said that, just read it recently - I think it's time in this country for a new party.

[basselope]

177. I've heard it called "The evil of two lessers"

[Baobab]

194. That is the Democratic Party's choice.

But if they cannot be what they claim to be, they wont be my choice any more.

its dishonest to deny the country a real choice.


For all we know its a made for TV movie. Ive been looking for the skip this commercial button for a while now.

[CajunBlazer]

146. Why would you vote for some third party candidate who has no chance of winning and...

...who would not be qualified to do the job if he/she by some miracle was elected President of the United State.

That doesn't make good walking around sense - what such a voter is doing it is is being selfish and self centered. That voter would be essentially would be saying, "I don't care who would be hurt, who would be deported, who will lose their insurance, who will lose their social program, etc. - I going selfishly satisfy my progressive ideals and my principles.

I have news for that kind of person - they have no progressive ideals or principles and they will prove that with their vote.

[basselope]

176. Why would I vote a candidate...

Who is not qualified to the job and if they are elected will do irreparable harm to the country?

That doesn't make good walking around sense - what such a voter is doing is being selfish and self centered. That voter would aessentially be saying "I don't care who would be hurt, who would be deported, who will continue to be stuck with health insurance instead of health care, who will continue to lose their jobs to bad trade agreements, etc. - I'm going to selfishly satisfy my desire to be part of a team, rather than think for myself and stand up for principles.

I have news for that kind of person - they have no spine or principles and they will prove that with their vote

[CajunBlazer]

182. So the definition of having ideals and principles is to have no brain?

Here is the question on which all else pivots and the principle upon which all else rests: Given that a third party candidate will not be President of he United States, suppose the votes of you and your like minded friends were he deciding votes elections and you folks ad the following options: 1) Vote for Trump so that he would win, or 2) Vote for Clinton so she would win, or 3) Vote third party of just not vote thus allowing Trump to win.

In my humble opinion if you and your friends chose either option 1 or option 3, I would judge that you have neither brains nor progressive ideal and principles.

No one with a brain would allow Donald Trump to become President of the United States.

No one with progressive ideals and principles would allow the Republicans to inflict the pain that they will inflict on the people in our country who are least able to protect themselves if we lose this election.

By "throwing your vote away" on a third party candidate or not voting at all, you would be saying that since they didn't nominate my guy, I have no responsibility as an American to help select the President - "they" took my responsibility away from me so I am free to do whatever the hell I want.

Everyone has an obligation to vote as if their vote were the deciding one, otherwise they should stay home because otherwise they are admitting that their vote means nothing; and what ideals and principles supports that notion?

[basselope]

199. So the definition of having no brain is to have ideals?

Here is the question on which all else pivots and the principle upon which all else rests: Given that Hillary Clinton will not be President of he United States, suppose the votes of you and your like minded friends were the deciding votes in the primary elections and you folks had the following options: 1) Vote for Clinton so that she would win the nomination, only to be guaranteed to lose in November, or 2) Vote for Bernie so he would win, or 3) Sit on your hands thus allowing Clinton to win.

In my humble opinion if you and your friends chose either option 1 or option 3, I would judge that you have neither brains nor progressive ideal and principles.


Now... i will try to explain this again.

I see two candidates right now.. trump and clinton who are both saying anything they have to in order to secure their parties nomination. IN other words, both are talking out of their asses.

One's rhetoric is far too much for me to stomach, so I won't for him.

The other's record is far too abominable for me to support, so I won't vote for her.


I can honestly tell you, I don't know which of those two would be worse in the long run.. the one who has a history of bad judgment, sending people off to war, fighting against the interest of the people she claims to support or the blowhard who is saying whatever he has to in order to get nominated??

So.. if I vote as if my vote is the deciding one, it will be against Hillary Clinton.

[ThePhilosopher04]

118. Not voting for Hillary is not voting for Hillary. A vote for Trump is a vote for Trump.

Nothing more, nothing less. If the primary motivator for your vote is to not elect Donald Trump, I suggest you take your little ass into the voting booth and vote for Bernie. Hillary ain't gettin' er done.

[dchill]

32. I firmly believe...

that voting for Hillary is the same as voting for Trump. She has too many negatives, and once she becomes the nominee, the gloves will be off, and the powder that the VRWC has been keeping dry will become a constant fusillade.

Not to mention her legal liabilities.

[one_voice]

216. I see this all the time..

is the same true in reverse?

Say Sanders gets the nom, if the Hillary people say screw that noise I'm not voting for him, same math right?

I think I'm going to decide my vote when I walk into the the booth on April 26th.

I know I will without hesitation vote for the Dem nom in November. Because I believe every Dem voter that stays homes, writes in a name, etc gives the pukes a vote advantage. But I'm not wasting my time or energy trying to convince anyone to do anything. If a repuke wins and those people complain I will not hesitate to tell them to sthu. Fair is fair. Just sayin.

[revbones]

217. Yes.

Vote how you want. I'm not trying to coerce you into violating your principles. I'm not telling you "Hey, you can choose between a bought corrupt liar, or a corrupt liar that buys other corrupt liars."

If people feel Hillary can't unit the party and it's a risk come Nov, and that's cause enough of concern now for them to cajole, plead, coerce or berate others to take a loyalty pledge, then to me the answer to their concerns is obvious - don't vote for Hillary. Obviously if she's that weak of a candidate to you, that you feel there'll be problems in Nov, then that's the only answer. Blaming others in advance isn't going to help.

Otherwise, if you feel justified in your primary vote for her, that she's the strongest candidate and will win in Nov, then as you put it, they should just "stfu" and rest easy.

[one_voice]

219. that's not what I said..

Otherwise, if you feel justified in your primary vote for her, that she's the strongest candidate and will win in Nov, then as you put it, they should just "stfu" and rest easy.

[revbones]

220. You said

"I know I will without hesitation vote for the Dem nom in November. "

If supporting her doesn't violate your principles, well then that's a different story. But if she does and you'll still pull the lever as you indicated, well that's between you and yourself.

Again though, I say "Yes" to your question. It is the same in reverse and I laid out my opinion previously.

[one_voice]

222. Here:

The first problem is this, I said:

I think I'm going to decide my vote when I walk into the the booth on April 26th.

you said:

Otherwise, if you feel justified in your primary vote for her,

See the problem there^^^

Then I said this:

Because I believe every Dem voter that stays homes, writes in a name, etc gives the pukes a vote advantage. But I'm not wasting my time or energy trying to convince anyone to do anything. If a repuke wins and those people complain I will not hesitate to tell them to sthu. Fair is fair. Just sayin.

You said:

that she's the strongest candidate and will win in Nov, then as you put it, they should just "stfu" and rest easy.

I wasn't telling anyone stfu up and rest easy. I wouldn't say that. NEVER rest easy it's a fucking election. I said I would anyone that wrote in, sat home, etc that complained (if a puke won) to sthu. fair is fair.

There's a difference in what I actually said and what you thought I said. Maybe I wasn't clear. If that's the case, I hope I'm clear now.

[aikoaiko]

11. I think if you have to ask voters to vote against their consciences for HRC to win in the GE...

...there is a fundamental program with the candidate.

Again, I support voters voting their consciences, and I hope you do too.

[DanTex]

13. I think there is a fundamental problem with people whose consciences tell them that

they should let a hateful racist like Trump win the presidency.

[PeaceNikki]

14. Agreed. LGBT rights, equal pay, healthcare and abortion rights are fucking toast

if we let Republicans very into office.

[VulgarPoet]

244. Because it's never your candidate's fault, right?

[bkkyosemite]

107. You don't have to. People are going to vote the way they want to and they I suppose

won't be asking for your support or non support.

[ThePhilosopher04]

236. There's zero difference between Trump and Hillary. They are best of friends. Everybody knows this.

If they don't, they should.

[MohRokTah]

6. When the left sits it out, everybody else moves to the right.

It's a fact of elections that when one extreme sits it out, everybody has no choice but to move to the other extreme.

[Dynamite Dave]

38. You don't want us lefties to sit out? Fine. All we ask is that you vote for Bernie.

Nothing less, nothing more.

Bernie Sanders is the only person who can save the country from eating itself.

[MohRokTah]

53. Not happening.

If Hillary has to move further right to take more of the right of center folks because of petulance from the left, so be it. It simply insures the left gets nothing.

[Dynamite Dave]

59. Very well, then you are not a Democrat by that definition

You would be seen as a Republican.



Compare this to 2008

[MohRokTah]

62. I am the very definition of a Democrat

Extrmist leftists who promise they won't vote for the Democratic nominee are not and never have been Democrats.

[Armstead]

122. So you are acknowledging that Clinton has no principles or moral center

She will "move to the right" if voters on the left are not responding to her "messaging."

That is what a hollow politician with no moral center would do.

[MohRokTah]

130. No, I am not acknowleding anything of the sort.

Politicians must do the will of the voters that elect them.

If the left sits it out, then she must seek other voters to fill the void and she must do their will instead of the will of a petulant and childish left.

[Armstead]

135. No if she had any beliefs, she'd make concessions and amplify those beliefs to win over voters

I suppose you think she should adopt an anti-abortion platform, or become harder on immigrants...Plenty of votes to be had in those corners.

[MohRokTah]

140. She is not beholden to voters who hold their vote hostage.

Any block of voters so childish and petulant as to hold their votes hostage must be immediately written off as the lost cause they are and time must be spent on voters who are undecided.

That's how elections are won. Once the radical Sandes Left went the Bernie of Bust crap route, the need to woo them ended. Trying to win their votes is a lost cause because of their childish petulance.

[Armstead]

142. It's not the hardcore Bernie or Bust people she has to worry about

It's the Bernie supporters who are planning to vote for her in November if she gets it -- but are not enthusiastic about it.

Alienating those potential voters by being arrogant and insulting , or tacking to the "right," is what has the potential to erode her base of votes in the fall.

[MohRokTah]

175. ALL Presidential candidates move to the center in the GE.

That is an axiom of national level politics that is also undeniable.

If the shoe was on the other foot and Sanders had a 300 pledged delegate lead, he would also have no choice but to do this or else he would lose.

[Lil Missy]

196. Pssst .....

The losing side does not get to dictate terms.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Blackmail: If you don't vote for Hillary you will get Trump!!

Last edited Mon Mar 21, 2016, 02:55 PM - Edit history (1)

[Rebkeh]

134. Nope. eom.

[VulgarPoet]

245. I guess the damning women to hell if they didn't vote for her isn't working?

[PeaceNikki]

9. Yup. Privileged, arrogant, selfish, narcissistic and fucking stupid.

Support the hell out of your candidate in the primary. Work your ass off for him or her. But if your candidate isn't strong enough to get enough delegates then sitting out, writing in a candidate or voting for anyone other than the Democratic nominee when you claim to be on the left is fucking idiotic and reeks of such privilege it's disgusting.

[brush]

69. Yes, yes, yes! Exactly my feelings too.

[Armstead]

123. It might help if people would stop acting like the primary is over

Just a small step I realize....but insulting people and treating people like they are spoilers against Clinton when the primary is still in process does not inspire people to switch allegiances to her if Clinton does win.

[PeaceNikki]

127. I am not acting like the primary is over. Go lecture someone who is if that bugs you.

[uponit7771]

179. +1

[hrmjustin]

15. I think the Bernie or Bust tactic is done here by gop trolls and green party voters.

I have not met one Sanders supporter irl that would not vote for Hillary if she won.

[NurseJackie]

21. Same here! I know several Bernie supporters in real life, and NONE of them ...

... are anything at all like the most prolific and aggressive ones here. This web site and the people who choose to gather here are not representative of what you find in the outside world.

[JimDandy]

161. Well get working on the GE then! Why are you wasting your time with BoB people?

Get back to the real world...

Me? I'm still working on the primary where Bernie is all set to start eroding Hillary's delegate lead this Saturday, if not sooner.

[Dynamite Dave]

41. I think many of the Bernie or Bust people here

are gone. Censored.

Good luck with your candidate. I'd have to get drunk to vote for her in the GE. She's that bad, but if she's all we got, then so be it.

[hrmjustin]

44. With due respect you just got here so you are not in a position to make that judgment.

You vote for who you want but remember that you agreed to the terms of service. Enjoy DU.

[Dynamite Dave]

49. Yes, Bernie is still my candidate

and until Bernie drops out, he is in it all the way to the convention. I started posting here, and I can make that judgement because I've been lurking here since 2010.

[hrmjustin]

50. Of course.

[MohRokTah]

55. Anybody pushing it sure as shit isn't a Democrat

And never has been.

[hrmjustin]

71. Yep! A lot of trolls trying to get Democrats not to vote Democratic.

[Human101948]

100. Actually it was the obnoxious Hillary supporters that convinced me...

sometimes you just have to stand up to bullies.

[hrmjustin]

109. And that means what?

[whatchamacallit]

17. This crap post isn't going to work either

At the end of the day my vote is mine and mine alone. I don't get up in your grill for voting for a republican-lite corporate hawk, don't get up in mine for not.

[DanTex]

19. You have the right to vote for whoever you want, I'm not denying that.

I'm merely pointing out that voting in support of Trump, either by casting a full vote for Trump, or casting a half-vote for Trump by voting third party, is not going to accomplish anything except for possibly helping throw the election his way.

But, I understand that, regardless of what I think, millions of Americans will in fact vote for Trump (or Cruz) next November.

[revbones]

23. 0 + 0 = 0

I'm not sure you understand how our elections work. You vote for someone. There is no spot to check that you are voting against someone.

Some people will choose not to vote for Hillary. That does not add a vote for Trump or Cruz. It just means that Hillary doesn't get that vote.

[DanTex]

25. You're wrong, as I've already pointed out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=1542306

[revbones]

27. You're wrong as the math obviously shows. nt

[DanTex]

28. The math is simple. Voting third party directs half as many net votes to the GOP

as voting directly for Trump, versus a vote for Clinton. Anyone who does that, or advocates that others do it, is helping to elect Trump.

[revbones]

31. 0 + 0 still equals 0

Voting for a third party gives the third party candidate a vote.

Voting for any candidate gives that candidate a vote.

The absurd math you are using presupposes that the person would vote the way you want if they do not vote third party. That is an incorrect assumption on your part.

If John votes for Trump. Then Trump gets a vote. Hillary does not lose one. The third party candidate does not lose one.
If John decides to vote for Hillary, she gets a vote. Trump does not lose a vote.
If John decides to sit out because Crazy Republican vs Republican-lite is not for him, then no vote is given to any candidate.

It's just absurdly foolish to claim anything else. 0 + 0 will always equal 0.

[DanTex]

34. Sure, but that's a meaningless equation. I could also say 5+5=10.

Just as true, and just as meaningless. If you look at the net effect of a D vote, and R vote, and a non-vote, you will see very clearly that the effect of a non-vote is to direct exactly one more vote towards the R candidate than a D vote, whereas an R vote versus a D vote is a net effect of 2.

And 2 is twice as much as 1.

[PeaceNikki]

36. It's like this

[Buns_of_Fire]

187. I think the discrepancy comes from counting non-votes as if they were votes.

A non-vote doesn't figure into the calculations at all. The only basis for determining a winning percentage is votes cast.

Otherwise, "None of the Above" would probably win most elections.

[DanTex]

188. A non-vote is still a decision.

There are three choices: D, R, or non-vote (third party or write-in is equivalent to non-vote).

[Buns_of_Fire]

198. That it is. My only point is that, statistically, non-votes don't usually count one way or the other

I think third-party votes would count, though, since their totals are added to the aggregate. Write-ins usually go straight to the bit bucket unless a candidate is on record as running that way (Murkowski in Alaska comes to mind).

In one instance, I could almost agree: When a voter marks a ballot for everything else, but leaves a certain race blank. But even then, the aggregate for that specific race wouldn't be effected. It could be calculated from the undervote for that race, should anyone choose to, but in most instances it's probably not worth the effort.

Same for people who don't bother to show up at all. We always just took the totals from the number of registered voters and fiddled around with them a bit, based on total ballots cast.

I'm just speaking from memory, since my last direct involvement was about 40 years ago (back when we still used punch cards before they started hanging their chads all over the place).

[PeaceNikki]

29. Right, it only has an effect of (-1 or -0.5) if you are typically a (D) voter.

If you're not, then - see ya!

If you are voting for anyone other than the Democratic nominee when you claim to be a Democrat or on the left - it's fucking idiotic and reeks of such privilege it's disgusting.

[revbones]

33. Again, you're just making false assumptions

In order to get your numbers, you're having to assume that the person would vote how you want them to vote, rather than just not voting. Very foolish to base your math on assumptions.

[PeaceNikki]

35. lolok. Justify the selfishness any way that you like.

[revbones]

42. Stomp your feet, call people names or insult them as being selfish all you want.

Doesn't change the math.

[PeaceNikki]

46. lolok

[whatchamacallit]

94. AFAIC supporting HRC is an extremely careless and selfish act

[brush]

75. And if millions of BS supporters do what you suggest, there will be millions fewer votes for . . .

the Democratic candidate which means the repugs will be THOSE SAME MILLIONS OF VOTES AHEAD in the final tablulations. That's undeniable.

[revbones]

77. Wow. Such willful ignorance of math is rather stunning.

If millions of Bernie supporters don't vote, or vote 3rd party, that does not give the Republican candidate millions of votes. Wow. Where do those mystery votes suddenly appear from?

[brush]

84. It gives the Dem candidate millions of fewer votes.

Why is that so hard to understand?

[revbones]

90. You make false assumptions

When you start out with a false assumption such as yours, it makes all the supposed logic fail afterwards.

You can twist it around all you want but not voting for Hillary is not the same as voting for Trump. Trump doesn't gain magic votes for every vote Hillary does not get.

Besides, Hillary should earn the votes she gets. Trying to scare people with future guilt or blame is not a rational way to get someone to support your candidate.

[brush]

102. Ahhh . . . she's earning way more votes than Sanders in the primary process

How about that?

And call it a false assumption if you like, but democrats choosing to not vote for the dem nominee in the general election means less votes for our nominee in the final tabulations.

That's not an assumption. That's just fewer votes for the Democratic candidate agains the repug candidate.

[revbones]

112. If you're concerned about Democrats not voting for Hillary

then it sounds like you should be volunteering for Bernie.

Yes, not voting for Hillary means she doesn't get your vote, so yes one fewer vote. It doesn't add one to Trumps numbers.

[brush]

141. You keep twisting yourself into pretzels with the 0+0=0 formula but in actuality . . .

it means nothing in the sense you claim but it means quite a lot in reality because not voting blue means a minus vote for the Democratic Party nominee, whether it be Sanders or Clinton, which is a plus for the repugs because fewer dem votes helps repugs — plain and simple — not 0+0=0, but not rocket science either to understand..

And if you want to extrapolate that, the "Bernie or bust" sentiment, if actually carried out, is really dem self-voter suppression which repugs are thrilled with as they don't have to expend effort or funds to keep their dirty-tricks and sleezy legislation vote suppression campaign going.

They just have sit back and let us dems do it to themselves.

What a concept, self-voter suppression and proud of it.

[revbones]

143. That's absurd.

For it to subtract it would have had to be there in the first place. Hillary doesn't already have votes, she has to earn and gain them.

What a concept, ignorance of math and logic - and proud of it.

[brush]

153. Keep twisting that dough. Trump and the repugs are quite appreciative.

[revbones]

155. Whatever.

You can attempt to scare and future blame others all you want. We all know it comes from a feeling that your candidate is inferior in many ways and you're scared that others won't bend their principles as you have for Clinton.

[brush]

168. Bernie joined the party 8 months ago. He should have joined years ago and he would have gotten . . .

much more support from long-time members.

He made a good run. I like a lot of his views and would have voted for him if he were the nominee.

I just think Clinton has a better chance of withstanding the repug slams that will come her way in the general election campaign, just as she's done since the '90s and is still standing.

With Bernie it will be 24/7 "Communist, socialist, red, honeymoon in Moscow, Marxist — all of that.

You have to have noticed that all the repug fire — the alleged email scandal, Benghazi committee hearings and all the other stuff over and over has been directed at Clinton while they've held their fire on Sanders?

[revbones]

170. If you're so caught up on when a person had a "D" behind their name

instead of what they stand for, then I feel sorry for you.

Team-based identity politics will never benefit anyone.


As for the socialist stuff. It will be much easier to weather than than the legitimate corruption Clinton has.

[brush]

171. Don't feel sorry for me, feel sorry for Bernie as that (I) for so many years obviously hampered . .

appeal with dem voters who seem to have preferred the long-time dem and not the Bernie-come-lately.

It is what it is. Too late to change his decision not to have joined the party earlier.

[revbones]

172. I'm proud he was an Independent

and if whether they have a D behind their name and how long is something you judge people on rather than their policies and positions, then I do feel sorry for you.

[brush]

174. Why do you feel sorry for me? I had nothing to do with Bernie not having made the switch . . .

earlier. It would have helped with his national name recognition if he had been working in the party for years, not just caucusing but helping to raise money for down-ticket candidates in regions other than New England, forming relationships with diverse constituencies who would then have know about his civil rights bona fides and then his voter count would not have just been coming from the less diverse, mostly whiter and smaller states with fewer delegates.

But maybe he just hadn't planned on running and had to jump in when Warren didn't run.

Too bad, it is what it is but I'm hoping that when he does suspend his campaign he will vote, support and work for the nominee, unlike so many of his supporters here on DU.

And I might add, DU does not reflect the real world as the Sanders supporters I know have said that of course they will vote blue whoever it is.

[CajunBlazer]

189. I feel sorry for neither of you, and I have an engineering degree with a major in math..

so don't try to blow smoke up my but with your lame arithmetic. It's simple, the best way to ensure the Republicans don't take over the White House, stack the Supreme Court with far right conservatives, abolish Obama Care, deport millions of people, and roll back every executive order Obama put is is to vote for the Democratic nominee whoever he or she is. That's a fact and no amount of your lame arithmetic is gong to change that.

The solution is vote for the Democratic nominee. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

[revbones]

190. Oooh. Citing degrees. Too bad I'm an engineer as well.

Feel free to blame everyone that doesn't agree with you. But when you blame others, often the fault is with yourself.

[CajunBlazer]

191. WEAK. If you are an engineer you probably think logically

Then I can only assume the you were being disingenuous with your lame arithmetic since you know damn well that if you want to keep the Republicans from taking over and during harm to the country, you vote for the Democratic nominee. While sitting home or voting third party might not do any harm, it does absolutely no good.

If you have progressive ideals and principles you would do everything in your power to keep Trump or Cruz from becoming President. And if you don't do everything possible to prevent that from happening, I would regard you as a selfish coward who convinces himself that he is doing the right thing, but is all the while is allowing harm to come to those who can least defend themselves. That is the furthermost thing from progressive ideal and principles.

[revbones]

209. Sure, if you think saying "weak" helps your logic.

Having progressive ideals and principles is what will keep many from voting for someone as corrupt as Clinton. A vote for corruption, is just that, a vote for corruption. You can twist it around all you want, but not voting for Clinton should she be the nominee does not magically add a vote for Trump.

[CajunBlazer]

224. Sorry I was wrong, you don't think logically afterall.

You're obviously convinced yourself that Hillary is corrupt so you can justify your hatred of her. Since you are obviously an emotional person no amount of logic is going persuade your other wise so I won't ever try.

Go in peace my friend.

[revbones]

225. Insulting others doesn't help your argument.

Perhaps one day you'll learn.

It doesn't take much more than being open to the truth to learn about her corruption.

I'll take you at your word on trying to persuade me and hope it applies to others that don't share your disingenuous opinions.

[CajunBlazer]

229. Let's talk about disingenious shall we

What I call disingenuous is someone like you who pretends to be a big progressive, but because of an intense dislike for the potential Democratic nominee is unwilling to lift a finger to prevent the Republicans from taking over every branch of our government and then making the most disadvantaged among us pay for their stupidity. That my friend is very definition of "disingenuous".

Progressive are not selfish and self centered: they go out of their way to protect their fellow man, especially those who are least able to defend themselves. I guess that conservatives don't have a monopoly on the kind of hate that drives them to do what deep down they know is wrong.


The conversation as apparently come to an unproductive end.

[revbones]

231. Ok.

Aside from my possibly not being able to bend my principles as far as you can so easily to vote for someone so proven to lie and be corrupt, I think you might want to re-examine your definitions...

You Hillary supporters have to get over this whole cult of personality thing you have, and realize that for some people, it's not the person, it's their actions and deeds. Hillary supporters have this idol they think can do no wrong, and ignore all the bad stuff. Based on your rather hackneyed and completely disingenuous response, you imagine all people to be acting based on the same type of emotional response you yourself have, just in opposition.

You believe they won't vote for Hillary because of an "intense dislike". No, those that are saying they cannot or probably won't be able to pull the lever for Hillary are doing so because of her actions and deeds, not because they don't like her personally. It's because they don't like what she does and will do.

Going off your own definition of "progressive", I would suggest that rather than act in such a completely self-centered manner as you are doing, of assuming that your position is correct and others are wrong and must be insulted into seeing the wrongness of their path - that you re-evaluate the situation, and understand that perhaps not everyone sees things they way you do.

You made a couple of other statements that are ridiculous and slightly juvenile as well. Your statement about being unwilling to "prevent the Republicans from taking over every branch of our government " is just ignorant. Nobody that you are complaining about has said that if they can't vote for Hillary, that they would also not vote for any Democrat in down-ticket races.

Making things out to be some weird Sophie's Choice situation when it's not does no credit to you or the point you wish to get across. If someone chooses to not vote for Hillary, it does not magically credit Trump with a vote or strip votes away from other Democrats. It's ridiculous to argue that it does.

[cantbeserious]

226. Dan - If You Want To Vote - For A Member Of The 1% - A War Hawk - And A Corporatist - Go Ahead

However, some Citizens have principles that are lived daily.

That some may have different principles they live by is their business as well.

[840high]

113. Yep +1

[Kelvin Mace]

22. Since HRC is the "best candidate"

then she will certainly win. Why would you needs votes from people who won't support your "best candidate"?

If your candidate can't win the general, you are backing the wrong candidate.

[revbones]

24. ^^ Exactly right ^^ nt

[atomingai]

30. Agreed

[brush]

105. So what's to be said about the candidate who can't win the primary?

[Kelvin Mace]

120. Primaries and generals are two different things

One is totally controlled by party functionaries who can do all sorts of things to put their thumb on the scale.

[brush]

148. Yeah, but if you can't win the primary, you can't get to the general

As far as party funtionaries putting their thumb on the scale, Bernie took too long to join the party. If he had joined a long time ago, he would have some of those functionaries, as you call them, putting their thumbs on the scale for him.

Bernie the joined the party just eight months ago so he could more get media and name recognition. That was smart as he certainly wasn't going to get that running as an independent socialist. He and Jill Stein would be in the same boat. People outside of New England would be asking "Bernie who" if he hadn't made that move.

He was literally lat though. He should have joined years ago and made a name for himself nationally outside of Vermont — you know, to get name recognition and media coverage, form relationships with constituent groups, especially ethnic constituents so his support does not just come mostly from white dems. He should have put in work for the party, raised money for other dem candidates, gotten "functionaries on his side — you know, the kinds of things that earn super delegates.

Eight months in the party of course puts him behind Clinton on those things, which when you think about it, explains why he's behind in both pledged and super delegates.

Clinton has put years of work in in the party. Bernie, not so much.

[Kelvin Mace]

152. Bernie caucsed with the Dems for decades

so that dog won't hunt.

As to how many years HRC put into the party, Joe Lieberman can make the same claim.

[brush]

157. Caucusing with the dems with an (I) next to your name and being a self-avowed socialist . . .

did not lead to national name recognition outside of New England as shown by his poor showing in the southern state primaries. Non-political African Americans were hardly aware of Sanders.

He should have joined the party years ago if he thought he might run for president at some point.

[Karma13612]

200. Well, I read the whoooooole post, aaaannnnnddddd........(drum roll please)

I'm still voting for Bernie.

See ya at the convention!

[Kelvin Mace]

218. Just to check,

you do realize I was being sarcastic about the OP, hence the quotation marks? I was getting a little annoyed at the condescension from the HRC supporters.

[hobbit709]

43. Threatening Bernie supporters with loyalty oaths doesn't work either.

[sadoldgirl]

47. This is a silly OP, imho.

1) Nobody knows yet the result of both parties' conventions.

2) There is no blackmail. Millennials and Indies have no
allegiance to either party.

3) Nobody is asking for your approval of their vote:
You take care of yours, and everybody else will
take care of their own.

If you think that you can convince lurkers or visitors to
this site to change their vote to your candidate, good
luck. It is simply too early to predict what will happen,
and Trump may not even be on the top.

[HooptieWagon]

52. Par for the course.

Loyalty oaths, insults, name-calling, red-baiting, and fear-mongering is all they got....must be a pretty eak candidate they're supporting.

[Mnpaul]

207. One way loyalty oaths, what a winner

Shove crappy policy down their throats and turn around say it's less crappy that what the other side is offering.

No, thanks but I'm done playing that game. No more.

[Merryland]

159. I'm neither a millennial nor an Indy

at the moment, (registered Dem) but I support Bernie with all my heart & feel no particular "loyalty" to a party, especially a party that has played so fast and loose with the primaries.

[The Second Stone]

48. They can vote or not as they choose

that is their right, and their moral obligation. I would agree that they are in many instances engaged in emotional blackmail. And so what? These are a small fraction of Sanders' supporters and unlike Nader, Sanders is going to continue to state that a Democrat winning is the most important thing. And he's right.

The worst that can happen is that Ted Cruz gets the republican nomination. Donald Trump would be pretty bad too. However, Clinton can beat either of them with a well run campaign as they are both seriously defective candidates that independents will not vote for.

[brooklynite]

56. "Bernie or Bust" isn't going to work because "Bernie or Bust" doesn't exist

Other than some chest thumpers here or on Reddit, there's no significant share of Sanders voters who will refuse to vote for the Democratic nominee.

[Bjornsdotter]

60. I've heard from many Hillary supporters

...that the Bernie or Bust movement is really just a few people.

So why so many posts like this one? Worried about just a few voters? You don't seem to be that confidant that Hillary has it in the bag against Trump.

[DanTex]

64. The Bernie or Bust movement seems to be very popular on DU, judging from the number of

"I won't vote for Hillary" posts and the number of recs they get. You're right, it doesn't look like it's very big outside of a few internet sites. But since the argument is being made here, I'm responding to it here.

[Bjornsdotter]

68. No, yours is the OP

....so you started this particular conversation.

[DanTex]

70. Yes, it is an OP written in response to all the Bernie or Bust posts I've been seeing.

[Bjornsdotter]

72. Why start

...a new OP. Why not just answer an existing post?

[DanTex]

76. I felt like the idea was prevalent enough that it warranted its own OP.

[basselope]

73. Still not voting for Clinton.

[riversedge]

86. so you must be staying home or leaving it blank. Selfish iMHO

[basselope]

99. No, voting 3rd party.

Selfish is Clinton expecting me to vote for her despite her absolutely deplorable record.

[riversedge]

126. Voting for 3rd party when you say you are a Democrat is selfish-esp when the SC

is at stake.

[basselope]

178. When did I say I was a democrat????

I don't belong to any organized religion or political party.

Sorry, I gave up being a sheep a LONG time ago.

And after Obama's nomination... why would I even put any hope in Clinton to put forth a better nominee??

[riversedge]

181. Truly sorry. Have a good day

[matt819]

82. Blah blah blah

What is the fucking problem with allowing the primaries run and whoever wins, wins. Then we all vote for that candidate.

This is not blackmail.

Stop calling dodger is to drop out. If he's not meant to be the candidate, then he will not be nominated. What are you afraid of? Having a competitor in the primaries compels both candidates to bring their best game. In my view this makes the winning candidate that much stronger in the general campaign. Calls for Bernie to drop out are repulsive and anti-democratic.

[Kalidurga]

83. First, people don't like being blackmailed.

Then stop making these kinds of threads. And work on making your candidate palatable. Or try being nice to the opposition. Promise to fight for liberal values. Any of those things would be better than this thread where you take Howard Zinn's name in vain.

Howard Zinn would have endorsed Bernie and you can deny it. But, the minute any Bernie supporter sees this they will know it's true.

[DanTex]

88. How do you read this thread as blackmail? I'm simply pointing out that as a strategy for

progressive change, Bernie or Bust is not going to accomplish anything.

As for Howard Zinn, I can't think of a better example of trying to be neutral on a moving train than refusing to use your vote to prevent a racist strongman from taking over the presidency.

[Kalidurga]

91. If you don't see it I can't explain it. It's rather like describing color to the blind.

[DanTex]

93. You can't explain it, so you attack me personally.

[Kalidurga]

98. You think that is an attack after you call Sander's supporters bullies?

WTF color is the sky in your world? Never mind I forgot you can't see.

[DanTex]

104. Umm, I didn't call Sanders' supporters bullies. I said that Bernie or Busters (which is a small

group of his supporters) are attempting blackmail, which they are, and that it's not going to work.

[Kalidurga]

108. It is not blackmail to refuse to vote for a candidate whose values you find repugnant.

[highprincipleswork]

85. You mean versus the Clinton versus Trump blackmail???

The sooner the Democratic Party realizes it now has a huge problem with its base, which has been brewing for years but now has found a leader and a voice, plus with many, many other Americans who are flocking to Bernie Sanders, the sooner they can do something about it.

But no. They would rather call us names, deny and discount warnings from our side about Hillary and the Democratic Establishment, and stick their head in the sand or hold their noses and vote.

As I've said before, this may work this time. It may not. The genie, left unharnessed, may not go back in the bottle.

The smart folks in power, who haven't gone too far over to the Republican-light darkside, might wisely realize this and start harnessing them some "Bernie-power". That is, if they were smart.

My faith in human smarts is at an all-time low, as we for instance do not unanimously choose to vote for the one person who is adamant about tackling climate change right away - the thing that is most likely to kill us soonest (among many other fine policy positions). That person is Bernie Sanders.

[Kalidurga]

89. I have seen no evidence that the smart folks in power are actually smart.

[DanTex]

92. I don't understand what you mean by "Clinton versus Trump blackmail."

Look, we're having a primary right now, and the voters are choosing who the nominee is going to be. At this point, indications are that it will probably be Hillary, but if it's Bernie, I will be 100% in support of him in the general. But that's up to the voters. But if Hillary wins, it's because that's who a majority of the voters chose.

Also, you don't get to decide who the base of the party is. I'm part of the base, and I like Clinton. And, if the primaries keep going like they have been, it means that more of the Democratic electorate agree with me than with you.

As for being adamant about tackling climate change, that's another reason to vote for Hillary over Trump/Cruz, both of whom are climate deniers.

[highprincipleswork]

110. What I mean is the arrogant assumption that people have no other choice...

without adhering to positive values that bring them both together.

But thank you. You speak sense, and do bring up positive values. I am working for a day when our political leaders stand strong for more positive values than they do today.

[DanTex]

115. It's not arrogance, it's reality. We have a winner-take-all two-party system.

There are many choices in the primary, and then there are two choices in the general.

You might argue that it's not a great system, and I agree with that. I'd prefer a parliamentary system with proportional representation. But that's not what we have. Under the system we have, there are two choices. Voting third party, or not voting at all, is throwing away a vote and helping elect Trump/Cruz.

[highprincipleswork]

138. I agree on the parliamentary representation and much of what you say. And yet...

the alleged rationalists, who see nothing wrong with what Hillary does or says or whom she represents (totally illogical to me), love to present the numbers and the system and etc. Why? Because all that plays to her favor. She is way up there in familiarity. Bernie? Not so much.

But just to be clear. Not voting for Hillary is not exactly the same as voting for Trump, by these same rational measures.

And finally, the people have a right and a burning desire to be heard. There are an increasing number of them who realize there probably is nobody out there representing exactly what they feel very deep in their hearts and know from their experience. Expecting them to be "rational", when they are suffering such a painful emotional experience of not being represented, well, that is asking quite a lot. Compare it to the alternative? Well, if it is Hillary and Trump, we will see. If she runs to the Right of Trump on several or many issues, that really will become a confounding experience.

I'm just saying. People are people. Hillary people may vote for her based on a real or false sense of security or familiarity. Other people may vote against her because of a number of human reactions, like lack of trust, etc.

Time to get full and honest representation of the people back in the equation, because they have risen up. I'm not sure how easily they are going to settle down. And part of me doesn't even want them to.

[DanTex]

147. Whether I see anything wrong with what Hillary does or represents is irrelevant.

The numbers are the numbers, they don't depend on what anyone thinks of Hillary's Goldman speeches or whatever. I am making the assumption that Trump would be far worse for the country than Hillary, but that is obvious.

Also, I didn't say that not voting for Hillary is exactly the same as voting for Trump. I said that the net effect is precisely half as bad. A Trump vote versus a Hillary vote is a net swing of two to Trump. A non-vote versus a Hillary vote is a net swing of one to Trump.


I get what you're saying about the people having a right and a desire to be heard. Here's the thing. Nobody is going to represent "exactly what they feel very deep in their hearts", at least not for everyone. Whoever gets elected is going to represent exactly what some people feel, and some of what other people feel, and less of what others feel, and so on. Neither Bernie or Hillary represents exactly what I feel, I can tell you that.

This isn't a problem specific to Hillary, it's a general problem of having one person preside over a nation of 300 million. As far as what "the people" think, so far in this primary, the people have indicated by their votes that more of them think Hillary represents them than Bernie. And Hillary voters are people too. They are Democrats, and many of them, like me, are liberals.

[highprincipleswork]

149. Well, good luck to that, good luck to you, good luck to the "Democratic" Party...

Because we all are going to need it.

[VulgarPoet]

246. They can have the title "Democrat" then.

It's been irreparably sullied by the Third Way at this point.

[Katashi_itto]

95. Agree. I vote for the canidate whose interests most closely mirror my own.

[MaggieD]

96. Of course not

It will just put another rethug in the WH, just like the Nader voters did in 2000.

[longship]

114. Bernie or bust is crazy.

Anybody who would stay home or not vote for the Democratic nominee if Bernie Samders doesn't get the nod at the convention is truly delusional.

I love Bernie Sanders and I really do not like Hillary Clinton. But if anybody asked me who I support if Hillary gets the nod, I would unhesitatingly state, Hillary Clinton.

The problem is. I don't think she can win. Independents hate her, and her approvals are below sea level.

And those are rather huge problems if she gets the nomination.

[ThePhilosopher04]

116. It's not about "pushing the party to the left." It's about pushing America to the left. If Democrats

don't want to come along, fuck them. Bernie is doing what's right by the middle class of this country.

[DanTex]

117. And Bernie or Bust is not going to push the country left. President Trump is not going to

push the country left.

[ThePhilosopher04]

233. If you don't want President Trump, you need to get on board the Bernie Bus. He's our only hope.

[Armstead]

125. Bingo

[forjusticethunders]

124. I'm not a Clinton supporter, still hope for a Bernie miracle, and am tired of

what passes for "political realism" in this country (where lining the pockets of billionaires is politically realistic but using the same money to fund education, healthcare or jobs is ponies and rainbows). And I bought into the whole "BorB" thing until recently. That was when I realized (more like remembered) how real movements actually work and how they actually win.

But no less than NOAM FUCKING CHOMSKY thinks the Bernie or Bust shit is insane. If Noam FUCKING Chomsky, can hold his nose and vote for Hillary (at least in a swing state), then you and I can too. I don't like Hillary but at least she will be somewhat beholden to the Left, because that's how triangulation works - you triangulate to the stronger side to get and maintain power. That's how Hillary's weathervane politics may work for us. But saying "we're taking our ball and going home" means there's no Left to triangulate to. If we can't beat Hillary's moderate center-leftism (which is actually center-rightism in developed countries whose political systems haven't gone off the rails), we don't have to join it, we can do our best to make her join us by making her political power dependent on us. We already showed that we don't actually need Wall Street or Big Capitalism to at least contest elections; Clinton didn't win because of money.

My support for Bernie was and is *critical*, he is the best option despite his many flaws, ranging from not being strong enough against militarism to being a rather milquetoast socialist (he pretty much represents the furthermost right of socialist thought) to being somewhat tone-deaf in regards to POCs. I can give *critical* support to Hillary, despite her being worse on the issues I care about, because if Bernie doesn't win, she defaults to the best option. Critical support means you vote for the candidate, and THEN you push them towards your point of view on key issues through organizing, activism and outreach. Not me, Us means that you move forward with the political revolution even though the revolution's candidate doesn't win right away.

Of course I'm going to get flamed for this but whatever.

[DanTex]

129. I won't flame you for that, I think that's completely logical.

And, yes, keep up the pressure from the left on Clinton one she takes office. I'm in favor of that too.

[Armstead]

128. Meh. If it's so insignificant, just ignore it.

If Clinton is such a strong candidate, and if the "blackmail" of those who don;lt want to vote for her "won't work" then just move and focus your attention on beating Trump.

[Rebkeh]

131. Okay, let's clarify where you clearly don't understand

1. It's not about pushing to the left, it's about preserving the left. As it stands, with all this rigging, leftward principles are all but gone. We don't buy the illusion of democracy, that's all. This is a moral issue about principles and core values. The center is not where the answer lies, it's where we lose.

2. We agree here: "The political reality is that there's a constant push and pull, and all victories, small or large are hard-fought. - What you misunderstand is that there is no longer a pushing when we don't adhere to our principles. Eventually, later than sooner, I hope, the right will pull us over and topple the whole thing. The anti-Trump vote is not necessarily only on the left, it's also on the right. Adding to the reality that unless Bernie wins the primary, Trump will destroy the democratic party right along with his own. We are not the ones being naive here.

3. We agree here, where we don't agree is that the so called inevitable candidate (another illusion we aren't buying) facilitates a GOP victory anyway. Even if the Democrats win the general, they will lose the moral high ground. It's not like a football game, it's more like tug-of-war. It's no "win" if half the party is in the mud. Too much is at stake.

It's like there is stuff on the surface slowly moving to the left, small things. Meanwhile the foundation, the reality under the surface is lurching right. It's unstable and unsustainable. And dangerous, the solution is far less painful than the problem. It's a change course or jump ship scenario here.

I am not saying I will not vote for the democratic candidate, but I wholeheartedly support the rights of other lefties to vote their conscience. They obviously see more than most and I respect their right to defy the people that rigged the system and helped create this mess in the first place. Scaring us into acquiescence is not going to work anymore, the 90's are over.

[Gothmog]

137. The Bernie or bust threats will not work

The bernie or bust threat is not going to work http://thedailybanter.com/2016/02/nevada-bernie-sanders-or-bust/

There truly is a brand of young political idealist -- and that’s the nice way of referring to it -- which is wielding its vote, or lack thereof, as a weapon to hopefully get Bernie Sanders elected. These are the people who threaten to stay home on election day, so to speak, and who insist that that very boycott will be what costs the Democrats the White House and puts the highest office in the free world in the hands of somebody like Donald Trump. Their arithmetic goes something like this: Democrats say that a Republican win in 2016 is unacceptable, given who the candidates are and what they believe, and that any and all necessary steps must be taken to prevent it; Hillary Clinton can’t win against the Republicans without the support of Bernie Sanders supporters in the general election; Bernie Sanders supporters will not vote for Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination, no matter what; therefore, abandoning Hillary Clinton and supporting Bernie Sanders as the Democratic nominee is the only alternative to preventing a GOP victory. See? Give us what we want and no one gets hurt. Simple as that.

Except that this is the same kind of political hostage-taking the Republicans currently in Congress have become pariahs for engaging in. When the GOP has in the recent past threatened to allow the government to go into default because it doesn’t have the votes or the power to get what it wants through the proper channels, wise people have looked for the nearest brick to throw at its representatives. Now, if these Sanders acolytes are to be believed, the ostensible other end of the political spectrum is trying to pull the same crap: threaten to burn the country down because they can’t get what they want any other way. Like all forms of political terrorism, if you give in to this nonsense it’ll just embolden the next fringe group that can’t see its demands met by putting it to a vote. And that’s really the problem here: these ........ apparently can’t understand that in this country it all comes down to a vote and if their guy doesn’t get enough of them, he doesn’t win. Simple as that.

I’ve said from the very beginning that the Republicans are so thoroughly batshit and so unconscionably dangerous right now that a victory for them in November should be out of the question. Because of this, whoever were to win the nomination for the Democrats has to be the person sane people vote for, because he or she is all that stands between America and a new Dark Ages, particularly when you take the Supreme Court into account. If Bernie Sanders were to win, he’d get my vote. If Hillary Clinton were to win, she’d get my vote. That’s how, I believe, decent, evolved people think -- people who aren’t petulant children. I’d like to believe that the “Bernie or Bust” crowd is just making idle threats, but given its well-documented behavior over the past several months -- coupled with the fact that Bernie’s white millennial base likely believes it has the luxury of being able to survive in the GOP’s vision of future America -- it seems far more likely that if Sanders doesn’t win, they’ll stay home and sulk rather than do their civic duty for the good of the country.

What does that mean for the rest of us? It means we’ll simply have to do it without them. We’ll have no other choice.

Again, no one is going to change their vote and support Sanders based on the fact that some Sanders supporters will not support the nominee of the party.

[Rebkeh]

144. If they don't work, the consequences will not be on them

The consequences will be on the party. The onus is on the DNC, on the leadesrship that rigged the election.

See how far blaming the victim will go. We are not republicans, we see the difference.

[CajunBlazer]

139. Why would you vote for someone who has no chance of winning and...

... and who would not be qualified to be President of the United States if by some miracle they won?

That doesn't make walking around sense.

[Rebkeh]

145. He has a chance of winning

Don't believe the hype.

A "win" doesn't necessarily mean a win for the people anyway.

It's a lose-lose.

[CajunBlazer]

150. We aren't talking about Bernie here - it's a given he is going to lose

We're talking about voting for third party candidates.

[Rebkeh]

173. No, it is about Bernie

He doesn't have to lose, and he won't if people don't want him to.

The "inevitable" candidate is a lie. It's a smoke screen and nothing more. Stop trying to push that tired old meme.

[CajunBlazer]

180. We'll see how long you can continue to live in your dream world, and...

... to escape reality. There is a problem with your logic and it is your assumption, "he won't if people don't want him to". The problem with that assumption is, as we have already scene, more people want him to lose than want him to win and many of them have already voted.

It's still mathematically possible for Bernie to win, especially if enough of the super delegates are willing to switch sides if he were to end up leading in pledged delegates, but he has shown absolutely no willingness to do so.

However, the bottom line that I can't think of one poll for one of the remaining state were Bernie has a big lead and I've look at all of them, and many in which Clintonis winning by large margins. The problem is that he needs to win nearly all of he remaining state by big margins. The bottom line, it isn't going to happen.

Do you remember the first stage of grief - denial.

[seabeyond]

151. Sheeeeit, There are so many Republicans that will be voting for Clinton this election,

They will make up for the PUMA's of 2016, if they would have come out anyway.

[Kittycat]

154. Still with Sanders

Why won't you stop pissing people off and support the Primary & Caucus States right to a full and vibrant election debate? If you don't think they deserve that now, maybe your candidate doesn't need their votes this fall.

And P.S.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/12511538293

[Doctor_J]

158. Neither is the "You have to vote for Hillary or Trump will be president" blackmail

na na na na

[DanTex]

160. That's not blackmail, it's reality. We have a winner take all two party system.

And that's not going to change between now and November.

So to say that if the Dem nominee doesn't become president then the Rep one will is no more blackmail than to say that if you don't drink any water eventually you will die of thirst.

[ThePhilosopher04]

234. If we have a President Trump, you'll only have yourself to blame. You have a choice

to vote for the only real progressive candidate in the race, and that's Bernie Sanders. If you fail to do so, it's on you Pal.

[notadmblnd]

165. So what? Do you think that fear will work better?

Cause it seems to me that's what you're selling with your post.

[CajunBlazer]

186. He is a fool who does not fear what should be feared.

[notadmblnd]

215. Cowards live in fear.

[CajunBlazer]

223. So brave man, why don't you tell us why we have nothing to fear...

Last edited Tue Mar 22, 2016, 09:17 AM - Edit history (2)

... if we Cruz or Trump becomes President along the Republican holding both Houses of Congress and with at least one important Supreme Court nomination to be decided by the new President.

I am excited to hear your explanation. notadmblnd I'm betting you won't be answering this post or you will be deflecting with some know nothing smart @$$ comment.

[notadmblnd]

241. I said cowards live in fear.

I have no fear because what you are trying to scare everyone with will not occur.

[Agnosticsherbet]

166. If people refuse to vote for Clinton the prefer what Republicans will give them.

That sucks of those of us that don't.

But I will not give in to people who hold Trump to my head and say, "If you don't vote for Bernie we will give you this."

If that is what they want, let them. I am sure they will love what they get.

I will vote for Clinton in Primary, and for our nominee in the General Election.
I don't do that because I took a loyalty test.
I do out of self interest because any Republican will be bad for my country, my state, my county, my city, my neighborhood, my family, and myself.

[RiverLover]

238. But Clinton2 will be just as republican as Clinton1 was, so how is this helping your family?

Just the title of Democrat doesn't mean they'll be Democratic in office. And with another Clinton, its a guarantee they won't.

15 Ways Bill Clinton’s White House Failed America and the World
http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/15-ways-bill-clintons-white-house-failed-america-and-world

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1277&pid=8899



Third Way in struggle for the Democratic Party’s soul
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2014/10/06/struggle-for-soul-democratic-party-pits-wall-street-backed-think-tank-against-elizabeth-warren/pYk3SXRnZDmpi7C7N4ZpXN/story.html

[Agnosticsherbet]

242. If you believe Naderite crap, then you will be happy with what the Republicans give you.

[RiverLover]

248. Lesser evil is still evil.

We need to change our party back to the good party. The truly Democratic Party for the People.

Republican values within the Democratic Party on behalf of BigBusineSS is hurting our country. The People need representation, not just BS during campaign season & triangulating spin once elected, & as they knife US in the back.

[EdwardBernays]

201. Lol

I love this post.

First it admits that Hillary pretending to be Bernie is a total lie. So kudos for that but of refreshing honesty. Lol.

Second, Democrats don't like being blackmailed? Then why is Hillary's strategy simply "fear"? Talk about the ultimate blackmail. Vote for Hillary or Hitler 2 will kill everyone.

Third Nadar? Comparing Bernie to Nadar is absurd as comparing Hillary to.... Bill.

Forth, the over the top silly rhetoric about fighting trench battles to do what exactly? Slightly move Obama's legacy forward. Give me a break. For incrementalism, pushed by a corrupt corporate shill, you want me to imagine trench warfare. It's laughable.

Fifth, the moral justifications for voting for someone corrupt, because we're being blackmailed with fear is as grotesque as any or your made up nonsense about what Sanders supporters believe. We dont buy into your garbage about Hillary or bust because many of us think she's going to get her as handed to her by Trump no matter what we do. We'd rather not bend to your blackmail, and rather not vote for someone we think is corrupt, for no good reason at all. We'd rather instead follow our conscious and vote for someone that deserves our vote, not a liar and a fear monger and most likely a war monger to boot.

Basically this whole post is laughable. And so LOL.

[DanTex]

202. It's a good thing you are neither an undocumented immigrant, nor a woman in a red state

that might need reproductive healthcare, nor any of the tens of millions of people who have health insurance only because of Obamacare. I am too, actually, so we are both very fortunate in that way. But I think a little compassion for people who would suffer in real ways from President Trump is in order.

[EdwardBernays]

204. fear fear fear fear fear

That all you have. Fear. And lies.

Ask why no one outside of a dwindling Cadre of Clintonites trust Hillary. You're probably not able to ask yourself that question honestly. Probably think it's all just the naughty right wing media smearing the only candidate more pure than the Virgin Mary herself.

Lol.

If you ACTUALLY cared about ANY of the things you've listed you'd support Sanders. Someone who wants to make Healthcare universal. Who has an ACTUAL History fighting for and with undocumented workers.

But no.

You don't actually care about this stuff. And when Hillary flip flops and TPP - again - screwing over more American workers like her beloved NAFTA did youll justify that as well.

If you actually give a shit, support an honest progressive. Someone willing to put actual humans before her own wealth.

But you don't. All you have is fear fear fear fear fear.

It's hollow and more and more people are less and less afraid of you're made up bogeyman on a daily basis.

[DanTex]

205. You seem to be pretty fearful yourself, of things like NAFTA and TPP.

And I understand that you think Sanders is a better candidate than Hillary. I respectfully disagree.

What I don't understand is why you are willing to sit out the general election because your preferred candidate didn't get the nomination, when you know as well as I know that Trump is promising millions of forced deportations, back alley abortions, and the loss of health coverage for millions more.

These are not lies, nor are they exaggerations. Access to abortions in Texas has been drastically reduced by their new law, and the Supreme Court is the only defense we have against this and many other laws that could be passed in the future. In fact, there's a risk of a Roe v Wade being overturned if the GOP gets to appoint two new justices.

If you don't fear that, and everything else that Trump stands for, then you're not paying attention.

[EdwardBernays]

206. it's exceedingly simple

I won't vote for someone that I know to be a serial liar, and who I believe to be exceedingly, jaw-droppingly corrupt. And who I think will very likely lead America in to a LOT more armed conflict, and who isn't even vaguely progressive.

Why would I support that?

Because I'm scared of the alternative. Never. Negative partisanship, which is the backbone of the Clinton campaign, is one of the most destructive forces in US politics. I won't support it or her.

And hey, those things you listed, they're happening under a Democratic President.. they'd happen under Hillary... it's hilarious you don't seem to get that.

And SCOTUS? I have NO trust AT ALL that Hillary will nominate anyone I support... she's a dishonest person, corrupt and a fake populist... she'll likely nominate someone with deep pockets and a history of "donating" to her "foundation".

How - after all the lies you know she's said - you still can trust a word out of her mouth is beyond me... and of course, she's gonna lose - badly - to Trump anyway... so... best get your head around that asap... or vote for someone that could beat Trump easily, that's honest, and an ACTUAL progressive (gasp!). I know I know... the kool-aid you're drinking is delicious... enjoy it until November...

[DanTex]

210. Well, if you won't vote for the Democratic nominee, you are not a progressive.

You also don't care about the ten million people who will be torn away from their family. You don't care about the people who will lose their healthcare. You don't care about the people who will lose their jobs. You don't care about the women who won't have access to reproductive care. You don't care about the future of the planet.

The fact that you seem almost gleeful when predicting that Trump is going to beat Hillary and become president is quite disturbing. Anything good you claim to stand for is meaningless if you are prepared to sit by and watch Trump become president.

[EdwardBernays]

211. Total BS

You don't care about those people or you'd vote for an honest person that isn't corrupt and who has a long history of fightingfor the poor.

I refuse to be judged by anyone that knowingly supports someone so full of sh!t. It's absurd on its face.

She can't win anyway. If you care about those people - which I highly doubt - vote for someone that can be the Republican.

But don't come crying to us when the worst Democratic candidate in years loses to Trump. You've all been told that her lies and fear will not carry her to the white house. Neither will Bill's.

As for the old cannard about Sanders supporters being happy about Trump crushing Hillary, we aren't. Though we are happy that at least one dishonest and corrupt politician is going to lose.

When half the country doesn't like the Dem candidate there's little to be happy about. And of course I've learn that you Clintonites are in some sort of bubble... You literally can't admit ANYTHING about Clinton. Bill again lied and said that Hillary is offering free colleges. He's done this repeatedly now. It's in the media. Not a single Clintonite is even given pause by this the smallest lie. And then on the other hand you have Hillary breaking a written promise to Obama to reveal her Foundation’s donors... That doesn't register either. Or hiding them with a donors Canadian charity. And lying about why. Nope you don't care. Or promoting the dictator of Kazakhstan so a donor could get a uranium deal. Nope you don't care. Shielding UBS and then immediately earing over a million from UBS... Not an issue.

Etc etc etc ad infinitum.

And you don't and won't even blink.

And yet you guys all go ahead and pretend to care about the poor. And the immigrants.

It's just another lie.

Lies and fear. That's all you've got.

[DanTex]

212. None of that matters if you're willing to sit by and let Trump become president.

The fact that you're willing to let 12 million families be broken up simply because your favorite guy didn't win the primary renders the rest of what you're saying meaningless. The simple fact is, nobody who has a shred of progressive values in them, who cares about their fellow humans, would sit by and let Trump become president without so much as casting a vote to stop him.

[EdwardBernays]

213. Total BS

You don't care about thiae people.

It's unconvincing.

So being judged by someone just pretending to care is laughable and sad.

Plus your candidate is the one driving off progressives with her serial dishonesty and horrible corruption. It's gross to me that you think progressives should vote out of fear. Or out of negative partisanship.

True progressives don't do that. And we CERTAINLY don't vote for warmonger and corporate shills.

[DanTex]

214. I don't care about "thiae people"? Did you mean Thai people? Umm, whaaa?

I care about whether millions of women are forced into back alley abortions. That's one of the many reasons why I'm going to vote for the Dem candidate whether it's Bernie or Hillary.

And if you're not going to, then you don't care. I guess you're not one of those women. Or immigrants. Or people who will lose their healthcare. Lucky you. But if you don't care enough to cast a vote in order to prevent Trump from becoming president, you are no progressive.

[riversedge]

203. This is what the BernieOrBust followers are doing.

I have seens lots of criticism of bernie or bust on twitter.

Example


Alasscan™ Retweeted
Kevin ?@KevinDarryl 14m14 minutes ago

This is what the BernieOrBust followers are doing.They do not support the Democratic Party. http://ln.is/www.the-newshub.com/aw0yq …


http://linkis.com/www.the-newshub.com/aw0yq

[Logical]

221. LOL, Dan being Dan. nt

[AgerolanAmerican]

227. It's no blackmail

It's a simple fact.

People are turning out for Bernie in large part because they specifically reject the corporatist war state.

That's not going to disappear if he fails to gain the nomination.

If you support Hillary, know ahead of time that you are going down that path alone - and it is not up for negotiation. There is nothing on God's green earth that can convince anti-establishment, anti-corporatist voters - overwhelmingly for Bernie - to back an uber-establishment corporatist war hawk.

There is NO difference between Hillary and a right-wing Republican - at least not from the point of view of the additional millions who will die as a result of her decisions.

You may be able to ignore the blood on her hands, just don't expect those of us who actually care about other human beings to do so.

[revbones]

228. This post misrepresents the situation greatly

People are not trying to blackmail people by not voting for Hillary. How utterly absurd to repeat that framing.

People are just saying that they themselves may not be able to vote for Hillary due to various reasons, most centering around their principles.

I have yet to see anyone anywhere try to use that decision to blackmail people. What I have seen though is quite the opposite where many people are trying to blackmail, coerce, cajole, or even insult others into voting for Hillary if she's the nominee. No rebuttal of people's reasons to not vote Hillary, just more "lesser of two evils" (LOTE) crapola.

What's worse is the assumption that as some LOTE proponents feel that if you don't vote for the one with the D behind their name, you've somehow magically voted for the one with the R. They also feel that simply including a D behind a name magically erases all the corruption, lies and basic slime that person might have.

No, team-based or identity politics just shows extreme personal weakness. If you can't provide a positive reason to suggest someone vote for someone and have to resort to such blackmail, guilt and guile then perhaps you should rethink your own position in voting for that person.

It's pretty sad that all you LOTE proponents don't realize that you're just pushing the people you want to sway, further and further away with all your antagonism.

[Thinkingabout]

230. The test of leadership will occur soon, the ability of the candidates to lead their supporters

towards unity and elect a Democrat and electing down ticket Democrats. We saw Hillary's leadership in 2008 to unite to elect President Obama as president. There is lots of work to do, enhancing our economy and getting more jobs so our citizens can properly support their families but this can not occur if we are divided.

[griffi94]

232. Of course it's not going to work.

DU is a minuscule percentage of the electorate.
Hillary will win the nomination and in November she'll win the GE.

The people here who keep saying they won't vote for her aren't numerous enough to
worry about.
Even they know it. That's why they keep telling everybody they won't support
Hillary..over......and over......and over.

[Katashi_itto]

239. Then why do we see these same threads that we must vote for Hillary or the "Bernie Or Bust" won't

work?

I thought she's inevitable. If so why worry about my vote? Why keep telling us that we must vote for Hillary? Or Else?

[griffi94]

240. The same reason for the multiple posts

that say anybody Bernie is doomed.

I guess it's some deep seated human need to try to get as many people as possible to agree with you.

Funny that half of DU is arguing with the other half. It's funny because
the Bernie supporters act like the Hillary supporters have the power to declare Bernie the nominee.

"Bernie is the most electable"
That may be. Except he's losing. And he'd still be losing if every DUer suddenly went Bernie.

[Katashi_itto]

247. Well thats great then right for you types. Plus if she a shoe in she certainly dosent need my vote

[griffi94]

249. How you vote is up to you

have you been posting repeatedly that you'll only vote for Bernie?
If you can't vote for Hillary then don't.

She is still going to win.

[Katashi_itto]

251. Then why worry about what I say?

[griffi94]

252. You replied to my post

I had posted to the OP.
My guess is that you posted to me because you want everybody to know how unhappy
you'll be if Hillary wins the nomination.

I'm sure it's very frustrating.

Bernie's not going to win.
Hillary is better prepared. She's been laying the groundwork for 8 years,
She's highly thought of in the party and among the leaders the rank & file.
That's paying off for her.

I think that most of the Bernie or else group wouldn't be likely to vote anyway.
Or maybe vote 3rd party.
They seem to be perpetually disgruntled.

[Katashi_itto]

253. Just the people that view Hillary as a corupt corporative operative who see her presidency as a slow

motion train wreck.

Your simply not one of them.

[griffi94]

254. So far the majority of primary voters

don't see her that way either.
She's winning.

Bernie can win just as easily. He just needs to get more votes.
It's pretty simple. The most votes wins.
If Bernies message is the one the majority prefers then he'll
get the most votes.
So far it hasn't happened. That's not the fault of the Hillary supporters.

[Katashi_itto]

256. A McDonalds hambeger is the is the most popular burger too

It doesn't mean it's not good for you. We could use your same argument for Fox news too.

[griffi94]

258. Politics is like that

If more people wanted Bernie then he'd be winning.

That's the reality. He's not going to win.
I get that you feel strongly that he should and that in a just and perfect world
he would.
But we're not in a just and perfect world.
Still no reason to take out your candidates failings on the winning candidates supporters.

If his message wasn't the most popular then that's on Bernie.

[Katashi_itto]

259. That doesn't mean I will vote for Hillary in the slightest. After all, if more people want Trump as

president thats what your saying too.

You think having a winning candidate means everything. It doesn't matter to you if that person doesn't reflect anything like a Dem party platform.

[griffi94]

260. As I said earlier your vote is yours

cast it however you like.
It doesn't matter to me who you vote for.

Hillary is going to be out nominee. Bernie didn't get enough people to
buy into his message so Hillary got the most votes.

In November there will be another election. Hillary will win that one as well.
There aren't enough Bernie or else voters to make that much of a difference.

Bernie has been drawing the support of Independents mostly.
That's why he's going to lose closed primary states.

Hillary has spend 20+ years building her team and her organization.

Bernie hasn't.

[Katashi_itto]

261. How long has Trump been building his? A couple of Months?

He beats her in quite a few match ups.

Looks like he gets more people to buy into his BS, and as you said, if one is more popular then they deserve it right?

[griffi94]

262. Trump isn't a democrat

The democrats aren't as suicidal or as angry as the GOP.

If Trump gets the most votes then yes he deserves it. That's how elections work.
Who gets the most votes win.

I understand that your and angry Bernie supporter but Bernie just isn't getting the votes.
A majority of Democrats prefer Hillary. You're not going to change that by continuing to
say how much better Bernie is.

If the majority thought Bernie was better then he'd be winning.

So find a candidate you like for 2020 and start now.

[Katashi_itto]

263. Neither is Hillary

[NurseJackie]

255. That threat makes them ...

... feel as if they have control over an uncontrollable situation. It's a threat that is made out of fear, and anger, and uncertainty. It's the equivalent of a child having a temper tantrum and threatening to hold their breath until they turn blue if they can't get their way. I'm inclined to ignore it, and let them cry themselves to sleep.