Not voting for the Dem nominee next Nov is an act of selfish privilege, plain and simple.

[DanTex]

A GOP administration will do real, material harm to the nation. Some people will suffer a lot, some not so much, and a small group may benefit, if only temporarily.

As Clinton has consolidated her lead after a strong debate performance, and looks increasingly likely to become the nominee, chatter about sitting out the general, or voting third party, has increased. Let's be clear: doing this is an act of selfish privilege.

The main benefit cited by people sitting out the general is "conscience". This is selfish: it means being willing to see many other people suffer in real ways in order to feel better about oneself. Also, obviously, if the thing keeping you up at night is having voted for an imperfect candidate, that means you are sleeping in a comfortable bed, in a nice house, after a nice dinner. If you are at risk of losing your healthcare, SS, home, job, etc. due to the consequences of a GOP presidency, then you don't have the luxury of ideological purity.

And then there's the argument about "sending a message" to the party elites. Again, people who aren't well-to-do don't care about sending messages as much as they care about the basic necessities of life. People who will need to forgo medical care because the GOP gets rid of Obamacare, or people who will drop into poverty after the GOP cuts SS, aren't going to be very keen on trading that for the sake of a "message."

There are ways of sending messages that don't put the future of the nation at risk. For example, in writing. Or voting in the primary. If the primary doesn't go exactly the way you want it, that means that your message was heard, but there were more people who believed in a different message, and a different candidate. Burning down the house because you don't get your way is not acting on principle, it is acting like a spoiled child.

[redstateblues]

1. Let's not have another Florida

that brought us Dubya-only this time the stakes are higher

[NCTraveler]

2. One could be a conservative.

I understand that group holding to their convictions. The others are simply based in privilege and their unwavering need for purity, everyone else be damned. Their ego is what matters.

[LW1977]

3. K &R

[virtualobserver]

4. Do we have to have ten of these a day now? Is that the new normal?

[restorefreedom]

9. apparently they believe in the

"more is better" concept.

[virtualobserver]

16. Now that Hillary has been voted "Ms. Inevitable" in the Presidential Pundit Pageant.....

a "conscience" has been deemed an act of selfish privilege.

[leftupnorth]

23. How dare us have a conscience?!?!?!

The nerve!

[restorefreedom]

35. i know, right?

caring about the country's future is sooooooo passe..

[pnwmom]

94. The same thing would apply if Bernie overtakes her. He can't win without

the whole Obama coalition behind him. If significant numbers decide that they'd rather vote for no one than vote for him, then he won't win.

I don't know why Bernie's supporters take the votes of Hillary people for granted, but they seem to.

[virtualobserver]

104. they don't

Every citizen must decide for themselves what they want their government to be.

Bernie is trying to expand the voter base, which is necessary for us to retake the House and the Senate. Unless we do that, we can't even begin to get money out of politics, and the Republicans will control the agenda for years to come.

If Hillary supporters don't vote for the Democratic nominee, then that would be their decision, whatever the outcome.

[leftupnorth]

112. Huh. I guess some people finally know what it's like to have your vote taken for granted.

The Democrats have been doing that to us for decades. Welcome to the club!

[jeff47]

21. Yes. Because it's one of Clinton's biggest vulnerabilities.

Low turnout is a huge problem for Clinton, and she's not demonstrating she has a lot of enthusiasm behind her.

So the browbeating will continue until turnout goes up. When it doesn't go up, they'll turn to "stupid voters!!!!".

[leftupnorth]

25. The beatings will continue until morale improves!

[A Simple Game]

78. Stupid voters, no, it'll be the old standby, liberals.

Then again we are both probably right, it will be stupid liberals.

I love how they can't persuade us that their candidate is the best choice with logic so they try to intimidate us with threats of Republican mayhem. Don't they realize that is why we are against Hillary in the first place.

I just recently became a Democrat again and already the party faithful are showing me why I should return to my unaffiliated status after the New York primary next year.

[MineralMan]

32. The new normal? Probably.

Yes, people will post their opinions on this election and the primaries here on a regular basis. This is a Democratic political discussion forum. Why would you expect otherwise. The other point of view is also repeated here regularly on a daily basis. It's very easy to not click on threads on DU. It takes zero effort.

I don't understand objections to people voicing their opinions on an upcoming presidential race. Why would you object to a discussion of these things? Why would anyone?

Just skip threads if you think they're repetitive. That's what I do. That's the easiest way to avoid being annoyed by them.

[virtualobserver]

41. Yes, and this was my opinion, and I found the sudden burst of this kind of post notable...

.......a veritable frenzy.

Yes, people will post their opinions on the strange inclinations of Hillary supporters to declare this election and the primaries here OVER on a regular basis. This is a Democratic political discussion forum. Why would you expect otherwise. The "Hillary is inevitable" point of view is also repeated here regularly on a daily basis. It's very easy to not click on posts on DU. It takes zero effort.

Why would you object to my noting this frenzy? Why would anyone?

Just skip posts if you think they're incomprehensible. That's what I do. That's the easiest way to avoid being annoyed by them.

[JustAnotherGen]

5. I dunno

My first choice is O'Malley and my second is Clinton.

I live in NJ.

If I don't pull the button for Sanders/Chaffee/Webb - will it really matter?

Or can I just vote for my House, Senate, State Reps, City Council - and skip that button if I am opposed to not voting for a Democratic Party Member since their first vote as a citizen?

[Bluenorthwest]

58. NJ elected Christie, lots of Democrats there said 'so what, why bother' and you have Chris as your

chosen leader. In 2014, New Jersey turnout was 36%. Here is was 70%. Here we understand that those who are competing in the Democratic Party primary process for the Democratic nomination are Democrats.
'Will it matter'? 36% thought it mattered last time. The link will bring up a list of the many, many New Jersey Democrats who endorsed Chris Christie.....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey_gubernatorial_election,_2013#Endorsements
New Jersey is Party loyal except when it isn't. 36%. Apathy costs big time.

[JustAnotherGen]

59. My friend - I'm well aware of all of this

Check out my posts re Buono in 2013.

And this turn - this election -

I'm not that keen on voting anyone - at any level - back in that is currently wherever they are at. One exception - I'm working with a few (mostly republicans) to get our liquor laws changed. They are from 1949 - it's time to change things. Bring my preoperty taxes down and lets get some wine and cigar bars on our main street.

That said - point blank - I don't believe in Sanders platform or approach and I won't vote for him.

I simply won't.

[Bluenorthwest]

66. You work with Republicans and want lower taxes for yourself. That does not impress me.

Your priorities and my own are very, very different. I do not mind paying taxes, I'd much rather see any State legalize cannabis than encourage alcohol consumption or smoking. I am not an ally to Republicans because they are racist, homophobic and self interested. I share no interests with them.

Conservatives always oppose those who see minorities as equals. Pull that lever as you wish, of course, but don't try to tell me NJ with 36% turnout is energizing the voters. 36% is what you get when the voters see that Democrats and Republicans are one big tax adverse group.

[JustAnotherGen]

95. I don't mind paying Federal or State Taxes

I mind paying property taxes that are exceedingly high - with little return. I mind watching my seniors and middle income folks neighbors buried under property taxes.

We have elderly people in my town buried under 8/9 K in property taxes a year. Buried.

How do you offset? You bring main street back to life.

You make it walkable community.

You and I are different I guess. I guess you don't believe in making a business friendly community that can offset taxes?


Don't try to tell me about NJ. Even if Bernie wins - he's going to have the same thing happen to him that happened to Buono. You realize we knocked, we called, we hoped . . . Oh no - that wasn't as important as having Christie in the Presidential race - was it? Now tell me again - why I'm supposed to 'trust' Democratics (Sweeney as an example) in NJ any more than I'm supposed to trust Christie?

Point blank - you don't know or understand NJ politics as well as I do. You don't understand this is not all 'Newark' and the Sopranos landscape. It's made up of small towns and communities closely connected together. You also don't seem to realize the one-two-punch Christie played with having two elections within a few weeks of each other and yep - that was with good old Power Broker Sweeney's tacit approval. How about - back in the 1920's when we went to direct Senate elections NJ Legislature point blank gave rules that stated we did NOT have to have those two elections due to the closeness in proximity to Lautenberg's death? Had the NJ Democratic Leadership done the right thing - and fought for Buono - she would have been able to ride Booker's votes. That would have been a far different outcome than what we got.

Furthermore - it's very typical these days - this idea that Washington D.C. is going to do ANYTHING for my small town. Why do you think they will rescue us? Trenton for that matter?

One of things I really like about O'Malley is he gives the impressiont that if a small local government is doing the right thing - he will butt out. Why do you seem to think you know better than me - a person who helped form our local police community partnership, created the community kitchen and who actively engages in a county race coalition (direct response to the Trayvon Martin insult) what will work in our community?

My advice is to butt out. Stay out of our business. We know better and we also know - no one is coming to help us. More small businesses lower property taxes. Increase our low income housing. Make this place walkable. Move the local veggie/fruit place that opened down onto main. If you see something/know something (someone paying a new American without working papers) less than $12 an hour - put the word out to folks who will pay that and higher to intercept the slave wage payers. Provide sanctuary to those people. Make sure we aren't wasting money on the BID (Business Improvement District thingamajig that just WASTES money) - bring in more businesses, make them pay more - GIVE OUR TEACHERS A RAISE.

In your rush to arrogance and to prove how much you know about 'me' - you only proved the typical thing I'm hearing from folks as I get my bid in for town council . . .

We are sick and tired in people in less affluent states 'taking our money' out of this town. Now I don't know if you live in one - but you folks better listen - Far outside of beltway politics us is pissed. We want our money (as much of it as possible at home in our own backyards where it can be used for things we value).

And so if I have to work with local and state Republicans to get my liquor laws changed - so we can have wine/beer at places that serve food (see YA DIDN'T KNOW THAT DID YA! YA WENT TO BOOZE!!!!!) - I'm gonna do it. We don't NEED permission from a bunch of outsiders from NJ - just enough votes in Trenton! We don't need your approval or permission.

You don't care about us - no harm no foul. We don't care about you. No harm, no foul.

[Bluenorthwest]

136. Steaming mad, clutching at the bucks, I love NJ and just do not agree with you. You are not

New Jersey. I'd suggest reading up on CA Prop 13 history. The right thing to do is cap property taxes for Seniors and disabled people, not to drive them down for people who have several homes and plenty of money they just want to spend on themselves. Not landlords who want no taxes on income generating property who evict the elderly and sick all the time.

[BootinUp]

6. Well said. nt

[BlueCaliDem]

7. I agree. That's why every Hillary supporter has pledged to support Sanders should he

win in the primaries. Strangely, very few Sanders supporters across the interwebs have pledged to do the same should Hillary Clinton win the primaries.

Hillary Clinton supporters understand that it's bigger than just voting for the Democratic candidate of choice. It's bigger than "my way or the highway". It's about the future of this country. It's about four seats of SCOTUS that will determine whether or not we keep our voting rights, our reproductive rights, our government. It's about good immigration reform and helping bring out those 14+ million undocumented from the shadows where they're not more than slaves for big business. It's all about keeping Republicans AWAY from the White House, and to continue the favorable trend set forth by President Obama, and that means, getting another Democrat into the White House and giving Democrats the Senate (hopefully, also, the House).

This is a crucial presidential election, and anyone who still believes the world revolves around them, not the issues that have the support of Congress, is foolish and selfish.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

33. The "my way or the highway" mentality

is exactly how the tea party functions and why nothing is getting done in congress lately. It concerns me to see liberals with those sentiments and I think it is a reaction to the tea party and the extreme right wing bullies. I would hate to see the democrats participate in those same sort of antics because then both parties would be actively undermining our government. We are in for a whole lot of trouble in that scenario. I really think the democrats are the ones holding this together right now and this can be salvaged if the democrats remain strong and continue to behave as respectful statesmen/women who are willing to listen, think, compromise, and solve problems.

[BlueCaliDem]

39. The "Horseshoe Theory"

The horseshoe theory in political science asserts that rather than the far left and the far right being at opposite and opposing ends of a linear political continuum, they in fact closely resemble one another, much like the ends of a horseshoe. The theory is attributed to French writer Jean-Pierre Faye.[1]

In University of Reading academic Peter Barker's[2] book, GDR and Its History, Peter Thompson[3] of the University of Sheffield observes that the theory is "increasingly orthodox," and describes the theory as seeing "left and right-wing parties being closer to each other than the centre."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horseshoe_theory
?w=700

[AgingAmerican]

50. Those goose stepping hippies!

[BlueCaliDem]

52. ?

O...kay.

[A Simple Game]

90. I hope you didn't get anything on you when you dragged that theory out of the garbage bin. n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

87. Except that's not true, even in this thread you have people who say they won't vote for him if

he is the choice of the Party, it's right here. Everyone can see it.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

109. I would vote for Sanders if he was the nominee.

I think most democrats would. 100% compliance isn't something that you can ever get, so yeah, not everyone will. I think the poster meant just about everyone.

[brush]

8. WooHoo! Strong stuff here but it gets to the crux of the matter

[HERVEPA]

10. Geez. From the headline I actually thought I might be able to to like one of your posts

Would have been a fine post if you had left out the stupid second paragraph so it would actually have broad appeal. But you can't stop yourself, can you?

[restorefreedom]

11. "a GOP administration will do real material harm"

and not breaking the stranglehold of corporate control, 1% rule, and continuing third way policies that have only lead to multiple disasters at home and abroad, will do damage not only in the near future but for generations to come.

this is no longer about the next 4 to 8 years. This is the long game, we are in danger of losing our democracy for good. Another thirdway corporate candidate is not going to get us out of that downward spiral. Only a real political revolution at this point will.

you can try to throw guilt at us all you want. But we care about our country and its future as much as anyone. we are not going to continue to play a rigged game with a preordained outcome. It's time to rewrite the future. And that's what some of us are attempting to do.

with Debbie Wasserman Schultz in the bag for Hillary, this isn't even a fair fight. So I will say it for the thousandth time. If you don't like the outcome of the general election, take it up with her. We are not obliged to vote for a candidate that was shoved down our throats and not even arrived at by fair means. Especially when this candidate is not a progressive and is only going to continue the failed policies of the past. if the Democratic Party wants people to vote their conscience and still win, then they should provide a candidate that we can get behind in good conscience.

[BootinUp]

19. On the one hand you think 4 to 8 years is not that long to wait,

and on the other hand you basically dismiss incremental change by working through the established political system in this country to change things. I just don't see any logic in your position. What your position implies, is that if you just wait for a miracle it will eventually happen.

[jeff47]

22. I've been waiting my entire adult life.

4 to 8 years is not that long to wait.

and on the other hand you basically dismiss incremental change by working through the established political system

No, we're rejecting incremental loss due to pre-compromising and the drive for a "grand bargain" with the insane Republican party.

[BootinUp]

40. Again, not sure I see any actual logic there that would achieve a goal.

Just because things have not gone our way in the past, this is not a predictor of the future. I think a strong case can be made that Obamas first term will be looked back on as a turning point or pendulum reversal similar to what happened in 1980.

[jeff47]

48. It's only a turning point if you actually move the status quo.

And incrementalism is, by definition, doing as little as possible to change the status quo.

Also, third-way-style Democrats keep starting with pre-compromising their positions, resulting in a gradual erosion of the status quo.

For example, it was Obama who brought chained CPI to the table. It was Democrats who eliminated single-payer from the debate before the ACA.

Instead, you bring switching to (unchained) CPI-E to the table on Social Security. And you say "single fucking payer, right now". Yes, they will not pass. But it means you are compromising from a better position, yielding a better result.

[haikugal]

56. ^^^THIS^^^

Thanks Jeff47 good post!

[BootinUp]

84. Just because you and many others are pissed

about the single payer ACA negotiation process, it does not follow that a better result would have been obtained using a different strategy. It may be that we wouldn't have gotten anything passed. What I find interesting about politics and very frustrating too, is that "we" meaning the electorate are always ready to clean house and try some other outsider, but that means we clean out some good ones along with the bad, which is kind of a similar dilemna in my view to people not voting at all. Now if people are just making these threats to try and get more support for their choice, then we don't need to continue this discussion.

[A Simple Game]

98. Answer me this, how do you know what you can obtain if you don't try for it?

You have to at least make the effort, you never know.

[BootinUp]

106. That type of thinking would apply when you have no idea what the opposition

would do. I don't think that is the preferred situation to be in though.

[restorefreedom]

43. yup. nt

[restorefreedom]

42. i don't believe in miracles

I am suggesting that everybody who keeps thinking that we have to use dark money to win an election so that we can change the rules and get rid of dark money is kidding themselves. It's never going to happen. And as much as I would not care to see a GOP presidency, it might convince people that we need a real course change in this country. And it could change future elections beyond the next presidency.

[BootinUp]

44. interesting graph you may not have seen

Its at Krugmans blog...

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/the-waaaaah-street-factor/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

[restorefreedom]

49. uh huh...

money grubbers think they own the GOP, and they do. Not really anything new there. My belief is that they own the Democrats with perhaps a little less money.

politicians are still in the pockets of the moneymakers.

[DanTex]

31. Having the GOP in power will make all of that worse. Period.

Both in the short term and the long term.

[restorefreedom]

38. i agree with you short term

but not long-term. As much as I would not care to see a GOP presidency, if that should happen, it just might be enough to convince people sitting on the fence that we need a real course change in this country. Maybe the Democratic Party would finally start putting up real progressives, and maybe real progressives would start running and winning in races across the country at all levels. sometimes in the big picture sense, you have to lose to win. I'm not advocating that the Democrats lose, I'm suggesting that a Democratic win with a centrist third wayer is not a true victory.

[BlueJazz]

86. I understand what you're saying. Another DU'er and I were discussing the possibility of..

..."Finally had enough Republican lite" politicians and the scenario of getting everybody to just vote Republican for 12 years. I mean, if you look at the reality, we ARE voting Republican most of the time. Most of us just don't know it. We were thinking of the future generations.
We figured after 12 years the country would be so screwed up, the populace would finally figure out that the right-wing is not the way to go.

Our idea was NOT met with much enthusiasm.

[restorefreedom]

97. some people take a while to figure it out

something about the momentum of this election tells me that maybe this country has finally reached a tipping point. And until a Republican or republican light is sworn in in 2017, I'm going to keep that hope. maybe i am an idiot, but i continue to hope.

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

12. Hillary supporters are getting more creative in regurgitating

the same tired "if Hillary wins will you vote for her" meme they've asked for 9 months.

[sufrommich]

13. Of course it is. It's childish to boot. nt

[leftupnorth]

14. What's worse?

Electing a Democrat who governs like a corporatist or a Republican who governs like a corporatist?

[bowens43]

54. exactly, the only real difference between hillary and jeb is that jeb is more honest

[dpatbrown]

72. What's worse?????

A Republican who controls future Supreme Court nominees.

[leftupnorth]

111. Yes, because a corporatist democrat is not going to nominate justices that will overturn Citizens United

There will be no meaningful or lasting change without reversing that decision.

[dpatbrown]

114. I'm not sure

how you know that, but it certainly is not true with the corporate president we have now.

[leftupnorth]

117. Only one candidate has said he would nominate justices who would overturn it.

[BootinUp]

121. I believe that is incorrect.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/campaign-finance-reform/

[leftupnorth]

122. I have a real hard time believing any of that. Don't ask me why.

But it might have something to do with taking all that kind of money while promising to stop it.

[BootinUp]

123. Then, you can just say that she claims she will appoint

judges to overturn it. And throw in your usual anti-Hillary commentary with it. lol.

[leftupnorth]

124. I'm not anti-Hillary. I'm anti-corporatist. This goes well beyond personality and hairstyles. It's principle.

All corporatists get and deserve equal contempt. No matter what team jersey they wear or whose rhetoric they mouth.

[BootinUp]

125. She has put out her policies

on wall street and financial regulation that are similar to Bernies, she claims they are tougher. Some people considered good judges on such things agree with her as far as her description of the policies. I see a lot of claims about how she is a corporatist and bought and paid for bla bla bla, how about some actual evidence that her 2016 campaign is bought and paid for by wall street? Otherwise its all just a bunch of arm waving and finger pointing.

[leftupnorth]

126. Yes, and they sound great, but there is no intent to actually implement much of it, if any.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/contrib.php?cycle=2016&id=N00000019&type=f

Ready PAC:
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cmte=C00540997&cycle=2016

Priorities USA:
https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/pacgave2.php?cmte=C00495861&cycle=2016

Makes me somewhat ill...

[BootinUp]

127. I guess from my point of view, I think someone is wasting my time and

the money I contribute to them if they don't do what they need to to win the campaign. That means once I have read or heard their policies I expect them to follow them as they defined them, but also to raise money and run the campaign. I don't have patience for squeamishness when losing means we get 4 or 8 years of a lunatic in the WH.

[leftupnorth]

128. See, I'd rather fight and lose on principles than win with the devil on my side. That way, I retain my humanity and dignity.

[BootinUp]

130. Yeah me too, what it comes down to is perception just like in all things

You see more devils than I do sounds like.

[leftupnorth]

132. Possibly.

Or maybe you don't see as many as I?

Two decades of watching divide and conquer false dichotomy games get run on the country by both parties I'm pretty much done. Can't imagine how some folks stood and watched it for even longer than I.

[mcar]

15. K&R

[YabaDabaNoDinoNo]

17. This has no effect on me next time try harder and try not to sound so desperate and frignented.

[closeupready]

18. Oh, I get it. Clintonistas are now afraid she's too weak to win in the general.

Irony comes from weird places these days.

[restorefreedom]

51. that is exactly it

if they were valid reasons to vote FOR her and not just AGAINST the Republicans, then they would be shouting those reasons from the rooftops. Instead they're trying to guilt command and intimidate people into voting for her just because she's marginally better than a Republican. pretty crappy campaign sloganing if you ask me.

[jeff47]

20. Then you better get to work providing reasons to vote for her

instead of continuing to provide reasons to vote against the Republican.

That means actually addressing her record, including the unsavory parts.

Or you could keep hurling insults at people who are fed up with the failures that are third-way-style Democrats. That'll totally get people to the polls.

[Mnpaul]

120. "Better than a Republican" is lame

and no longer working but it seems to be the only plan they have. Fear mongering isn't very effective on liberals. It works best with conservatives.

[mmonk]

24. You're right, fuck my children. Jamie Dimon wants a little more.

He is my god. Fuck my children! They should have not been born disabled, Fuck them for party, all hail. Means test the sons of bitches! We have a budget and our lords are against taxing their millions for them. Cut cut cut cut..... Yay a "balanced budget!"

[DanTex]

26. Are you suggesting that your children will fare better under the GOP than the Democratic nominee?

If so, I disagree. Strongly.

[Alittleliberal]

61. Nope

Suggesting that we have very little time to address our problems. Electing a center right democrat prolongs the inevitable but not long enough to be worth it.

[dsc]

134. and

fuck the gays, fuck the blacks, fuck the women (but don't get them pregnant), fuck the Hispanics. Fuck all of them. What rights are you willing to give up? Will you divorce if marriage equality is gutted? Will you refrain from sex if abortion rights go down or take in an unwanted baby every nine months? Will you deport yourself if Trump deports Hispanics?

[TBF]

27. Loyalty oaths -

I guess if that is all you can think of to post your candidate must be in real trouble.

[WillyT]

63. Like Clockwork... Every Time...

[TBF]

93. The other one I've seen this morning is

that Bernie "rehearsed" his comment about Clinton's emails to make her look bad. It took several days for them to come up with this lame-ass spin ...

smh.

[Armstead]

28. I plan to vote for the GOP candidate, just to piss some people here off

Not really, but it's tempting sometimes.

[DanTex]

29. Yeah, pissing off Clinton supporters is another motivation for sitting out or voting GOP

that I didn't mention. And another one is simply wanting to see Hillary Clinton fail, due to personal dislike.

Those also fall under selfish privilege. Basically, willing to sacrifice the well being of the country for personal psychological satisfaction.

[RandySF]

30. K&R

[jalan48]

34. Given that Progressives could make up a large block of voting Democrats,

what do you propose Progressives' should do to get their positions adopted by Clinton? Simply promising to vote for her does nothing to further the Progressive cause. Besides, it makes all this discussion and debate going on now a sham.

[GummyBearz]

36. The main reason I wont vote for clinton is because of her supporters making posts like this

I could have voted for her, but her supporters totally alienated me. Its not my "conscience" as you say. You just convinced me not to vote for her by being mean on line.

[BootinUp]

37. So there! lol.

[stupidicus]

45. I'm not sure if this is just pathetic or dispicable

it's kinda like blaming the loss of a war on the conscientious objectors who refused to fight it for others.

Sadly you have no moral -- or any kind of standing -- from which to plead and win such a case.

[cui bono]

46. So vote for Bernie then.

Clinton is the only one who actually embraces things Dem should be against that affect the vast majority of American lives and innocent foreigners who live in war torn countries that we invaded.

Bernie will give you everything Clinton will and much much more. You cannot say theh opposite is true.

So vote for Bernie and everyone will vote for him.

Solved. Next problem?

[Broward]

103. Exactly, and btw, not voting for Bernie can be seen as an act of selfish privilege as well.

[cui bono]

119. I completely agree!

[Gothmog]

47. Great post

I will be voting for the Democratic nominee

[bowens43]

53. Bullshit.

[kelly1mm]

55. Not really unless you live in a swing state (OH, FL, VA, NM, CO, NH). I am in MD and MD's

electoral votes will be going to the Democratic nominee no matter if I vote or not. Same with those in CA, NY, IL . Similarly those in LA, MS, WY can vote all they want and their electors will go for the Republican.

[Bluenorthwest]

60. You do know that in our lifetimes All of those States have voted Republican?

Only Minnesota and DC did not vote for Reagan. So this 'no matter what' you are counting on is not a force of nature but just the result of lots of Democratic organizing and also, sadly, of voters voting for their second choice in the general from time to time. Maryland went to Dutch Reagan. Twice. CA elected Reagan 4 times, Gov and Pres. NY, IL, they voted just like LA, MS, WY.....

[kelly1mm]

64. Sure I do (Reagan 1984). However if this is a wave election like 84 (in either direction)

again my vote will not matter. However no matter who the nominee is for either party both of us could right now pick about 20 states that each party will win. The reality is that unless you live in a swing state (for national elections) it really does not matter if you stay home.

[Martin Eden]

75. "it really does not matter if you stay home"

Congressional and local elections are very important.

Unless there is no candidate you can support for ANY office at any level, you should go to the polls and vote in those races even if you abstain from POTUS.

[kelly1mm]

81. Nice editing job. Did you read the clause before your quote that specifically limits

my comment to national elections? The ONLY nation wide election we have is for President/VP. I agree that congressional/local elections are VERY important and I use most of my energy on local issues/elections.

[Bluenorthwest]

92. Those States you think are Democratic by God's will are Democratic by Democratic efforts and

consistent voting against the Republicans. When you say it does not matter you are wallowing in the warm waters of a pool filled by your predecessors spoonful by spoonful. Had those predecessors made the choice you make, those States would not be so easily won by Democrats and that easy winning could vanish swiftly with enough apathetic individualist voters who feel too special to be part of a collective effort.

[kelly1mm]

99. Nice theory. However if the Democraic nominee for President is in danger of losing Maryland

and thus makes my vote relevant then he or she is already in a world of shit and WILL not be President.

[Martin Eden]

105. National elections are on the same ballot as US House, Senate, & local elections

Thanks for the clarification that you don't mean to physically "stay home" (refraining from voting entirely).

Sorry about the misunderstanding. We're actually in agreement (see my post below):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=700481

[kelly1mm]

108. Thank you for the kind words and I could have been clearer in my wording like your linked post is!nt

[DrBulldog]

57. The reality is this: if Bernie is the nominee the voting population will explode.

Then Republican congressional power will be usurped and the country can start to fix itself.

If Hillary is the nominee, voting will be abysmal and the Republicans will achieve even greater power in Congress.
And smiley Hillary will just be another worthless Presidential figurehead just as Obama has become for the past seven years.

So this Democratic nomination is a LOT more than Bernie versus Hillary. It's democracy versus oligarchy. But so far, most Americans are too dumb or too ignorant to make that simple connection and look that far ahead.

[fbc]

68. ^^^^^^ this ^^^^^^

[onenote]

69. In reality, manipulation of districting and limits on voting rights will prevent that

from happening. If Bernie wins (and I'm supporting him in the primaries), he's going to face a house that will almost certainly still be controlled by repubs or, at minimum, by Democrats who are more like the Democrats that currently in Congress than they are like Bernie. He'll still face a Senate that is capable of shutting down legislative proposals that have majority support. Compromise will still be the order of the day if anything is to get done. And Bernie will be willing to make compromises, just as he has done as a member of Congress (for example his vote for the ACA). He's not going to shut down the government if he gets an approps bill with funding for military operations. There isn't going to be a revolution in 2016 no matter who runs as the Democratic nominee.

[dpatbrown]

115. Well put

The horror of seeing your life long candidate elected in a hard fought election, only to be stymied every inch of the way, is disheartening at best. You made very good points of "reality". Of course I hope you're all wet, but I would be more inclined to bet on you.

The Dems need control of congress, or else...

[kristopher]

107. +1

[phleshdef]

62. I'm a Bernie supporter and I'm going to do exactly what Bernie would do if he isn't the nominee.

[Bluenorthwest]

83. Me too, and I find it to be very ironic that some who say 'Bernie is not a Democrat' also say

they won't vote for him if he's the nominee because they are such good Democrats. Crazy time.

[Robbins]

65. easy for you to say

the democratic party under DWS has proven itself to be just as corupted as republicans.Nominating Clinton would be last strew for
me as i wouldn't want anything to do with Democratic party anymore than republicans.and from 1992 to 2014 i always voted for
dems.I live In Missouri so my vote doesn't really matter.

Clinton is hawkish wall street pro free trade candiate.I am disabled american on ssi,Medicaid,and Food stamps.Those like Clinton
aren't for me.where do you think money will come from for all her wars? cutting social safety net.

everyone who claims to be liberal or support labor and support her is sellout.she's no liberal and supporting wall street and free trade deals meaning you can't support labor.she like obama is corporate dem.

[fbc]

67. The post overlooks that Hillary Clinton "will do real, material harm to the nation"

Someone who will be willing to compromise with this congress to "get stuff done" will do real harm to our nation.

Also, think of all the future democratic voters we'd be disillusioning if we let the baby boomers have their Reagan throwback candidate. That could do more harm to our nation in the long run than any republican president.

I guess the boomers don't care because they will be dead by then, but some of us still have to live here for a while yet.

[Art_from_Ark]

133. Please don't lump all boomers together

There are lots of boomers here (myself included) who are working to spread the word about Bernie and get him elected.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/128063496

[stonecutter357]

70. K&R!

[edgineered]

71. One of the problems is:

The election of certain candidates, even with a (D)esignation will allow a GOP administration to do real, material harm to the nation. Some people will suffer a lot, some not so much, and a small group may benefit, if only temporarily.

It is far better to remind voters of the entirety of their options by setting up a table at your local polling place and passing out pencils. (I am not saying that I will not support our nominee in the general)

[Lazy Daisy]

73. awful lot of these sorts of threads these days

What if I was to say to you that you are being pig-headed and childish for pushing a candidate that a huge part of the base wants so badly? That by pushing for HRC you're wrong and are throwing this country away because she's not going to give two hoots about the base once she's elected. That her main concern is big money as are all the rest of the candidates on the Republican side. That she is the embodiment of what is wrong with politics for the last 30 years.

What if I was to say the one word I hear describing HRC is evil. That many friends and acquaintances from varied political backgrounds use that very same word when she is the topic of conversation, and that scares the hell out of me. That if she is who our party puts up for the GE we'll lose, no matter what asshat they put up.

Would that anger you? Would you be insulted and offended?



My vote is mine. I own it. I'll do with it as I wish. Just as you will with yours. If it scares you so much that too many people will sit out the GE because HRC is our candidate then vote for Bernie. Problem solved. He can win against ANY of the clown car passengers from the GOP.


Stop with the insults. It's unbecoming.

[restorefreedom]

129. nicely done.

and welcome to du! hope you brought your breastplate and helmet, politics in gdp is a full contact sport.

have fun!

[Maedhros]

74. I will not be bullied into giving my vote to a politician I do not want elected.

Go shame someone else.

[gopiscrap]

76. I agree, not would be worse than having some

ignorant, shit stain libertarian/tea bagging repuke getting 4 years to ruin the country to fatten up their ilk

[lunamagica]

77. Absolutely. I guess those so "principled" that won't "compromise" are those so privileged

that they can afford to have a Republican in the WH. It won't personally affect them.

But for others, a Republican in the WH will have a devastating effect on their lives.

But what do the "principled" care? Not their problem.

[jwirr]

79. Fine I will vote for her if she is the nominee but let me tell

you right now that she represents everything I fear as a poor American: more power to the corporations, more welfare reform, more corporate judges on the SCOTUS, more wealth inequality and more wars.

Just exactly what my family does not need.

[secondwind]

80. AMEN!! I'M A BERNIE FAN, BUT I WILL GLADLY PULL THE LEVER FOR HILLARY! WE MUST NOT

LOSE THE WHITE HOUSE IN 2016!!!

THINK: SCOTUS

among other things

[Stuckinthebush]

82. Be careful - people don't like their privilege identified

They'll hit back with insults and "how dare yous". They may be dismissive of their privilege....or dismissive of your attempts to identify it.

Your point is very valid. Not voting in the general because your candidate (whether Bernie or Hillary) didn't win the primary is handing the presidency to the GOP. Our two party system sucks, but it is what we have. There are too many people who will be harmed if the Dems don't win. It is unconscionable to allow that to happen.

I've been here at DU since February of 2001. Dark times indeed. These fights always have happened around primary time, but the good news is that in the end the majority will support our Democratic candidate.

[PatrynXX]

85. bully talk isn't how you win elections

if Hillary Gets it and Trump gets it I know who I'd vote for. the one thats on history and actions to the left from there one can take away what you will... I won't vote for a fake Dem. Republicans can vote for fake anything I won't betray my principles

[anamnua]

88. I only voted once in a presidential election: 1997. NT.

[thesquanderer]

89. I think your premise is wrong, because...

...depending in the state you're in, "voting your conscience" or "sending a message" does NOT necessarily "put the future of the nation at risk".

As I said in one of the similar threads:

If you're in a swing state, I agree, vote for the Dem no matter who it is, for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that we can't afford to have a Republican appoint the next Supreme Court justice.

But you know, if you live in New York or some other state that is definitely giving its elecoral votes to the Dem candidate no matter what, then there's no risk that not voting Dem is actually going to help put a Repub in the WH.

(a lot more conversation about this at http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251700376 )

Though also as I said elsewhere, if your biggest concern is winning the general, while I think either of them would win, I think Sanders is the stronger GE candidate.

[bkkyosemite]

91. Let me see if I can word this correctly

because another post was not and was misconstrued.

I will vote for Bernie Sanders. He stands for exactly what I want in a politician. He is honest and trustworthy, steady and steadfast. He is not beholding to the elite, corporations or Wall Street, he has not co-mingled with them.

This country is full of corruption at the very core. Legislators think it is normal to be bribed by the lobbyist for the 1%. This is not Democracy this is illegal activity and they need to be in jail both the lobbyists and their teammates in government. They support the 1% have connections with them and agree with their activity by their active rolls in their ventures.

When you vote your vote should count. It should not be that a few people decide what is the will of the people. The popular vote should be the vote.

The constant suppressing of the vote is another disgusting illegal activity but no one does anything about it.

We do need a revolution of millions of people demanding back our Democracy.

You can call yourself a democrat or a republican but it's in the choices you make, the people you are in bed with and the money you take that shows your true agenda.

I will write Senator Sanders in if he is not the nominee. I will not vote for Hillary Clinton as I believe she is one of them as I describe above. Now this is my opinion. I can imagine the hell that may reign down on me. But it's from the heart, not zealous and truly sincere.

[pocoloco]

96. Fuck voting party over principles!!!

That is exactly why America is in the shape it is in!

[bkkyosemite]

100. People have been voting party

that is why America is in the shape it is. They need to vote for the right principles or this Country will not come out of this 1% hold on it.

[riversedge]

101. Too much is at stake, esp with SC nominees coming up for ANY dem to sit out the

GE for any reason. I will vote for whoever the Dem nominee is.

[whatchamacallit]

102. Not switching your support to Sanders right now is an act of selfish privilege

Let me break it down -

If you believe there is likely to be a significant number of democrats staying home if Sanders loses the nomination, you must do everything in your power to keep us united. That means abandoning your petty, selfish, principles and preferences, and switching to Sanders right now! Do it. Do it for the good of the nation.

[Dustlawyer]

110. I am a Bernie supporter who believes that any eventual winner from the Democratic debate the other

night would be preferable to anyone from the clown car.

Having said that, and understanding that there are differences of opinion to what I will say, I believe that it is selfish to support any Democrat that is bought off by the big money flooding Washington. The defeatist attitudes that I have read where they won't vote for Bernie in the Primary because "He can't win...etc" are a cop out. If we take that attitude we will never be free of corporate Rule! It is naive to the extreme to believe that all of that money has no effect on what a candidate does while in office.

[840high]

113. unrec. - still at it, eh?

[BlueCheese]

116. You'd think we'd have learned something from 2000. nt

[bigwillq]

118. No

The DEM nominee is highly likely to win my state (CT) with or without my vote. I hope the DEM nominee does win my state. I hope Hillary wins my state if she is the nominee. I hope Hillary wins the presidency if she is the nominee. But I can't vote for her. I kind of see it as a win-win.

[Reter]

131. Then tell Hillary to drop out

I don't vote warmongering, Patriot Act/NSA lovers.

[eridani]

135. It's an act of alienated voters. Strategic voters who are Dems will vote for the nominee

63% of those eligible did not vote in 2014. Alienation is a huge problem for Dems, as higher turnouts favor us. Clinton has zero appeal to them.

[AZ Progressive]

137. It would be a slap in the face to social liberal groups including pro-choice and gay rights groups

to not vote for the Democratic candidate. Because not voting for the Democrat is akin to allowing the Republican to win and put supreme court justices there that would allow Roe vs Wade to be reversed, and even possibly reverse gay rights rulings (because justice Anthony Kennedy will not be the deciding vote anymore.) It would help to destroy the progress made since the 1960s and reverse all the hard work done to get social liberal policies passed into law.