I, then, for the G/E, cast my vote for the Democratic nominee, regardless of who that might be, as it is a vote AGAINST the GREATER evil, i.e., the republican party.

1StrongBlackMan

(31,849 posts)

2. There is a lot of truth to that statement ...

Reply to reddread (Original post)

Wed Nov 11, 2015, 08:33 AM

Nov 2015

as every selection is made after an assessment that Choice "A" is likely to produce a less/more desirable outcome than Choice "B" ... where the outcome is uncertain, and uncertainty is troubling.

NCTraveler

(30,481 posts)

4. I didn't have to vote for the lesser evil...

Reply to reddread (Original post)

Wed Nov 11, 2015, 08:41 AM

Nov 2015

In the last Presidential election and at this point it doesn't look like I'm going to have to again. A lot of good in the party right now. I am really optimistic right now. Hillary leading the way with two other excellent options working it every day. It's a great time in history to be a democrat. I'm hoping I get the chance to vote for Hillary and build off Obamas success. I would be just as tickled with O'Malley. I wouldn't be enthused about Sanders but I still wouldn't even come close to referencing him as the lesser of two evils in the general.

Nonhlanhla

(2,074 posts)

5. It's not the lesser evil

Reply to reddread (Original post)

Wed Nov 11, 2015, 08:44 AM

Nov 2015

I don't like this language of lesser evil at all. If your preferred candidate does not get the nod, and a candidate you don't agree with gets it, then voting for the Dem nominee is not a matter of choosing the "lesser evil," but of voting for the greater good. Perhaps you would then not be voting for your idea of the perfect, but nevertheless for the sake of the greater good, because compared to any of the GOP candidates, any Dem nominee would serve the greater good better.