Do you remember when we wondered why people would vote against their own interests

[Baitball Blogger]

and we thought this only applied to Republicans?

I can understand why Hillary would attract the female vote, since the attraction of a female president is a culmination of a long fight for equality. But everything else mystifies me. As far as the Democratic platform is concerned, Hillary's positions are going to fall short of making the kind of changes that will improve the lives of ordinary people. That's my opinion. She appears to be more of a status quo candidate than someone who will break the stagnant patterns. And this is probably directly related to the fact that she seems to have a cozier relationship with organizations that support conservative, Republican causes than any of the other Democratic candidates. You would think that would send up a red flag, but it isn't having that affect.

Reading the post this morning on the Greatest Page, I read that:

- she is not in support of single payer for medical care at the same time that she takes large campaign donations from drug companies;

- her commitment on social security is iffy;

I can add that

- she is quick to join the neo-con causes;

- she opposes Glass-Steagall and her cozy relationship with Wall Street suggests that any recent talk of breaking the banks is probably just talk;

- she might have a good relationship with minority leaders, but her strong inclination to reach out across the aisle suggests that she will follow the pattern of the past where minority issues are usually used as a bargaining chip to gain approval for other programs that generally appeal to Republicans and aid the 1%.

So, let me just say that when we talk about people voting against their own interest, maybe this is a problem that is universal. Maybe what we're looking for in a president has nothing to do with their positions, but something else. If someone has a clue to what that is, I would surely love to hear it.

[beveeheart]

1. I just saw this article on DailyKos

that helps explain the issue of voting against one's own interest.

http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2015/11/21/1452751/-The-Most-Important-Article-You-ll-Read-Today-About-The-Democratic-Party?detail=facebook

[valerief]

4. No one realizes HOW MUCH MONEY goes to the military, which is held

up as a paragon of virtue. Defense contractors are killing America.

[Martin Eden]

11. Good article, thanks

It's the old strategy of divide and conquer. Foster resentment among those who are just getting by against the poor who need government assistance to get by, so the former group keeps voting for policies that hurt both groups.

[Hoyt]

2. Actually, one of our biggest problems are people acting in their own selfish interests.

But, I get what you are saying.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

5. Many of our party members and representatives play safe with the establishment..

..because they want to further their careers. They have no interest in what the people want or need.

The worshipping of the rich in this country is disgusting.

[mythology]

17. Given Clinton's substantial lead in the polls

by what measure do you claim that the party is ignoring what the people want? Clinton is ahead in all of the major constituencies of the Democratic party with the possible exception of young voters (the polling I've seen on that doesn't provide breakdowns of say 18 to 30). She is significantly ahead with women and even further ahead with both blacks and hispanic voters.

I think you mean they are ignoring what you want. But that's kind of the beauty of voting. You have a pretty clear indication of what the people want. You may not like it, but it is what it is.

[Baitball Blogger]

16. I think there's a huge patronage system that works behind the scenes,

and some politicians are known to support and promote it. So, here we are comparing each candidate's issues, while some people realize that none of these campaign promises are as important as a candidate's reliance at using the backroom conversations and networks that protect the status quo.

[TM99]

3. Yes, it is definitely universal.

A cursory study of behavioral economics and the psychology of influence will teach you rather quickly that we often make irrational decisions often even when we know that it will hurt us or others.

[BainsBane]

6. A few points

1) you misrepresent some of her positions. Clearly you haven't read her policy positions, which seems to be ubiquitous among her detractors. https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/

2) If you think electing Sanders President will accomplish your wish list, I have a bridge to sell you.

3) The crucial assumption that your interests are universal is the crux of the problem. You are upset that I am not voting in your interests. If you cared about the interests of the rest of us, you would ask us rather than assuming you are entitled to determine what is right for us.

4) This attitude is shining example of why self-described "progressives" are not successful politically. No one wants to vote for or ally with people who treat them as inferior.

I will not vote "to take America back," to favor the white upper-middle class at the expensive of the poor, women, and people of color. I will not ally with people who attack leftist activists like Black Lives Matter and express anger over jobs programs for displaced minors and tax cuts for the poor; who insist the working poor must pay for the education of the children of the upper-middle class who should not be expected to work as little as ten hours a week to contribute to their own education; who are perfectly content to support a candidate who proposes nothing to address the rampant k-12 inequality that ensures generations of poverty; and who repeat NRA arguments about gun violence that reveal blatant disregard for the lives lost in communities like mine. They do not speak for my interests; they work to undermine them.

[Martin Eden]

13. "If you cared about the interests of the rest of us"

I support Bernie Sanders precisely because I care about the interests of people other than myself. I'm 58 years old in good health with a decent job, our house is paid for, and we have savings with no debt. While I do expect to receive the SS benefits I worked for all my life and might need Medicare when I'm older, it's pretty safe to say I've contributed more to the system than I'll take out.

Hillary Clinton lost my vote in October 2002 when she jumped on the Iraq war wagon pulled by GW Bush and the PNAC neocons. If you have any understanding of world events I don't need to explain the consequences of that war, which continue to get worse.

Judgment in the critically important matter of military intervention is supremely important, and Bernie Sanders demonstrated much better judgment in the run up to this fraudulent war of choice. I don't think Hillary was dumb enough to be fooled; she was either on board with the neocon agenda or made a political calculation it was better to be a hawk at that time. If, since then, she had demonstrated better judgment and the understanding that continuing to whack that hornet's nest only serves to perpetuate an endless "war on terror," I might be willing to overlook her cozy ties with Wall Street and neoliberal Third Way politics.

This is not about punishing Hillary Clinton for her vote 13 years ago. It's because I don't want, and our country can't afford, more of the same kind of foreign policy that so many of her supporters tout as her strength.

Whose interests, among us, are being served by perpetual war besides the military industrial complex, multinational corporations, and the politicians who serve them?

Nearly everything we (meaning people who truly identify as Democrats) hope to accomplish for the American people -- rebuilding our nation's infrastructure with a green energy economy; better more affordable education; universal health insurance; saving Social Security -- is jeopardized and underfunded because our treasury is being drained to finance militarism that does not make us safer.

I wish with all my heart that Hillary Clinton was a true champion for the kind of change our nation and future generations desperately need. But she is not.

Bernie Sanders is.

Saying that his policies will face stiff opposition by a Republican congress is not, in not my opinion, a logical reason to vote for his opponent. We all know that real progress will be a long tough battle. I don't see any advantage to not making the effort.

[BainsBane]

14. I disagree with her on the Iraq war vote

And I protested the war, but I do not believe that we would have gone to war in Iraq in 2002 if she had been president. John Kerry also voted for the war, as did Joe Biden and any number of Democrats. Yet somehow Hillary alone is responsible for the war and all the casualties than ensued.

There is no indication that Bernie's views on the current potential for foreign engagement differ from Clinton's in terms of the overall scope of policy. In last week's debate, all three candidates made clear they support US war against ISIS, and Clinton and Sanders both emphasized the importance of that being part of a coalition. The chief difference I observed was that Clinton knows exponentially more about foreign policy and, for example, doesn't think all Muslim states are doing the same thing.

You are voting based on what you think are in the interests of others. It is your right to vote on that or any basis you think appropriate, yet you do not determine what the interests of others are. The OP announces people are voting against our own interests by failing to support Sanders, whom far too many here think is OWED our votes. Clearly most Americans do not see it that way, and that is their choice to make. If people here want to persuade voters, they need to stop talking down to Americans, particularly because that sense of superiority is rarely justified.

Your demographic is precisely the one from which Sanders draws the majority of his support. Hillary Clinton is supported by those who have fewer advantages in terms of income, race, and gender. I submit there is a reason for that.

[Martin Eden]

15. "Yet somehow Hillary alone is responsible for the war and all the casualties than ensued."

Wrong.

I refused to vote for John Kerry in the 2004 primary and Joe Biden when he ran, for the same reason. It would be an issue in this election cycle for any Dem who voted for it.

There is no excuse for the IWR vote. If ever there was a time strong Democratic leadership was needed, that was it. Slightly more than half the Democrats in Congress voted against it, and several (including Bernie Sanders) stood up to vocally oppose it for stated reasons that have proved all to prescient. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, vocally echoed the bogus case for war. And she's still a hawk. As SoS she should have cautioned against pushing Libya into chaos. I have no confidence she will show better judgment in the future.

I will be so bold as to again assert that perpetual war is NOT in the interests of those "who have fewer advantages in terms of income, race, and gender," but if you think it does serve their interests, have at it.

My jaw dropped when I read the following:

Sanders, whom far too many here think is OWED our votes

That's beyond ludicrous. Bernie Sanders, though he's held elective office for decades, is a fairly recent phenomenon. It is Hillary Clinton who is "owed" votes -- because we're supposed to be Ready For Hillary, it being her turn.

I do not trust Hillary Clinton, and I'm far from the only Democrat who feels that way. I submit there are legitimate reasons for that.

[BainsBane]

25. Your consistency is uncommon

The same people who despise Clinton laud Kerry and Biden. Most did in fact vote for Kerry, hail him as a great Secretary of State, and were all aflutter at the possibility Biden said something they perceived as positive about Bernie. I even saw Biden described as a non-"corporatist" alternative to Clinton, which is ludicrous given his voting record for the credit card industry.

Perpetual war is of course not in the advantage of the poor and people of color, who are far more likely to serve in the military.
You assume that Sanders would end that based on the fact he voted against the Iraq War, but you are ignoring his current positions on conflicts the US faces today.

My comment about Sanders being owed votes refers to how I and others on DU have been treated. I have time and time against been asked to justify why I was not voting for Sanders. I don't see that attitude from Sanders himself but rather a number of his supporters here. I believe it stems from their own sense of entitlement, so great they have no problem declaring or supporting declarations that entire races suffer from Stockholm syndrome or the majority of Democrats are voting against their interests by refusing to agree with them.

I didn't say your reasons for voting weren't legitimate. Frankly, whether I happen to think them legitimate or not bears no relation on your right to vote for whomever you choose, I right I believe strongly in. I wish that same courtesy would be extended to me.

[Martin Eden]

28. "I wish that same courtesy would be extended to me."

Are you being disenfranchised?

More likely you're merely encountering strong disagreement about your candidate of choice, which is to be expected in a political discussion forum.

I'm not ignoring Bernie's position on the current conflict. I'm pointing to his record vs Hillary's and their judgment regarding the IWR that resulted in the terrible consequences of that decision that we're facing now. During the next president's term there will likely be crucial decisions regarding military intervention elsewhere. Hillary is very much a part of what has been established (and what has gone wrong) in this perpetual "war on terror," and she is hawkish for a Democrat.

I trust Bernie's judgment much better in these matters, for very good reasons I've already explained.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. An analogy.

When I was a young man I took some Education courses. One of those course required us to actually spend some time in actual class rooms. I was in a class with Special Education students, many of whom had behavioral problems. The weren't slow. They just had behavioral problem. One kid about ten years old took a liking to me, told me he had no dad, and would like me to come visit him and spend time with him. I was touched and told him "sure".

Afterwards the teacher told me "I know you didn't mean any harm but you shouldn't make promises to these kids you won't or can't keep."


There is a lesson there which addresses the assertion contained in the original post if you are looking.

[alc]

8. It's usually

"What I see as their interests."

Very different talking to them in person to hear what they think are their interests are and having a discussion about their interests. There are a lot of knowlegdable rural voters who's sincere interests are poo-poo'ed regularly by D leadership (and DU). And a lot of them don't care about the social issues - that's not what turns them to Rs.

[firebrand80]

9. There would need to be a strong candidate running against her

There currently isn't one

[Maedhros]

29. THIRD WAY 'FRESH THINKING'?

/ignore.

[Broward]

10. Yes, Hillary supporters are actively voting for the candidate that puts the 1% before everyone else.

They'll also be the first to condemn Bernie supporters who choose to sit the general election out if Hillary wins the primary.

[reformist2]

12. Many Dems are willing to settle for a Rockefeller Republican, which is what Hillary has become.

There are certain requirements, certainly. No Dem could get elected without clearly being positioned as pro-civil-rights and pro-choice. But outside of that, I think other positions don't really matter to a lot of Hillary voters, especially because she's a woman. In truth, Hillary has the same exact views as a high-minded, idealistic, pro-civil-rights, pro-choice Rockefeller Republican, that's essentially good enough for many Dems.

Are there enough of these Dems to actually give Hillary the nomination? That's where I'm not sure. My instincts are telling me no...

[mythology]

18. Or perhaps you assume that their interest is what you think it is

There are other factors that you haven't considered.

If you feel Sanders is unelectable, or that he won't be effective with his campaign promises, then it might not be in your self interest to vote for Sanders.

If you think that there is something important to the notion that the positive candidate wins in that it appeals to the American public, then you might not feel it's in your self interest to vote for the guy who comes across as angry all the time.

If you're a minority voter and you found that Sanders voted against some immigration bills or didn't respond to the black lives matter movement the way you wanted, you might feel it's not in your self interest to vote for Sanders.

If you look at Sanders plan to provide free public university tuition and think the actual proposed plan would ruin public universities, you might not feel it's in your self interest to vote for Sanders.

If you dislike Sanders' positions on guns, you might not find it's in your self interest to vote for him.

If you think that there is a worse chance a self-professed Democratic Socialist will win the election than Clinton, you may not feel it's in your self interest to vote for Sanders.

You want Sanders to win and so you presume it is in the self interest of others to vote for him. But you don't know the position from which they approach the election, either the primary or the general, so you can't presume to know their self interest.

[Baitball Blogger]

23. This is a very reasonable response.

Thank you for the perspective.

[Recursion]

19. Remember when people wondered why progressives are considered condescending elitists?

A big part of this is the whole "why aren't you smart enough to see that you should agree with me?" attitude we have.

[SidDithers]

20. +1...nt

Sid

[Baitball Blogger]

21. I'm about as far from an elitist as you can find.

[Recursion]

22. Then work on sounding like it (nt)

[Baitball Blogger]

24. I asked a reasonable question, and at least one person gave me a

reasonable response. Not you.

[firebrand80]

30. For the love of God, this.

[tularetom]

26. Better be careful

I had a post hidden a few months back for asking that exact question.

Apparently some peoples idea of people voting against their own interest applies only to toothless hillbillies in Appalachia.

[bravenak]

27. Maybe people do not like others telling them what their best interests are.

Maybe others are not as interested in breaking up the banks as you are and they are still perfectly normal thinking people who put other things that are important in their lives ahead of fighting the oligarchy. Maybe they are not rigid thinkers who compromise, they give some to get some.
Maybe not everybody is interested in single payer as much and they are still voting in THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS. Maybe your idea of their best interests is not their idea of it. Maybe since they live their lives themselves, they want to decide for themselves without being told they are uninformed and being condescended to. Maybe that makes them move even farther from your position.