Every UNCONDITIONAL supporter of the Democratic Party, step forward!

[Eliot Rosewater]

That's me!

Reminds me of the joke of the drill sergeant finding a unique way to break it to one of his recruits, who's name is Jenkins, that his father had died. Lines them all up and says "everybody with a father, take a step forward", then adds "not so fast Jenkins"

Yeah, that is me...

UNCONDITIONAL support, I mean to say that if there are two candidates running for a house seat in the D party and one of them is KNOWN to have a better shot at winning in November than the other but said candidate is anti choice, anti labor, anti environment, well guess what, because I understand MATH, I still vote for him.

He could be anti HUMAN RACE and I still vote for him, again, because of MATH.

Unconditional, that is me.

AT THIS POINT IN TIME, that is

Sure, when we have the LUXURY of criticism, then yes we can do whatever. You wont like my criticisms when that time comes, BTW, because I want to nationalize most stuff. Not most I guess but way more than anyone here does, or most here do.

[hlthe2b]

1. Pretty strong support here, but unquestioning? unconditional?

Nah, I'll save that for family, some friends and my precious pup.

[Eliot Rosewater]

3. Not me, I am afraid of Nazis so for now I will support NO MATTER WHAT

I dont have the luxury of questioning at the moment, my gay friends dont, my black friends dont, my women friends who need reproductive rights dont.

One person in our party has NO power, none, nada, NOTHING

But that ONE SEAT can be the difference between the PARTY having TOTAL Power vs NONE

Nah, not now, people will DIE if I insist my personal checklist be adhered to, by the way my personal checklist is more left than ANY progressive I have EVER met.

MATH

[hlthe2b]

6. you presume that we can unquestioningly take a candidate's word for it...

How many times has someone claimed party affiliation and then do a 180 when they get into office?

I'm certainly not suggesting anything but a DEM vote in the general, but I think we do need to be cautious in the primary. Otherwise, why would Republicans not simply use our "unquestioning" blind allegiance to gain office as a "DEMOCRAT"?

[Eliot Rosewater]

7. Forget it.

[hlthe2b]

8. Excuse me? Can you not have a constructive discussion?

[Eliot Rosewater]

9. Going out of your way to presume someone is going to run as a democrat then switch parties?

is THAT what you are saying?

That happens how often? So the alternative is let the registered republican win?

THINK about this please

[hlthe2b]

13. I'm saying Republicans can and do take advantage of "unquestioning loyalty to label/affiliation" on

occasion.

How foolish would you feel if a Republican strategy to run as Democrats was revealed in your region? Yet, you voted for them because in the primary they were deemed to have the best chance?

Very few things in life should be "unquestioned"

[MFM008]

202. 'But her e-mails'

And "establishment".
Got us to where we are today,
the most unethical corrupt
Horror show in American history.
It boils down to this.
Either vote democrat or enjoy the chaos
And fascism that maggot freely offers.

[hlthe2b]

203. Back it up... we are talking primary. Not General. Thus Republicans only enter into discussion

if they are "rat-f...king" the primary

[RandomAccess]

39. It has happened --

specifically in Texas not all that long ago. Rabid Tea Party type posed as a Dem and even created ads claiming to be a Democrat. I don't put it past them to do similar things elsewhere.

[Demsrule86]

54. And they were caught too.

[mahina]

143. Take a look at Hawaii. We have heaps of people in office who run with a D behind their names

And vote against the Democratic Party platform consistently.

Only very rarely can we throw them out of the party.

But I appreciate and respect where you’re coming from.

[Hortensis]

211. Don't support anything unconditionally, but

it's just not a problem with the Democratic Party these days.

Our party will not endorse a genuinely bad/crooked candidate, the kind we wouldn't personally. Amaf, the party's taken a lot of attacks when it has sought to cull candidates with ethical problems, possibly scandals, and/or legal problems by people who foolishly assume their morals must be far better than the party leadership's and don't bother to wonder what and why.

And any candidate the Democratic Party (us!) does endorse these days is far, far, far better than anyone who's hoping to join or stay part of the villainous Republican caucuses.

With the moral collapse of the GOP, WE are the defenders of our republic and the rights of the people. There are no others to turn to.

[Wwcd]

20. Omfg..too

[Eliot Rosewater]

22. And I am trying, I am being nice, I am not screaming at people. I want to though

[hlthe2b]

34. Because some of us are wary of the worst of REPUG strategies and thus remain skeptical? Really?

[Wwcd]

48. Did we learn NOTHING in 2016?

I screamed it for you.

Intentional Division is what allowed Trump to hand the keys to America to a fascist dictator.

Solidarity is the ONLY way to remove the RW from power in our gov't.

Study the history books.
SOLIDARITY is the only way fascism has ever been stopped.
Its pretty simple.

[Old Vet]

138. Got your back Eliot....................

Count me in................

[hlthe2b]

33. for heaven sakes, Wwcd, we all have brains and we surely OUGHT to use them

rather than slam them into a wall.

[Wwcd]

76. For heavens sakes, See post 7.

[hlthe2b]

79. gotcha

[barbtries]

27. i agree

and said as much down thread. republicans cannot be trusted, not even to not be masquerading as democrats.

[George II]

88. No candidate is going to come out of the dark and be in the running for a nomination....

....without us knowing anything about him/her or their positions on many of the issues.

Let's say there are two Democrats facing each other in a primary in a conservative district, one quasi-"conservative" (i.e., not "pure) and the other very liberal.

If we know the "quasi" candidate could win the seat and we know the liberal has zero chance of winning the seat, I want to see that guy that I agree with 50% in that seat than the guy that I agree with 95% of the time giving a concession speech on the night of the election.

[brer cat]

124. I agree.

Well said, George.

[XRubicon]

129. I guess you are right, maybe you need to keep open mind and vote republican sometimes

Don't worry we won't tell.

[hlthe2b]

130. I NEVER have nor would I vote Republican. THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID & you damned well know it

[XRubicon]

131. Oh, sorry. who else other than a democrat would you vote for?

[hlthe2b]

132. If you damned well bothered to read the post I was responding to this was a primary question

and no, I will not thoughtlessly vote for the Dem who may have the better chance in the general IF they are not a REAL Democrat. So, THAT would be advocating voting for a REPUBLICAN. AND, TO DO SO THAT THOUGHTLESSLY AND WITHOUT REAL CONSIDERATION IS BEYOND FOOLISH.

[XRubicon]

134. "Every UNCONDITIONAL supporter of the Democratic Party, step forward!"

First, why did you "step forward"? Clearly you don't support the party.

Second, name one "fake" democrat that is worse than any republican.

[hlthe2b]

137. i HAVE BEEN HERE SINCE THE BEGINNING AND i HAVE NOTHING TO EXPLAIN TO YOU!

YOU CLEARLY WANT TO DISRUPT. FORGET IT

SHAME ON YOU

[XRubicon]

139. I vote for democrats.

No time for tepid support or hand holding the easily distracted.

[hlthe2b]

140. do you?

hmmm. One might wonder why you are opposed to THINKING, EVALUATING, and DISCRIMINATING between primary candidates.

If you are that incapable or unwilling to do so, then you COULD be readily fooled. You really ought to consider that, given how desperate Republicans are to keep their majority.

[hueymahl]

2. At this point in time, yes. But not always

So I guess I'm a no.

If we were comfortably in control, I would feel more free to vote my conscious. In the desperate straits we are currently, I will vote for the Democratic candidate that I think will win.

[Eliot Rosewater]

4. OF COURSE I mean at this point in time

I didnt think I needed to add that, but I will

[mcar]

5. I vote for Democrats. I support Democrats. I am a proud member of the Democratic Party

[NurseJackie]

146. Same here, I'll never support ANY candidate or politician who is not a DEMOCRAT!!

There are simply no two ways about it.

I'll always support the DEMOCRAT.
I'll ONLY support the DEMOCRAT.

[Binkie The Clown]

10. I'm a Dem. I support Dems. I vote for Dems. Unconditionally.

Even if they call Jimi Hendrix "a guitar player" instead of "a player of guitar."

[Eliot Rosewater]

11. Speaking of, did you know Jim Morrison was overeating and drinking

in France before he died so much so that he gained lots of weight, didnt look anything like himself and in fact died of that as well as drugs?

I didnt know that.

Jimi's death wasnt as simple as I was led to believe either.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

40. Yeah, that's only been known since like 1971

[Bucky]

200. I didn't know that. Thanks for posting,

...even if you drifted off topic a little bit

[BannonsLiver]

12. We're at war, so that's where I'm at right now

[Eliot Rosewater]

14. Great way of putting it, thanks

[MFM008]

204. Exactly

....

[NightWatcher]

15. Same I'll nitpick later, after we've won and fixed some shit, but right now it's too important.

[Eliot Rosewater]

16. Common sense then appeals to you, good.

[melman]

55. nitpick

women's rights, the environment and labor issues are nitpicking now? Pretty sad.

[NightWatcher]

57. Where did I say any of that?

I said I'll vote for any Dem vs any Repuke or Ind.

[George II]

145. I don't know how many times I've said this lately - a moderate Democrat in office is MUCH better....

....than a conservative republican.

So let's say there are two Democrats facing each other in a primary in a conservative district, one moderate (i.e., not "pure) and the other very liberal.

If we know the moderate candidate could win the seat and we know the liberal has zero chance of winning the seat, I want to see the guy that I agree with 50% of the time in that election than the guy that I agree with 95% of the time giving a concession speech on the night of the election.

Which of those two Democrats would you prefer to be running in the General election?

Yes, if you feel that supporting a Democrat who agrees with half of what I'd like to see get elected than getting an office holder that agrees with none of what I'd like to see is "nitpicking", then I'll nitpick until I'm blue in the face.

[R B Garr]

148. Since when have Democrats been against women's rights, the environment

and labor issues?? This looks like yet another diversion into the Alternate Universe agenda where Democrats are accused of those lies. Who would do that??

[melman]

161. How about reading the OP

That might help.

[R B Garr]

163. You are the one who should read it.

You should read the OP.

[melman]

164. I did read it

From your posts it is quite evident that you did not.

[R B Garr]

167. You obviously did not understand it if you did read it.

None of your observations fit. You are trying to make it about supposedly unfit Democrats — purity standards.

[melman]

169. Nope

the OP clearly states in plain English that if a 'candidate is anti choice, anti labor, anti environment' they will 'still vote for him'

[R B Garr]

170. This is a contrived umbrage. Bernie has supported candidates

and even praises Trump for appealing to anti-environment labor groups, as well as anti-choice candidates. This is common knowledge. The OP is saying vote for who can win in the region they come from. It is not saying that is part of the Democratic platform.

[melman]

171. 'It is not saying that is part of the Democratic platform.'

I didn't fucking say it did.

[R B Garr]

172. Trying to wrench socialist ideals into certain parts

of the country isn’t going to work. First things first. We need to face reality.

[Wwcd]

66. It is honestly the only way to salvage the future of this country

This first, then work to make America what the repubs have constantly fought to keep from us.

There is nothing without removing the RW problem first.

[Blue_true]

17. Here. There is no other choice. nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

24. Wanna know what is REAL SCARY? Even scarier than GET OUT?

That I have a single person here NOT agreeing with me.

THAT should scare you to DEATH

[Blue_true]

58. There are a few "Vote my principles" types in hiding.

I really wonder what are principles, exactly, when a semi load of shit is being dumped on our heads and we have a stark raving madman leading the country.

To the "vote my principles" types, how about helping us save the damned country? Once we are back on solid ground, we can have a serious and principled discussion about the best way forward.

[Eliot Rosewater]

85. Fortunately this board, as far as I know is ONLY for people who will ONLY and ALWAYS vote

for Democrats.

[sarisataka]

94. It was slightly before your time

But we did have some members of a group advocating "vote issue over party" on their pet issue in the 2016 GE. They promoted two republicans by name over their Democratic opponents. I don't recall the second, but I do remember that they supported Kirk over Sen. Tammy Duckworth.

[Gothmog]

18. I support the democratic party

[Eliot Rosewater]

19. You forgot something

I support the democratic party.



fixed it for ya.

[JCanete]

21. that's scary

[barbtries]

23. we're in perilous times

so i would have to say I am. having said that, i would definitely want to be well informed in races where there's a choice between 2 or more Democrats. I don't put ANYTHING past republicans including switching parties to maintain power.

i never vote for a republican, never. since gw it's so important to me not to vote for a republican that i will sit out non partisan races if i can't get a feel for the candidates' politics. i think that may be an extreme position but it reflects how much i fucking hate republicans and what they have done to this country and to the state (NC) in which i live.

[Eliot Rosewater]

26. This is a situation where cons could be tricky and get a candidate past us, for sure.

Have to take our chances, but since the house is on fire, actual fire, we do have to do what we do have to do.

[melman]

52. They don't really have to be all that tricky

when you've already declared you'll vote for them not matter what. I mean when you've already decided women't rights, labor issues and the environment don't matter, when you've said there is literally no issue that would make you vote against a candidate that has a 'better chance'....then how much do they really have to hide? Where exactly does this trickiness come in?

[Stallion]

25. I'm a 98%-er-I still wouldn't Vote an Incompetent, Unethical or Racist Democrat

...and I've voted for a Republican in limited situations especially with regard to Judges since I'm a litigating attorney--but that's never been necessary at the Federal/State office level which is where the math equation really is important

[IluvPitties]

28. Strong supporter? Yes. Unconditional? No.

Look at Trump voters. I will never be like them.

[Demsrule86]

49. Well such loyalty translates into winning...and then these pugs get to see their agenda move forward

and we don't.

[IluvPitties]

69. Questioning is fundamental for democracy.

Total and unconditional support can enable tyranny.

[Demsrule86]

156. There won't be any democracy if we don't start winning...fundamental or otherwise.

The Republicans are way more likely to impose tyranny than any Democrat. In fact look at the states they are in charge of...so vote Democratic as if your life and our democracy depends on it because it does.

[murielm99]

30. I agree.

At this point in time, yes.

My only deviation, at this point in time, would be if the district is blue to the core, a guaranteed safe seat.

[Eliot Rosewater]

31. OK, but even then anything we SAY that others hear like

" I will do it but I have to hold my nose"

well you see that DETERS people from voting...

So the safe bet is support.

[murielm99]

36. I can't stand the nose holders!

The only reason I qualified this at all was the Lipinski primary. I would have voted for his opponent in the primary had I lived there.

Lipinski is absolutely safe. He has an opponent this time, a genuine Nazi and holocaust denier.

[Eliot Rosewater]

38. Thanks, imagine what happens when you are out to dinner with a group of people, there is

this couple who are not political, rarely vote.

The other couples are talking about how bad one candidate is but the other one isnt much better, they will probably vote but they will not only hold their nose but they go on and on about how bad this candidate is.

What do people think the RESULTS of that dinner is? Two NON votes.


Multiply that by 50 states and about 50,000 dinners or social events per state where this occurs. Dinners, gatherings, grocery store lines, etc.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

32. I do not need another one of your loyalty tests.

From three weeks ago:

Why does unconditional support of the D party bother some?

Number one, I do not recall putting you in charge of telling me what to think, and

Number two, the word you're looking for is not "math," it's "arithmetic."

[Demsrule86]

47. I applaud those who try to rally the troop and elect Democrats. I don't quite understand why this

is offensive to you.

[revmclaren]

67. That is the 1,000.00 question.

only!

[Demsrule86]

155. Vote Democratic always. There is never a time for doing anything else. Only party loyalty from

Democrats (the true base) will stop Republicans...I define 'true base' as those who can be counted on to vote Democratic in every election including midterms and who don't write about 'holding' their noses when voting on social media.

[revmclaren]

159. Agree 100 percent.

Only!

[tonedevil]

122. This is the best response...

to the horse hockey we are being given here. I don't think Hectoring for Votes is a viable strategy.

[RandomAccess]

35. Here's the problem with your question --

and I almost didn't bother clicking through to read your OP because of it.

The phrase "unconditional support" has a strong authoritarian flavor, and I'm allergic to authoritarian, esp. since I'm getting so damned much of it in my diet these days anyway.

But when I read your OP, you're not asking about unconditional SUPPORT, you're asking about unwavering unconditional VOTES. Big fucking difference.

Yes, I can't conceive of EVER voting for a Republican, nor really any Libertarian or Green. So yeah, any Dem is going to have my vote over anything else. That's without knowing a single thing about them.

But unconditional support -- as in no criticism, no pushback, no lobbying and even protest? OH HELL NO. Republicans are the ones who are hive mind people, not me.

[Demsrule86]

44. Others hear the criticism...even if ultimately you vote for the Democrat others may not.

[RandomAccess]

46. I think that's an overwrought concern, personally, esp.

since I'm not out in public criticizing Democrats or anyone else for that matter.

[Demsrule86]

65. I was thinking of social media.

[zipplewrath]

51. That's not even what they said

They stated that if there is a choice between two democrats, and one is perceived to be more electable in the general election than the other, they will vote for the candidate that doesn't hold alot of democratic values instead of the one that does, IN THE PRIMARY.

Sorry, in the primary, I vote for the candidate that most reflects my positions.

It's never wrong to do the right thing.

[Wwcd]

37. All in, Elliot

Stop helping Republicans get elected.


It will take complete Solidarity to remove the RW fascist cancer in our govt & rapidly spreading across our country.

Solidarity is what has defeated & kept this demon in it's box throughout world history.

There's no other way to stop it today, either

Solidarity.

[Demsrule86]

41. Unquestioning and unconditional...we need to win in 18 and 20 or we are toast.

[jalan48]

42. I vote on the issues.

[Eliot Rosewater]

43. uh huh

[Demsrule86]

45. There is no issue that a Republican is better on than a Democrat...and since Greens are just

spoilers...I vote for the party period. You need a majority to turn issues into legislation.

[jalan48]

50. The primaries are the time we get to tell our Party what direction we think it should be going.

[Demsrule86]

64. I am pretty sure you know my position on primarying a sitting Democrat when the house is on fire.

It is a waste of time and money...I make an exception for Lipinski.

[jalan48]

71. Each of us has our own method of voting. That's why we still have a free country.

[Demsrule86]

123. That is right.

[XRubicon]

128. So you vote for republicans sometimes?

[jalan48]

142. Did I say that?

[melman]

53. You really ought to remove Planned Parenthood from your sig

Don't you think? I mean, if you are going to advocate voting for ant-choice candidates and all.

[Demsrule86]

61. You know what ...when I first moved to Ohio... I was very unhappy to find out that Tim Ryan

was pro-life. He was my only choice so obviously I voted for Ryan and not a Republican because despite his personal views with Democrats in charge, there will be no attempt to take down planned parenthood or end a woman's right to choose but with the GOP in charge there would be. I voted for the party. Ryan has since changed his stance.

I had a life threatening miscarriage which rendered me infertile some years ago and almost killed me...my doctor was pro-life and was at fault so I feel strongly about choice. Electing Republicans endangers a woman's right to choose . We have several pro-life in the Democratic Party right now. I don't agree with them, but I would vote for them as I did for Tim Ryan. And I think you are being unfair to Elliot because one thing is for sure, if the GOP wins in 18 and 20...we lose planned parenthood and Roe V Wade as the courts shift right for a generation. Perhaps it is time we all think of the big picture while we still can.

[melman]

63. No I am not being unfair

Read the OP.

[theaocp]

125. Agreed. n/t

[njhoneybadger]

56. Count me in

[revmclaren]

59. Absolutely!

As do my family and friends. Anyone in my life who has said no or voted against democrats in 2016 are no longer in my life. Can't trust them, don't need them.

ONLY!

[HopeAgain]

60. The only thing I do unconditionally

is love my family. Sorry, I don't really go for patriotism either.

[MFM008]

205. Family doesnt get a pass

My sisters boyfriend is a t-humper.
Hes out.
I dont even want a discussion about supporting this monster.
There is NO issue the gop is better than us on.
From day one of my life--
I grew up watching my dad leave the house
For 23 years wearing a USAF uniform (till 1973),
I believe in that kind of patriotism.
The saving America from republican
Fascist bullshit kind.

[FM123]

62. First, we vote Democrats into office, then better Democrats into office...

[melman]

72. 'better Democrats'

Right. When we have the 'luxury of criticism'.

Because obviously when that happens we won't have people like the OP haranguing us about how voting for an anti-choice, anti-labor, anti-environment candidate was what it took to get that seat, and we can't afford to lose it so better to not rock the boat..etc etc etc.

[ollie10]

68. To borrow a few words from Pete Seeger....

Solidarity Forever!

[Wwcd]

75. Remind ourselves that we are not the first to fight back in solidarity for human rights.

We can do it again.

[sarisataka]

70. So no litmus test

Abortion?
Economy?
Environment?
Guns?
Labor?
Women's rights?

None at all, just need a (D)?

[disillusioned73]

81. I was thinking the same thing...

Some might say, this is how we got here...

[CaliforniaPeggy]

73. Count me in! I always vote for the Democrat.

Where I live in California, it's normally easy to figure out which candidates deserve my support.........and which ones don't.

[John Fante]

74. My support for the Democrats was pretty strong even

before this orange-colored plague entered our lives, but now if is unconditional, and will continue to be so until Trumpism is destroyed.

[redstatebluegirl]

77. I AM!

Any Democrat is worth more thsn ANY Republicon.

[bronxiteforever]

78. We have a 2 party system. One party is trying to kill

My Country and all of its institutions. The other party is the Democratic Party. The chance to save the Country from evil rests only with the democratic party. I can’t forsee any circumstances where I would support a repug over a Democratic candidate in the present or in the foreseeable future.

[Eliot Rosewater]

86. And not voting or voting 3rd means you ARE voting for the NAZIS

[bronxiteforever]

116. Yes-agree totally, apathy kills too.

[Eliot Rosewater]

117. The house is 217 dems 217 gop

The democratic candidate is a far right blue dog, the GOP candidate is, well, GOP.

Who to vote for in this situation should not be complicated


(not telling you this, I am just on a roll)

[bronxiteforever]

118. Its all good.

[tymorial]

80. I support Democrats in general but there is no such thing as unconditional support.

Trump called himself a Democrat once upon a time. Now I believe he was lying at the time and the gross majority of Democrats are nothing like him. In general I believe Democrats are "who they say they are." Perhaps I am just skeptical by nature but I attempt to find out who I am voting for. I always intend to vote right down the party line and with some exceptions, I have done just that... but still I tend to trust but verify,

doveryai; no proveryai

[George II]

82. I can't remember a single republican or independent over the last 40 years

that I would have preferred over a Democrat.

[we can do it]

83. Sign me up.

[kimbutgar]

84. I will NEVER vote for a republican ever!

My husband and son feel the same way. 3 no votes for rethugs in our family.

[yallerdawg]

87. Un-effing-conditional!

2016 showed us what "a competitive primary" delivers.

Stop telling us what is wrong with the Democrat!

[Generic Brad]

89. Count me in

I will never be a Sarandon-ista.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

90. With key caveat included in your OP, at this time, YES, and for near future too. . . . nt

[Eliot Rosewater]

92. This too?

UNCONDITIONAL support, I mean to say that if there are two candidates running for a house seat in the D party and one of them is KNOWN to have a better shot at winning in November than the other but said candidate is anti choice, anti labor, anti environment, well guess what, because I understand MATH, I still vote for him.

good for you

[Bernardo de La Paz]

101. Within reason. If all 3 antis, then they are same as Republicon. With 2, yeah go for it.

I understand your point about a D vote is not an R vote, but if the candidate is all three antis, then they would probably vote with Trump and the Republicons and against impeachment.

And I think your drift is that voting against Trump and for impeachment is the key.

[Eliot Rosewater]

114. Any person with a D after their name giving you seat # 218, even if they are SATAN

is preferable to anyone else because?

If you know the answer to that then you understand my point.

I wonder if people realize the party with 218 decides everything about everything and the party with 217 decides nothing, ever, not once, never ever?

[Ms. Toad]

158. Since SATAN is likely to vote with the Republicans,

Your arithmetic isn't destiny. The party with 218 only controls everything IF all 218 vote together.

I will not vote for SATAN in the primary, even if SATAN has a better chance of winning the general election because, if elected, SATAN will not give us 218 votes. D or no D behind his name.

[LanternWaste]

91. Absolutism denies rational thought.

Absolutism denies rational thought; but there is small comfort in realizing not all irrational votes will be cast for the GOP.




"But we don't have the luxury of rational thought!!!!"

[NCDawg]

93. Hand raised!!!

[erinlough]

95. Always and forever.

And my commitment has become even stronger starting in the W administration.

[JackInGreen]

96. The only thing I don't question is the power of love, baby

[Eliot Rosewater]

100. Dont mention "love" and then NOT commit to removing the nazis, please dont do that

[FromMissouri]

97. Sorry.

IF there is an alternative, I am not going to vote for anti-environment anti-union, no matter the party. Really sorry, but I do not vote for Republicans who are running in Democratic races. I just don't. If we are to stand for anything, we must stand for something.

[peggysue2]

98. We have the choice to fight like barn cats during . . .

the primaries. For instance, the contest between Cordray or Kucinich. My money would be on Cordray if I were a Dem from Ohio. Cordray has a much better chance of taking the Governor's seat though he's been branded with the red hot ESTABLISHMENT signature. Consequently, he has the support and the funds from traditional Democrats.

Kucinich on the other hand--presumably a progressive firebrand--has positively gone off the rails, actually complimenting Trump on his ridiculous Inauguration speech and claiming the Trumpster is trying to unite the country. Say what????? Republicans can barely contain their enthusiasm for a Kucinich primary win.

This contest doesn't actually fit your scenario, Eliot. But I think it illustrates the choice mechanism--we choose the strongest candidate, the one more likely to win. However, even if the strongest candidate does not win the primary, we run with the person who bears a 'D' on their forehead.

Because Math, because the number of rear ends we seat is equivalent to the voice volume we shall have following the November elections.

At this moment in time, it truly is all about the numbers.

[Eliot Rosewater]

103. The party with 218 seats decides EVERYTHING THIS NATION DOES

, THE PARTYwith 217 decides NOTHING

yes, you are right

[TommyCelt]

99. Yeah...

Pretty much a "yellow dog" now.

[GaryCnf]

102. The faulty premise underlying

this unequivocal declaration of Democratic Party loyalty is that this statement reflects dogma, NOT LOYALTY.

and one of them is KNOWN to have a better shot at winning in November

So long as it is "known" that milquetoast centrist have a better chance of winning (despite that dogma leading to our demise ever since it was introduced in 1992), all you are saying is "I will vote for even a anti-choice CENTRIST"

Loyalty to a failed political theory is destroying our party.

Remove the b.s. premise that elections are won in the middle and the fiercest leftist is NO DIFFERENT THAN the fiercest "Forward-ist."

None of us want Republicans to win and a lot of us are tired of the incessant accusations that some of us do.

[Trumpocalypse]

150. To quote Bill Maher

Learn the difference between an imperfect friend and a mortal enemy.

[KPN]

207. +1111!

[treestar]

104. In the next couple of elections, it is essential

and may as well hold off the criticism due to its discouragement value. We can do that later, after we have saved the country from the right.

[Eliot Rosewater]

105. Some well meaning people underestimate the power of criticism when heard

by people who are leaning toward not voting.

Would I be critical of the party in normal times?

Oh god, most people here would consider me a revolutionary Socialist.

[treestar]

119. Yes, I'm for all kinds of things but

there is no point in insisting on them when there are enough Republicans to win - we have to make common cause with somebody and if it is the "corporatist" Democrats, then fine. Someday there may be a chance for single payer, but for now, we obviously have to defend the ACA from repeal (even though it's a Heritage Foundation idea, yadda yadda). So holding out on Democrats for not being far left enough will only get undoing of what progress was made.

[KPN]

208. 180: some well meaning people here underestimate

the power of criticism when heard by people who are leaning toward not voting.

You see it negatively (taking away votes), others see it positively (bringing in more votes).

[Kurt V.]

106. you lost me at unconditional.

then i read the rest. I'm with you until this fire is out.

[catbyte]

107. That's me, but to be fair, I've only voted for one Republican in my life & I've been voting

since 1976. He was my Representative first in MI-5 and then in MI-3 after redistricting. Justin Amash is currently infesting that seat. His name was Paul B. Henry and he died of a malignant brain tumor in 1993. He was one of the last of the principled, Eisenhower Republicans, but it's how he personally responded to his constituents that made me vote for him. He was a very decent man.

[asiliveandbreathe]

108. And then we have Gov. Justice WV - Aug, 2017 -

West Virginia governor, a Democrat, to switch to Republican Justice told about 9,000 Trump supporters at a rally in Huntington that he will be changing his registration Friday.

I'm sure there are more, just the most recent....

[Eliot Rosewater]

111. So what, unless you know for a FACT they are going to do this, you have to vote for them

Finding the one excuse that RARELY happens to not vote Dem should not be what I am seeing here...sigh

[asiliveandbreathe]

115. I'm not saying to NOT vote Dem..of course you never know what evil

lurks in the minds of men (figuratively of course) - I am born and raised in Massachusetts..never had to think about politicians switching party after winning an election...Mass. 2nd most liberal state (commonwealth) behind Wash DC..

In todays environment, with the war on everyone, for every reason an evil man can think of, I understand, as most Dems do, that we CANNOT afford even one less vote...

Always vigilant -

[denbot]

109. Way ahead of you buddy

Always the D.

[NastyRiffraff]

110. Yes! This is an emergency

Look at what happened in the LAST emergency (Nov 2016), when some people diddled,whined, pouted, voted 3rd party, didn't vote at all, even voted for the devil, because the most qualified person to run for president wasn't pure enough for them. I still hold them in contempt and always will.

It doesn't HAVE to be that way this time. If even a small percentage of those people realize what they've done and vote for the DEMOCRAT, we'll win big. In addition, there must be some non-stupid Trump voters who are awakening from their stupor and realizing that they've been had. We need to convince them, too, to vote Democratic, for their own good.

Those of us who are DEMOCRATS need to put aside demands for perfection that never comes and always, ALWAYS, vote for the Democratic candidate. In primaries, vote for the candidate who can actually win, whether it's a left of center, progressive, or anything else along the liberal scale. Because your demands don't matter now. We have a country to save.

[Oneironaut]

112. Never. Someone needs to prove theyre a Liberal. Actions matter, not party.

If a Republican pledged to promote and continued to promote Liberal ideals and causes and a Democrat didn’t, I would support the Republican.

I draw the line at being pro-Trump, anti-abortion, anti-LGBT, or misogynistic. Sorry, but I will never support anyone who is any of those things, regardless of their party affiliation. I think that’s a pretty reasonable standard. If winning means welcoming arch-Conservatives into our party, then I don’t want to win.

To me, you can call yourself a Democrat, but you need to act like one too!

[Trumpocalypse]

151. Well I hope you feel good

sitting on the high horse of your principles while the GOP destroys the country.

[Oneironaut]

160. If winning means electing people who are no different than the GOP, then whats the point?

Do you really think it would better to elect a Governor who, for example, is against Roe vs. Wade? The people in that state still need to deal with them. If they’re going to vote with Republicans anyways, what’s the point of voting for them?

Also, at a time where minority groups are constantly under attack, someone who wants bathroom bills, draconian ICE raids, or Muslim bans is not a Democrat. I’d rather eat my vote than waste it on a fake Democrat who pledges to attack our party’s principles.

I’ll concede that I’m willing to overlook a lot. However, some things are beyond what I would call acceptable. I wouldn’t call Lieberman a real Democrat (when he was one), for example. Voting for someone like him is no different than voting for a Republican.

[Trumpocalypse]

173. Yes it is

Voting for a Dem is helping the Dems control the agenda in Congress. That's a big difference. On the state and local level it is determining who will draw the district lines after the next census. There is a much bigger picture here than a bunch of ideological litmus tests. And to quote Bill Maher, "Learn the difference between an imperfect friend and a deadly enemy".

[Doremus]

113. History is replete with regimes that demanded ultimate loyalty. Anyone with the ability to think

independent thoughts and use common sense would reject unconditional loyalty requirements.

[elocs]

120. In my 46 years of voting I have always voted for the Democratic candidate.

An imperfect Democrat is still better than any Republican and I've never bought the Big Lie that there is no difference between the 2 parties because for me there has ALWAYS been enough of a difference to support the Democrat. If I don't support the Democratic candidate then I am helping the Republican candidate because the winner in virtually every race is going to be one or the other. If more voters on the Left grasped this concept, Trump would never have been elected in the first place.

[truthisfreedom]

121. 100%

Fight fire with fire.

[Hoyt]

126. Can't imagine not voting for a Democratic general election candidate UNLESS

they were a Dixiecrat or something similar. Doubt they'd make it through primary in that case.

[melman]

136. Well according to the OP

If that hypothetical Dixiecrat had a better chance of winning then you must vote for them in that primary.

[Hoyt]

141. I get it, but luckily havent had that decision in decades. Id probably write in another

Democrat’s name.

[R B Garr]

149. The OP is saying not to throw your vote away. You keep trying to overthink it so

it excuses the deliberate acts of certain groups who actively work against Democrats who aren't socialists. Socialism will be shunned in many parts of this country -- those are the facts. All or nothing usually means nothing -- basic concepts here.

Great OP!

[melman]

162. No

I am not overthinking. I read it and responded to what it actually says.

[R B Garr]

165. Yes you are overthinking it, and that is a kind

description.

It is saying that far-fetched idealism is no substitute for the actual process and system we have to work within. Reality. Many parts of the country are averse to socialism, and that is the reality of our system. Don’t help Republicans.

[melman]

166. No

I read it and understood what it actually says. This appears to be where we differ.

[R B Garr]

168. It looks like you are overthinking why you should

be upset about it. Purity standards are your concern, but the OP is talking about the reality of the process — not idealism.

[Lordquinton]

127. Woah

Settle down there McCarthy

[VOX]

133. Yellow-Dog Democrat all the way. Except for phonys, like psycho-Sheriff David Clarke.

Other than such a crazy exception, I vote the straight Democratic ticket every time.

[tritsofme]

135. Only a Sith deals in absolutes

While I certainly don't anticipate voting any other way, no man or party has my unconditional support.

[gopiscrap]

144. I am with you

[MoonRiver]

147. That would be me!

[appleannie1943]

152. There have been a few times in my life when I have voted for a Republican candidate after

researching both, but that was ages ago. Now the only choice of hoping to have an honorable person holding an office is to vote straight Dem.

[lark]

153. Is it blue dog or yellow dog?

Either way, if the D is in front of their name and they aren't Nazis pretending to be Democratic - as happened recently - I will ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS vote for the D. I'm mid 60s and have voted in every election since I was eligible and have never knowingly voted for a repug. Judges make me nervous because you often don't know if they are rw'ers or not. Guess I will have to start researching them more thoroughly to ensure no trumper gets my vote.

[workinclasszero]

154. I'm voting for the democratic candidate in any election

We can fight about our favorites beforehand but I close ranks at election time.

[Orsino]

157. They haven't made the Dem so corrupt that I would choose a Republican instead.

I would love for the GOP to start producing decent politicians and people again, but for the foreseeable future I guess I'm unconditionally Dem.

But this is a terrible state of affairs. Any party able to say "where else you gonna go?" to voters is going to wind up treating the people with contempt. We can see it happening on our side, but so far I can still honestly pick any Democrat over anyone the GOP is going to run.

We need to build better Republicans, so our Democrats will have something better to have to be better than.

[sammythecat]

174. This is just really stupid

Unconditional love? Sure. Unconditional support, of course not! Never have and never will. It's just a stupid thought. It's been stupid and despicable since long, long before "My country, right or wrong".

[LostOne4Ever]

175. Sorry, I am not a mindless zombie. Not for anyone.

That is the way of fascists and The Republican Party.

[Trumpocalypse]

178. So in other words

you'd rather let the fascists and GOP keep winning elections and actually doing something to stop them.

[LostOne4Ever]

183. In other words, I am not going to let them take over the Democratic Party as well

Only fascist, totalitarians, and the GOP demand or give such thoughtless obedience

[Trumpocalypse]

184. To quote Bill Maher

"Learn the difference between an imperfect friend than a deadly enemy".

[LostOne4Ever]

185. Friends, imperfect or not, dont demand unconditional support

Only wannabe fascists and dictators like Trump do that.

As for your quote, This is NOT about not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. This is about the dangers of BLIND LOYALTY!!!

What the OP is saying is the antithesis of all forms of liberalism. He is saying that if the DEMOCRATIC PARTY BECAME WORSE THAN THE REPUBLICAN PARTY (and history shows that the parties can and have changed sides) they would still support them.

That is what UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORTER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY MEANS!

I will never do that. I will always stand with civil rights and social freedom. If the Dems became the party they were prior to the civil war again, I would fight them as a Whig.

I only give unconditional support to my ideals and have nothing but contempt for those who would throw away human rights for a political party, right or wrong!

[Trumpocalypse]

187. So how is the view up there

on your high horse. The rest of us down in the real world with fight to make it a better place. Don't worry about us. You can stay up there and feel superior.

[LostOne4Ever]

192. In other words you got nothing

Sending out your bat signal to let all the others know you will accept whatever they say Like a good little lemming

[Trumpocalypse]

194. No in other words

The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.

[LostOne4Ever]

195. Which is why it is important not to be zombies who give unconditional support to any party. Nt

[Trumpocalypse]

196. Its more important to support those fighting evil

Than self righteously sitting on the sidelines feeling superior.

[LostOne4Ever]

197. They are equally important and One can do both

But keep on making bad assumptions based on ignorance and what you want to believe about what people think. Very Trump like!

So much easier than actually trying understand others and make informed opinions based on facts!

[Trumpocalypse]

198. A bad assumption is

Assuming that the Democrats are the same as Trump’s GOP and that we don’t need to be unified to fight them. A bad assumption is that the same tried old litmus tests can be applied as the price of support to those fighting evil. That is true ignorance.

[LostOne4Ever]

209. I never said any of that!

You have to put words into my mouth I have not said because you CANNOT address my actual arguments. I never said that today’s democrats are just as bad as the REPUBLICANS and that we don’t need to unite to fight them. STRAW MAN! I said not a single word about litmus tests!

What I said, and stand behind, is that blind loyalty and unconditional support are wrong. That is a way to end up supporting someone who could easily turn the party into something worse than the GOP.

It has happened before.

While the Dems are definitely the better Party now, that is a change that is barely 60 years old.Democrats HAVE BEEN as bad as TRUMP’s GOP in the past. Just look at the party prior to Wilson. They were worse than Trump! Slavery, Jim Crowe, Religious fundamentalism, etc. Conversely, the GOP used to be the party of Lincoln!

Then Wilson got elected, followed by Roosevelt and Kennedy. In less than 30 years later the parties had done a 180.

Asking for or giving unconditional support is pure fascism. The type of unthinking idiocy that Trump voters commit. It is saying that if it turned out that our candidate committed rape or something like that, that one would act like a Roy Moore/Trump voter and still vote the party line. That is what unconditional support means.

To rephrase what you told me just a few posts ago: Get off YOUR high horse! If you would quit acting like a demagogue and thought about what your arguing you would see how irrational it is.

But I suspect that you really don’t care the implications of what you are arguing. You just want to prove to all your friends that you are on their side and will toe their ideological “litmus test” no matter how horrible what they are saying might be.

That is why you keep on accusing me of positions I never said.

[Trumpocalypse]

210. I never said that you did.

I was making a statement and never made an accusation. I'm not the one making accusations here. As far as everything else, sounds like projection.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

[LostOne4Ever]

212. You never made an accusation? Let me refresh your memory:

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10454165

So in other words
you'd rather let the fascists and GOP keep winning elections and actually doing something to stop them.

Projection? You can’t project a position you are against

[Trumpocalypse]

215. Thats not the same post

You accused me of making an accusation in this post: https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=10464638 Which I didn’t. But nice try a deflection.

Now back to the main issue. There is only one political party that can effectively fight the evil of Trump’s GOP, the Democratic Party. And as imperfect as Democrats can be at times, we either support their fight against evil or we don’t. But if we decide to make the perfect the enemy of the good and do nothing, then we are in directly supporting the evil.

[ehrnst]

176. I can support the party unconditionally, while having disagreements with others in the party

on strategy.

The Democratic party draws strength from an alliance of diverse groups.

Just like I can support my family unconditionally while disagreeing with some things some members do.

[Eliot Rosewater]

177. I do these threads every so often to see how many non party supporters there are

not as many lately , which is good.

I get a kick out of the ones who lecture me on why we need to criticize the party. I assume most lecturing me think they are very far to the left and that is why.



Oh god, if they only knew.

[ehrnst]

179. Perfectionism and obsessive compulsive reactions to any dissent

from a manifesto get in the way of human interactions, upon which progress depends.

[G_j]

214. Really?

Keeping track? Combined with the arguably authoritarian tinge of the OP, that just sounds kind of creepy.

[TeamPooka]

180. This question is really: Do you have faith in the voters of the Democratic Party to not screw up

like the GOP did in 2016 by nominating a candidate who stands against everything they thought they stood for?
I do.

[Eliot Rosewater]

182. Me too

[TheSmarterDog]

181. Here

[McCamy Taylor]

186. It's called yellow dog.

Bark.

[Sancho]

188. I will vote for the Democratic candidate...

[bluestarone]

189. count me in!!

Democrat all the way FOREVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Eliot Rosewater]

191. My office building is on fire and this friend of mine, Jasper, wants to decide

BEFORE we leave the building and put out the fire, what color to paint the walls when we repaint.

[lanlady]

190. Been voting straight Dem my entire voting-age life

And always will.

[Awsi Dooger]

193. I have never voted for a Republican and never will

I painstakingly research the non-partisan races to make sure I don't do it accidentally. When it is two dueling Republicans I skip the race.

I have to say I don't know very much about Bernie Sanders due to the simple fact he is not a Democrat. I watched only small snippets of those primary debates for that reason. I was locked in on Hillary and will never regret it.

[Bucky]

199. I'm a questioning, critical, pragmatic, proud & loyal Democrat

I put my faith in people, not corporations, not money, not ideology. We're liberals because we want to do what works best for as many people as possible. That's not an ideology, that's a core belief

[CatMor]

201. I always have been and always will be.....

I have never voted any other way but Democrat.

[KPN]

206. I think your definition of unconditional oversimplifies the dynamics

of voting/voters today. Many voters are looking for "authenticity", genuine people, straight-forward talk as opposed to just shared positions on issues these days. Seems to me that has to be factored into which candidate might stand the best chance as well (which seems to be the standard in your "unconditional" construct). My two cents anyway.

As for answering your question, it won't be an issue for me as there aren't any challengers to the two Democrats who will be on the federal ballot in my State/District in 2018.

But my answer otherwise would be more along the lines, I'm okay with incumbents being primaried. If I lived in a red State, which I don't, I'm sure electability would be a strong criteria for me, but I might also define "electability" a bit differently than you depending on circumstances (the voters) in that particular State/District.

[annabanana]

213. This cycle? Me. 100% dead dog dem. . . . .n/t