I remember the days of DU when

[xmas74]

saying you wouldn't vote for a Dem candidate in the general election was considered grounds for a tombstone. Whatever happened to those days?

Guess what? I'll be voting for the Dem candidate. Any of them would be far and away better than the other side. Don't like it? Go ahead and block me right now because you won't change my mind.

[HassleCat]

1. I will do the same

But it looks like I will not be voting for a Democrat who inspires me, just a Democrat who claims the same political party I claim.

[xmas74]

3. The top two both have good and bad.

No politician is perfect. Both have their positives and negatives. I can work with either one. It's a whole lot better than what's waiting for us on the other side.

[840high]

2. We don't have a nominee yet -

[xmas74]

5. Which is why I'm tired of seeing this crap about how

they won't vote for the party candidate unless it's (insert candidate here).

You can like your candidate, you can discuss and campaign for them. I'm just tired of entire threads about how posters refuse to vote for anyone but their candidate and don't care about the GE.

Maybe it's time to bring back the tombstones. After all, the primaries haven't even started.

[silvershadow]

17. It is the primary. Those people may well not vote. It's not a threat. It is a very real

consideration for all to mull over. What if your candidate wins the primary, but turns of a significant portion of the Democratic voters? There is nothing to require me (and this is all hypothetical, not me personally) to even CAST a vote, period. I don't know exactly how it reads, it's been awhile since I've looked, but I am for now thinking it would be for the general, as bad-mouthing the party or whatever. ? Not even sure if I'm right, but this is how I feel it should be interpreted.

[Hortensis]

47. We not only have far left radicals at DU, we also have conservatives.

The far left often don't see themselves that way -- thus their fondness for claiming Democrats "have become" conservative; some really do believe that.

Apparently our DU conservatives, both affiliated with the Democratic Party and not, don't care to identify themselves here -- if they know themselves. Political definitions are so distorted for expediency that lots of people don't actually know where they would fall on an ideological spectrum, much less that it can be on both sides at once.

In any case, I think we shouldn't worry about those who will choose peeling off to the right or staying home come voting day. They are relatively few, and pleasing them (assuming we even could) would mean losing far more votes than gained.

The large numbers of nonvoters who actually share the Democratic Party's ideology are in the huge, more moderate through centrist range. Those are the people the Democratic Party needs to woo the support of.

[liberal_at_heart]

57. The majority of people in this country don't vote and they don't vote because they feel

neither party represents them. They feel both parties represent the rich, and they are right. So the Democratic party can pretend that not voting doesn't matter but it does. Because so many people don't vote the margin of victory by either party is often very small. The Democratic Party could get a lot more votes if they would represent the American worker again instead of representing the rich.

[Hortensis]

74. The facile cynical indifference you describe is usually just a mask for

disinterest, laziness and irresponsibility.

Ignorance causes people to be easily frustrated and disaffected and thus easy marks for those who want to discourage voting. The typical "American worker" you describe has no idea if anyone represents him or not because he's ignorant -- a self-made rube, a sucker for manipulation. There are many fine people, in fact, who are fighting for the various working classes, but very few of the people you describe bother to learn that. Or they'd have a lot more respect for people who deserve it -- and a lot of the victories they say they want but refuse to work for themselves.

The more one knows about our democratic systems and our history, the more one tends to respect both and to understand the enormous difficulties that stand between aspiration and reality. It's not just most people "out there" who haven't reached that understanding, but many here. I want! I want now! Don't bother me, just give me mine! Always someone else's fault when their hands remain empty.

The simple fact is that the education that leads to understanding and good citizenship requires investment of time and effort at best, but many people have very little, if any, thirst for knowledge, and for them education is a very irritating and tiresome task. They are just not interested.

Also, only half the people in this country read well enough to handle dense text without tough sledding, such as in a newspaper or on-line journal. For many millions complex ideas must be available in simple sentence form if they are to be understood at all -- but those are wasted anyway on people who avoid reading as much as possible.

Then you have the people who can be fooled most of the time and those who can be fooled all the time. In both cases, we now know it's usually because they insist on it. They want their preconceptions verified, thank you, and anything that contradicts is rejected. The biggest weakness to manipulation of all.

The fact is, for over 30 years the right has used sophisticated advertising techniques to encourage everyone it can reach to be the worst citizen versions of themselves possible. And it's worked. Here we are.

The fewer who vote, the better the right does.

When incomes drop, individual wellbeing drops and people turn more conservative.

When individual wellbeing goes down, so do voting rates.

The more discouraged people are, the less likely they are to pay attention at all, much less vote.

The longer a popular change is delayed, the more people are discouraged -- because ignorance encourages them to believe change will happen quickly if it's going to happen at all and to give up when cynically engineered delays "confirm" that inexcusably foolish misconception.

You get the idea? That is what is happening. The GOP fought a robust recovery from the Great Recession because anxiety works so well for them.

So, when you describe people who don't bother to vote, At Heart, I think you can see that IMO, although some may be fine people in some respects, as citizens they really stink and really should be ashamed of themselves. No excuses for them. Their negligence earns them the results of their many failures of duty, even if their children and the rest of us do not deserve what they do to us all and to what could be a great, prosperous, happy nation -- but is not.

[Gormy Cuss]

71. This place used to be reserved for center-left Democrats -- not conservative Dems,

libertarians, right-of-center independents, etc.

That's what xmas74 remembers, as do I.

[Hortensis]

75. I wasn't here then, but it would have been more like what

I came here for. I am so tired of the kind of aggressive, tolerant, impossibly ignorant attacks that substitute for discourse in some conservatives, and apparently some wingers.

[xmas74]

90. Yes it is.

I remember that the purpose was also to elect Dems and saying you won't could lead to a nice pizza.

[hifiguy]

91. I remember that, too.

My how times, and DU, have changed.

But I knew something was up back in '09. Suddenly, Chimp/Darth policies that made everyone hit the ceiling became duckies and bunnies and unicorns on 1/20/09. Same policies, only the reaction changed. It's all OK NOW! Yay, TEAM!

[xmas74]

106. I remember that too.

I can support the party but not cheerlead for them 24-7, which is what happened to DU for a bit back in 2009. I like our president, I think he's done well with what he has and can actually do but I'm not his biggest fan. Some of his policies I find myself disagreeing with. I don't discuss them much anymore on here mainly because IRL I've had to become captain of the cheer squad when it comes to him. The amount of hatred in my neck of the woods is disturbing and I find myself constantly on the defense.

[Efilroft Sul]

122. DU changed on 1/20/2009 because of one huge reason.

The Cult of Personality types are more concerned about power, or being able to say Their Guy — inasmuch as he gives two shits about them — now has the power that the Other Guy used and abused for the previous eight years. To wit, it's not about policies being right or wrong; rather, it's about Cult of Personality types identifying with or perhaps even being on a Plutonian orbit around a such political power. Maybe some cultists even fantasize about being rewarded by the power of Their Guy in the same way that poor Republicans believe they are just temporarily embarrassed millionaires on the edge of financial glory due to their party affiliation.

Had Edward Snowden blown the domestic spying whistle during the Bush administration, DU's Cult of Personality types would have given him daily tongue baths and reach-arounds for his patriotism and public service. But since the kerfuffle happened on a Democratic president's watch, that called into question the power and authority of Their Guy. That's a no-no in their book. And by Obama's Chocolate Salty Balls, swear the cultists, Snowden…will…pay.

Oh, well. Whatever. Never mind.

[Recursion]

4. Eh, people always say this during the primaries

Then once there's a nominee there are a few holdouts and a few tombstones pour encourager les autres, and we go back to our regularly scheduled circular firing squad.

[xmas74]

6. I know, I've been around through a few of these here on DU.

I'm just tired of it nonstop. Let's have a damn primary, already!

[kacekwl]

7. It's your vote ,

do what you want with it. That's the point right ?

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. No its not...

This sotes TOS is about electing MORE Democrats...

[liberal_at_heart]

8. You have the freedom to vote for whomever you want. If you want to vote for the

nominee no matter who it is then do it. All we are asking for is the same freedom to vote the way we want. We all understand the terms of this website and after the primary we will either not speak of whom we will be voting for or we will stop coming to this site until after election is over. But there is this to consider: that voting your conscience is more precious than being able to say whom you're voting for on a message board. Not being able to talk about whom we will vote for on a message board will not prevent us from voting the way we want when we fill out our ballots. I promise this website will not be on my mind while I am filling out my ballot, not for one second.

[840high]

14. Good post.

[SoapBox]

15. Bravo.

[cantbeserious]

16. Yes

eom

[Orrex]

46. Lovely and passionate, but irrelevant

No one is challenging your right to vote the way you want; that claim is a red herring.

Instead, the question is asked "what happened to the days when the declared intent not to vote for the Democratic nominee was not permitted on DU?"

I've seen quite a few of Sanders' supporters declare outright that they won't vote for Clinton even if she's the nominee. In other words, they're opting for the Republican candidate out of a bizarre and ill-placed sense of moral outrage. They're unambiguous in their dislike of her, deriding her openly and scooping up lots of rec's from others in the anti-Clinton camp and hovering on the front page. That's fine, if that's how they want to play it, but in the past DU was not the forum for such declarations.

In stark contrast, I note, not one of Clinton's supporters has made any stubborn vow not to vote for Sanders, perhaps because they realize that more is at stake in Nov 2016 than one's favored candidate.

Vote however you like, but don't expect to use DU to broadcast your position if your candidate isn't the Democrat on the ballot.

[Hortensis]

49. I wasn't here then, Orrex, and wouldn't want those days back,

where one couldn't be honest about refusing to vote for the nominee. DU still had tunnel-vision ideologues and conservatives back then, anyway, I'm guessing?

What I do think should be controlled is the large amount of right-wing propaganda and lies imported here to smear the Democratic Party in general and its people in particular. The shear volume smothers and derails honest discussion, and it's not DU's mission that it furthers.

[Orrex]

59. This forum was never intended as a venue for bashing the Democratic candidate

DU still had tunnel-vision ideologues and conservatives back then, anyway, I'm guessing?

In the early days, we were generally united in our disgust with the Bush regime. More recently, there has been in-fighting between different camps regarding their preferred Primary candidates. DU has always allowed this discussion but has not always tolerated outright attacks on one Dem candidate or another, as we now see daily on DU's front page and in GD-P.

This is stated plainly in the TOS, in fact. Once a prospective candidate (be it Sanders or Clinton) fails to secure the nomination, then it will no longer be permissible to campaign for that prospecitive candidate on DU.

Absolutely no one is restricting anyone's free speech in this regard. DU simply isn't a forum for defeating the Democratic candidate.

[liberal_at_heart]

51. Your opinion is just an opinion and like mine is also irrelevant.

If DU wants to tombstone me for not voting for the nominee that's fine. The fact remains that my sacred right to vote is more precious to me than a message board on the internet and I really don't care if you think my not voting for the nominee is a vote for a Republican. My opinion is that voting for a corporate Democrat is equal to voting Republican, but just like your opinion of my vote is irrelevant, my opinion of your vote is irrelevant. The beauty of democracy is that we all get to vote for who ever the hell we want to.

[Orrex]

56. Now you're just grandstanding.

Vote for whoever the hell you want--no one is telling you otherwise.

But if your intent it to bash the Democratic nominee and to campaign for someone other than the Democratic nominee, then don't expect Democratic Underground to support you in that effort.

The beauty of democracy is that we all get to vote for who ever the hell we want to.

Well no shit. Who here has asserted otherwise?

[liberal_at_heart]

58. Like I said your opinion is no more important than mine and vice versa.

I'm not grandstanding. I'm just saying I will not be bullied into voting for someone I don't want to vote for. If some on DU want to claim I am voting for the Republicans by not voting for the Democratic nominee then so be it. It's not like anybody's opinion on a message board matters to people's real lives. Anyway I have found that this site is a much more pleasant place to be when I just put people who tell me how to vote on ignore so good bye.

[Orrex]

63. But that's another red herring--I'm not stating my opinion

Last edited Wed Nov 4, 2015, 01:24 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm reiterating the TOS. You're pretending that my citation of the TOS (the law of the land) is equivalent to your expression of your opinion, and that's simply not the case.

And, realistically, if you opt not to vote for the Democratic candidate, then your non-vote is an explicit boon to the Republican candidate. This also is not my opinion; it is fact.

It's not like anybody's opinion on a message board matters to people's real lives.

That an irrelevant statement, and also inaccurate. Many on DU have formed strong online friendships with people whose opinions do indeed matter to them. Your casual dismissal of such relationships doesn't change that fact.

Anyway I have found that this site is a much more pleasant place to be when I just put people who tell me how to vote on ignore so good bye.

If you're going to put me on Ignore, then at least have the decency not to lie about your reason. I certainly have not told you how to vote.

[snappyturtle]

62. +1 nt

[closeupready]

88. 100% agree.

Thank you.

[WinkyDink]

95. Obvious is obvious. But not the OP's point, which is NOT the silent "conscience," but the declared

decision that goes against the ToS.

[Skittles]

9. yup

I detest the swooner mentality

[VanillaRhapsody]

10. I tombstone them to my ignore list

If I wanted to talk to Republicans I could go to redstate

[Cassiopeia]

19. Really?

There are active members here, so offensive, that they truly belong on redstate?

It's primary season and the fangs are out, but I think the mods handle any true redstate infiltrators just fine.

[Control-Z]

21. Do they?

First of all, we no longer have moderators. We have MIRT - Malicious intruder removal team. They do a great job of catching and removing newbie intruders, sock puppets, previously banned members, when, or shortly after, they register to become members.

There was a huge influx of new members beginning mid July this year. August was even worse. And then there are those who came a little late to the game, but came they did, and continue to arrive.

It's difficult to recognize and ban intruders if they keep a low profile after first arriving. Once they are no longer looked upon as newbs it is pretty much out of MIRT's hands. Then there are old timers who have been disrupting forever but know where to draw the line. There are previously banned members with sock puppet accounts. And there are old accounts that are only active during certain political "motivations" shall we say.

Do you know who they are? I certainly don't though I have some deep suspicions of more than a few.

[DrDan]

42. it happened in 2008 as well

so many caustic threads were/are recognizable by someone joining that year. It continues today.

[Jim Lane]

23. I'm not familiar with redstate.

Based on VR's comment, I gather it's a place where people denounce the PATRIOT Act, call for single-payer health care,and so forth. It's an odd name for a progressive site. If it attracts people who've criticized Hillary Clinton for being too far to the right, though, then I guess I should check it out.

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. Maybe you should

Are you voting fo whoever wins the Primary?

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. Yes. Lots of them

Looooong list

Like I said if I wanted to talk to Republicans I could go there. If they refuse to vote for the winner of the Primary....

[hifiguy]

92. I just learned something

People who stand up for the policies of FDR, Harry Truman, JFK, LBJ, RFK and Hubert Humphrey are actually Republicans.

People who support Wall Street, the oligarchs, privatizing everything, war now and war for ever and are welded at the hip to the banksters and the MIIC are the real Democrats.

Wow, who knew?

[Roy Ellefson]

123. yep....

exactly...up is down etc.

[kath]

124. +100

Fuck the DLC and their ilk.

[Old Codger]

12. Ditto N/T

[Hekate]

26. It's way past time, thanks

[liberal_at_heart]

60. I'm going to follow your lead 1000words and just put these people on ignore. DU is a much more

pleasant place when you use the ignore button.

[BlueMTexpat]

20. K & R ...

I'll be doing the same.

Like Vanilla Rhapsody upthread, "Ignore" is my friend and I am much happier.

[Marrah_G]

22. Is it purge time already?

[Hekate]

27. You betcha. nt

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. Exactly!

[B Calm]

33. I can't believe that was hidden!

[VanillaRhapsody]

34. Well considering my last hide

Ican believe it.....they are weak.....it proves the point

[B Calm]

35. Jurors should drink at the very least one cup of coffee before voting. There are political parties

even further to the left than the democratic party. Can moderators unhide a post?

[ProfessorGAC]

41. Nor Can I

Been on lots of juries and if i was on this one i would have bet money that this would be 7-0 to leave it.

[B Calm]

45. Results of Jury

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The left are "non Democrats" now? They are as bad as right wingers? They hate Democrats just as much?

Hang on, am I still on DU here or what?

JURY RESULTS

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Nov 4, 2015, 05:17 AM, and the Jury voted 4-3 to HIDE IT.

Juror #1 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Have you ever heard of Greens?
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Rather than hiding, how about questioning just what the poster means? Looks like a point of view that needs
more explanation to me.
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I don't hate democrats, just assholes.
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Talk About hate...
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The post was clearly discussing the fact there are actually POLITICAL PARTIES who are left of the Democratic Party. Please turn down your outrage meter to Reality.

[JoePhilly]

52. We'll have to put up with this silliness until Hillary takes the nomination.

Meanwhile, the perpetually disgruntled will run around alerting on perfectly reasonable posts like Sid's.

I'm fairly certain that the same folks who would vote to HIDE his post regularly take to the pulpit and declare who the true liberals and true democrats really are, scorning those they judge unworthy.

[Hortensis]

81. The word hate might be strong, but the post is basically

true. The resentment and hostility of many on the far left against Democrats is as real and constant as that from the GOP base. I've often been struck by the similarity. Outrageous that a statement of truth was hidden.

[Lizzie Poppet]

121. Looks like the truth caused some military-grade butthurt, doesn't it?

Sure, claiming you'll vote for the Republican is ban-worthy. Always has been.

But claiming you'll simply not vote for president (and you live in a state that's not remotely in play)? People calling for banning such folk aren't doing it to support the party. That's self-serving bullshit. They're doing it as an excuse to "purify" DU of those who've complained about their candidate's many and serious non-progressive aspect.

[Hekate]

25. +1. Sometimes a good purgative is just what the doctor ordered to restore balance

I bring that up since some in this thread are already whinging about "purges."

Whatcha gonna do when some posters resolutely rewrite the TOS in their heads, or refuse to read them in the first place? Repeated explanations are brushed off.

Yet self-proclaimed non-Democrats and others just too good for this world of trouble and toil continue to harbor here proudly proclaiming their determination to never ever vote for (insert name here) despite that candidate's adult lifetime of working for Dem causes, working for Dem candidates, and serving as a registered Dem in public offices.

Yup, there was a time, children, when crap like that would earn you a granite pizza.

[Bobbie Jo]

50. Yep

The TOS has become little more than a friendly suggestion.

[Hortensis]

84. Dumb, but I can't remember where to find the TOS.

I'd like to read them again.

[xmas74]

103. Yes it did

And I will admit to gravedancing.

Sometimes you have to grow up,hold your nose and do what's best for others . Sometimes voting is like taking medicine.

Honestly, I like our choices. Different but I can find good in them all.

[DrDan]

28. I do also - and thought about that yesterday while reading that disturbing thread

Back to those days, I say

Enough of the hyperbolic rhetoric - makes this place look juvenile

[xmas74]

110. it makes us look like a joke.

We both know the other side wouldn't dream of sitting out an election.

[DrDan]

125. got that right - look what happened Tuesday as well as the past couple elections

[livetohike]

32. Yes. I remember those days too. I will also vote for and support our

candidate. I came here in 2004 to get away from that noise.

[SecularMotion]

36. In the gungeon, they're celebrating Democratic losses in VA

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1172180079

[Fumesucker]

37. I remember the days of DU too

The days when the Iraq war was a bad thing.

[B Calm]

38. When has that changed, links?

[Fumesucker]

39. I didn't notice any links in the OP

[B Calm]

40. Didn't think you could prove it, but you never know. .

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

43. Yeah, whatever happened to those tombstones?

I haven't seen any around lately.

[Phentex]

44. Maybe they'll be back once we have a nominee...

I expect much gnashing of teeth.

[Bradical79]

48. I will too, but arguing for lesser of two evils is a poor strategy if voter enthusiasm is important

Whenever someone's key argument against legitimate concerns is to tell them to suck it up and be a team player or the Republicans will win (an argument I've seen numerous variations of), they are doing their preferred candidate zero favors.

[Octafish]

53. I remember when Democrats were like Paul Wellstone.

"I'm from the Democratic Wing of the Democratic Party."

Nowadays, not so many Democrats around like that -- certainly not in office in Washington.

[LiberalArkie]

54. I was wearing my Bernie T-shirt yesterday and went to a local store when Dems sometime hang

out. Real friendly place. Hillary posters everywhere. The lady said she could not take my order as the machine was out of order. But as I was leaving she ran someone else card though the machine. God, I can not wait until this damn primary is over.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. I'll be voting for the most progressive anti-war candidate on the ballot.

I have the archaic notion that my vote belongs to me. Not to any party, politician, or political forum.

"I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all." Thomas Jefferson

[lame54]

61. that's only after the primaries when the general starts

[SCantiGOP]

64. I'm with you.

[That Guy 888]

65. I think if the polls were flipped, with HRC as behind as she is ahead now...

You would see a minority of HRC supporters saying that they wouldn't vote for whoever was ahead. The fact that you don't see that now is because the people who would do that think Hillary has a lock on the nomination and the primary should end before a single vote is cast.

[xmas74]

67. No.

I live in a state with a GOP supermajority in the statehouse. I'd vote for a dead possum if he was running against any of the GOO candidates.

[That Guy 888]

68. As would I

But I stand by what I said, a minority (not many, certainly not all) of HRC supporters would at least say they wouldn't vote for another candidate. There are some supporters on DU who have gone DEEP into the weeds in trying to back their candidate of choice.

Every time I vote I hope it's enthusiastically supporting the Democratic nominee, but I've cast my share of post-primary defensive votes.

[stage left]

85. LOL

at the notion of voting for a dead possum. But I'd vote for one, too, before I'd vote for any of the Republican critters stumbling around in the current Presidential race. You're not in SC by any chance?

[xmas74]

87. Missouri

Den governor and attorney General along with SOS but assembly and Senate are all GOP.

[stage left]

128. You have a Dem governor,

South Carolina has a dim governor.

[ScreamingMeemie]

80. After attending a rally, this is the first time ever that I truly believe the polls

are pulled entirely out of someone's ass.

[B Calm]

107. No way!

[Rex]

66. I still cannot believe anyone would sit this one out and be Grumpy Cat all day long.

I mean...President Cruz! I know, I know 'lesser of two blahs' BUT shit...PRESIDENT CRUZ.

Nope, just won't let my pride get to me. We have to keep the repukes out of the WH. Even if that means voting for an opened can of Coke! Yep...I am in line...classic or new?

[grahamhgreen]

70. I remember when everyone was against war with Syria

[Nye Bevan]

72. At this point the "I will NEVER vote for xxx if s/he wins the nomination" crowd are getting a pass,

because the (quite probably reasonable) assumption is that this is mostly huffing and puffing in the heat of a competitive primary race, and that most of these folk will end up uniting behind the Democrat (or at least whoever gets the Democratic nomination) when it comes to the crunch.

Once it is clear who the Democratic candidate will be, some degree of ambivalence about voting for this person will be permitted, but anyone posting stuff that encourages people not to vote for the Democrat, or to vote third party, will indeed be tombstoned in short order.

[Iggo]

73. Are you Blue-ish?

[xmas74]

89. Blue in a red state

And tired of threats of people taking their toys before the primary even begins. It makes us all look like whiners.

[MisterP]

76. I remember when the party was't predicated on repeatedly punting primaries so the race

would be between two cons instead of letting a popular lib win both primaries and generals

I remember when the party didn't hire people who endorse Pubs to run it, then wag their fingers in our faces and say everything's the voters' fault for not legitimating their horsehsit

[randys1]

77. They are absolutely gone, I just proved it. I just alerted on someone who said that on purpose

just so I would report it, i did and the result was fucking 7-0 to leave it even though I linked to the CLEAR violation in the TOS

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

78. It decided to follow the actual ToS instead of the one in your head? nt

[ScreamingMeemie]

79. Been here a bit longer than you, and I don't remember those days...only after the

primaries. It's always been like this. Nothing's changed. Coming at us with a go ahead and block me right now... for why?

[xmas74]

93. I've had a few nasty pm

From newer members who've informed me I'm not progressive,blah de blah,if I choose to vote the party line in the GE.

[ScreamingMeemie]

97. Ohhhhh, I can't STAND when people take to PMs.

I'm sorry to hear that.

[xmas74]

101. It's ok.

Now you know why I did it. I just put it all out in open that I'd be happy with any of our candidates.

[Maedhros]

82. I don't care.

"Liberals" and "Progressives" who vote party line for no other reason than blind loyalty are killing the Democratic Party.

I expect the candidate for whom I vote to actually deliver on liberal and progressive issues, not just give them lip service during the campaign and tack hard right on Inauguration Day. Those of you who expect nothing other than "being a Democrat" are encouraging candidates to pander to corporations, since you don't hold them accountable for doing so.

[Hortensis]

98. Oh, gee, how different from all the rest of us. Are there two of you, I hope?

If we can see two shining lights of commitment to principle in a dark world, could that maybe inspire a third?

You are mistaken, Maedhros, that any significant number on the left bother to go vote out of unthinking "loyalty." That's a conservative thing. Loyalty for its own sake, and for conformity, is real big among conservatives, the more conservative the more loyalty tends to be elevated as a prime virtue. One of the seminal differences, in fact, between liberals and conservatives.

If not for the balancing independence of thought characteristic of liberals, humanity might just be inhabiting hives by now.

[xmas74]

100. Think there's not a difference between GOP and Dems?

Live in a state where there is no Medicaid expansion, where there is only one abortion clinic in the entire state, where Repubs have actually tried to find ways to eliminate the minimum wage and then tell me there's no difference.
Sanders gets the nom? I will work for him.
Clinton gets it? I'll work for her.
O'Malley?Get me on a phone bank.

I will do my damndest to get any one of them elected because in the end I'll be better off with any of them compared to the GOP nom.

[Maedhros]

104. Please re-read my post. There is nothing in it that even suggests the two parties are the same.

I place the blame for the Democratic Party's current malaise on low-expectations voters who condone and rationalize the poor performance of its candidates on liberal and progressive issues.

Since I am no longer a Democrat, I no longer have an emotional attachment to the Party. This makes it much easier to assess whether the Party's candidates are delivering on the issues that are important to me. I intend to vote for those candidates that deliver, and to not vote for those candidates that maintain the conservative, corporate status quo. As time goes by, the number of people who think like me will only grow. It would behoove the Democratic Party to actually deliver on liberal/progressive issues, rather than simply pay them lip service during the campaign.

The objective is a healthier and more prosperous nation for everybody, not just filling government slots with empty "D's".

[mike_c]

83. those days didn't really exist....

I've been a DUer since early 2002. Also a green party voter, always an independent. I'm still here.

[lumberjack_jeff]

86. Must've been before 2008.

In 2008, the nomination winners spearheaded a purge.

[xmas74]

105. I remember that too.

This place has changed so much over the years.

[WinkyDink]

94. Big "D" here!

[BKH70041]

96. "Democratic members" who view the Party as being too corporate....

... and the leading primary candidate as being a puppet of Wall Street and multi-national corps, need to go form their own party. They'll never be happy in the Democratic Party because it's not going to change for them and their desires.

[Efilroft Sul]

109. Your deference to the status quo is duly noted.

But us so-called "Democratic members" are not leaving the party. We will stick around to fight the infiltrators and lapdogs of the monied elite who have led our party too far to the right and against the economic interests of 99% of Americans.

My only question is, what are so many Wall Street apologists doing in the party of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and how dare they call themselves Democrats?

Sic transit gloria mojo.

[brooklynite]

99. Not only will I vote for Sanders if he's the nominee...

...I'll max out to his campaign and work like hell to get him elected.

But I'll be aware of the long odds he'll face running against a well-funded Republican.

[xmas74]

102. Sanders?

I'll work nonstop.
Clinton? The same.
O'Malley?Same.
If Biden had declared? Same.

I'm not blind to my party but I know I'm better off with any of them compared to what the other side holds.

[Gothmog]

108. I will support and vote for the Democratic candidate

[VOX]

111. Vote your conscience! Nader 2000!

Because there's no difference between Al Gore and Dubya...Vote for Nader because how could any self-respecting liberal mark his/her ballot for an establishment candidate like Al Gore? Things will still turn out okay, right?

[xmas74]

112. the good old days!

We all know how that turned out. I remember Greens willingly vote trading later on to try to prevent it again.

I think some have forgotten their lessons.

[B Calm]

115. +1

[mstinamotorcity2]

113. i miss the good

old days too. Remember when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor.

[BigDemVoter]

114. I remember those days. . . .

I'm going to bust my ass for the progressive candidate, but I'm certainly not going to refuse to vote for WHOMEVER the Dems nominate. I'm not saying anything about "lesser of 2 evils" or any of that kind of shit. I'm just saying that ANY of our current candidates would be far, far, far superior to the entire pack of Repuke clowns. I know who I HOPE will nail the nomination, but as I said, I will vote for the DEMOCRATIC candidate.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

116. That all died when calling Obama a war criminal or a used car salesmen was permitted

And literally days before the 2012 election by which point you should have gotten the fuck over yourself and your purity test sad), we had "longtime, cherished DUers" saying they weren't voting for Obama against Rmoney because he had "let them down".

The infiltrators are chuckling with glee, and the useful idiots are backing them up.

[xmas74]

118. I remember those days and was disgusted.

I've never understood why some of the posters are the way they are. I don't expect any politician to give me everything I want or everything they promise. That's the nature of the beast-just hope for the best when elected.

I didn't primary for Obama in 2008 but supported him both times in the GE. Heck, I didn't primary for Kerry but supported him in the GE. I DID primary Gore and stuck with him. I live in what has become a red state and I know what side my bread is buttered. I'm always better off with a Dem in office. I make a little bit more, I don't seem to lose as many rights and my blood pressure goes down a few points because I'm not flipping my lid nonstop at teh stupid.

My favorite is when some of the newer posters come along and explain to me why I'm wrong and just an idiot overall for supporting the party candidate. My reply to them is usually about how instead of feeling like I'd sleep better at night voting "with my conscious" I'm happier knowing that voting with the party might just allow a few others to actually sleep better in a real bed, preferably their own. Because voting against the party, in the end, can mean the difference between voting for or against funding for those who need it the most. There are a number of Republicans who'd prefer to cut off all social service funding. And a vote against the party is a vote that goes to the GOP, which in turn is a vote to cut funding. I don't think they see it as such.

Sometimes in life you just have to grow up a bit, look around and decide who will make things just a bit better, even if it's only in baby steps.

[LittleBlue]

117. Do you not have an ignore list like the rest of us?

Use it and everything will seem better

[xmas74]

119. I don't even know where to begin anymore.

It's just too much and it shows up everywhere.

[Drahthaardogs]

120. Neither is my dream candidate

But Elizabeth is not running so whoever wins gets my vote
Straight democrat tickets rule in my house

[bowens43]

126. cast your vote as you please , I won't vote hillary

so you prefer censorship...wow

[xmas74]

127. The goal of this site has always been to

Elect more dems. It's part of the TOS. When others say they refuse to support the den candidates in the GE if their candidate isn't chosen goes against the TOS.

This isn't just Hillary but the majority is about her. If you refuse to vote the party candidate you are breaking the TOS.