I hope we have a lot of trolls here at DU.

[Atticus]

I'd sure as hell hate to think that genuine, real, actual progressives were willing to let their petty grievances help the likes of Trump or Cruz---or whoever the hell the current crop of Brownshirts decide to run---get elected President of the United States. The next POTUS will likely appoint three justices to the Supreme Court and the mere thought of three more Alitos ought to scare the living crap out of any true liberal. This "I won't vote for (fill in name of Democratic candidate)" is childish BS.

I've been around here since 2002 and I'm about as liberal an old white dude as you're going to run into. Since Elizabeth isn't running, I'm supporting Bernie and will enthusiastically vote for him. But,---I will OF COURSE vote for whoever wins the Democratic nomination in the general election! Because, at that point, OUR choice will be between a Democrat that some of us believe isn't liberal enough or consistent enough or---WHATEVER!---and some damned Republican/Teabagger POS. And, ladies and gentlemen, that is not a tough call for anyone who TRULY should be a member here.

Primaries are where we declare and discuss our internal differences. But, in the general, we vote for the most viable non-Republican, WHOEVER that may turn out to be. At least that's how Democrats behaved back when I was tacking up my first campaign signs for Adlai Stevenson.

[Laffy Kat]

1. K&R. Hopefully we'll all come together at some point.

[backscatter712]

170. For all the drama that's happening here between Bernie and Hillary fans...

...in the end, the Democrats are just having a basic competitive series of primary contests.

You want drama stay tuned for the GOP convention...

[peacebird]

2. I will vote for Bernie in the primary, I will vote my conscience in the general. I will NOT

vote the lesser of two evils ever again. All that foolishness has done is move the D's farther to the right over the years and let the DLC/Third Way gain.....

If Bernie is NOT the Dem nom, I will vote for the best person in the general. That person is not Hillary or Trump

[Atticus]

4. Hopefully, your face will not miss your nose too much. nt

[peacebird]

8. Pretty sure my nose and face will be fine, thanks.

[Atticus]

9. Good. Peace to you. nt

[randys1]

153. We need to replace that persons vote, since they dont seem to care.

I do have to remind myself there are selfish people out there and I need to work harder registering people

please help me

https://twitter.com/DidTheyLetUVote

Follow my twitter account for one, and register someone to vote today

[kcr]

209. And that's exactly why you vote the way you do

It's almost always those who will be fine either way who think their principles matter most.

[peacebird]

225. Actually you have it wrong. I do not think I will be fine either way, I am sure that neither

Hillary nor the eventual R nom would be good for me, or our grandkids.

Hence the difgicult choice to leap into the void and vote the one candidate I believe is our best shot, in the primary, and the general. Bernie Sanders.

[MADem]

11. It didn't take long at all for a little bird to fly by and crap on your thread. I'm sorry.

Most Democrats don't take that kind of attitude, but this is the internet. It can be a bit of a catch basin, at times.

[JDPriestly]

202. I'm in California. Trump has insured that no Republican will win here in 2016.

Because even if they run Cruz or Rubio, the Republican Party has shown itself to be a bunch of bigots, and our voters will vote against them.

In fact, it is puzzling how Cruz or Rubio can appear on the same stage with Trump.

Anyway, I have said this over and over, my California vote, and in spite of our 55 electors in the Electoral College doesn't count for much. California will vote for the Democrat with or without my vote.

I do not want to have Hillary's election on my conscience. Therefore, I will vote for all Democrats on my ballot except Hillary.

Hilary is almost not a Democrat. And she stands for very little. In fact, you never know from one day to the next whether what she says today she will agree with tomorrow. Unprincipled is the word.

Bernie asked all the right questions before voting on the Iraq War Resolution. Hillary??? Maybe she asked what her constituents would think about her vote, but she certainly did not ask even whether there was any solid evidence that Saddam Hussein and Iraq had anything to do with 9/11.

We suffered and are suffering enough from the kind of mindless follow the leader mentality that Hillary embodies and that the Iraq War represents.

Enough is enough.

I want Bernie. He has a questioning mind. He makes decisions based on his moral principles and not based on polls.

Feel the Bern!

I will vote for all other Democrats but not for Hillary. I don't want her election on my conscience. I will not compromise.

[MADem]

207. Unbelievable.

I wasn't addressing you, nor was I talking about you. Not every post is about you.

Whoopee, you refuse to vote for Hillary--pat yourself on the back.

We'll maybe enjoy reminding you of your short sighted and petulant decision making process if you stick around here in the eight years of the highly successful Hillary Clinton Presidency. Or maybe we just won't bother.

[Laser102]

213. You are so right.

[bvar22]

247. If Hillary stands ZERO chance of winning my deep RED state,

why should I waste my vote & my conscience on her?

I WILL vote because if Hillary is the nominee,
the down ticket Democrats will need all the help they can get.
The Top Spot will get a Write In Liberal Democrat.

[Plucketeer]

40. It really comes down to

whether you have principals and whether you stick to them.

[DonCoquixote]

82. and principle include

not allowing the GOP to win because I am mad at the Dems. We tried that in 2000 and it was a pure failure.

[Plucketeer]

88. Problem with that is

I have to live with me the other 364 days of a year.

[Arneoker]

97. And you would live with enabling a Supreme Court entrenching corporate and reactionary power

How?

[TM99]

102. You mean like how the current SCOTUS

already allows Citizen's United?

[Maedhros]

184. If we are to follow your advice, what is the long-term outcome?

If we keep voting for neoliberal pro-corporate candidates, what will the Democratic Party look like in 2020? 2024? 2028? Do you think that after years of validating the Party's rightward lurch, they will magically turn liberal? As the old Internet joke goes:

1. Vote for pro-war, pro-corporate candidates
2. ????
3. Progressivism!

We've been playing this "vote for crummy Democrats or else!!!" game for 20 years or so, and what has it gotten us? Nothing. If we keep playing this game, there will be no representation for liberals or progressives in our government - because the Democrats will have learned that they don't need to represent us to get elected.

We will not fix the problems in the Democratic Party without a fight. To follow your advice is to simply avoid a fight for as long as possible, until it's too late to fight.

The time to fight is NOW.

[skepticscott]

129. The results of the next election

will affect the whole country and the whole world for decades to come. Literally billions of people. Why do you and so many like you put your own "conscience" ahead of that?

[randys1]

155. If you are Gay or a Woman or a minority or you are AIR, you are at GREAT risk

those 364 days of the year if ANY con STEALS the WH.

If you dont fall in those categories, maybe you can come up with a reason to just say the hell with it.

I dont know how, myself I will work overtime getting any Dem elected at this point including daffy duck if he has a D after his name...

[Codeine]

224. AIR? nt

[TM99]

103. You mean the way 200,000 Democrats

voted for Bush in Florida making it close enough for the state to steal and the SCOTUS to seal GW's election?

[bvar22]

176. That is NOT what happened in 2000.

Gore lost 5-4 in the Supreme Court....the ONLY votes that counted.

The posters above make an appeal to "principle".
THESE are MY "principles":

FDR Economic Bill of Rights

In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be[font size=3] established for all—regardless of station, race, or creed.[/font]

Among these are:

*The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;

*The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;

*The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;

*The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;

*The right of every family to a decent home;

*The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;

*The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;

*The right to a good education.

All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.

[font size=3]America's own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for all our citizens.[/font]

Please note that the above are stipulated as Basic Human RIGHTS to be protected by our government,
and NOT as COMMODITIES to be SOLD to Americans by For Profit Corporations.

When a politician moves TOWARD those principles, I will support them.
When a politician moves away from those principles, they lose my vote.


[font color=firebrick][center]"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans.
I want a party that will STAND UP for Working Americans."
---Paul Wellstone [/font][/center] [center] [/font]
[font size=1]photo by bvar22
Shortly before Sen Wellstone was killed[/center][/font]

[closeupready]

245. +1. And Third Way Dems colluded with that.

[rhett o rick]

69. I don't think you recognize that people are getting sick of being manipulated but the 1%.

Millions of eligible voters don't vote because they are sick of the corrupt system. If we don't nominate an honest progressive, lots of people are going to give the corrupt system the finger. Shake your finger at them all you want and they will shake their finger right back. If HRC is nominated it means those that nominated her don't give a crap about the 99%.

[Adrahil]

98. Yeah, leave you psychoanalysis out of this.

The idea that Hillary supporters don't support the 99% is utter rubbish. It is possible to agree on principals and disagree on tactics. I think the idea that Bernie is somehow going to yank the political center of the entire country to the left is pure fantasy. Now I'm fine with disagreements about who the best candidate is in the primary, but simply put, how dare you impune that I don't care about the 99% becuase I disagree that your candidate is the best for that fight right now.

Ideological purism is never a good idea, IMO.

[rhett o rick]

167. You exemplify just how bad it's gotten in this country. The normalization of total domination

by the 1%. How sad that it's called "Ideological purism" wanting to stop the growing inequality of wealth and income, the raising rates of infant mortality and poverty, attacks on SS and Medicare, the deterioration of our infrastructure, the imprisonment of a large portion of our population disproportionately people of color, and the continuing horrendous defense budget.

Things have been getting worse for 40 years and electing the billionaires choice will not turn it around.

Those that vote for more of the same are showing they don't care about the 99%, because more of the same isn't going to help anyone.

[Adrahil]

177. NO.

Do not mistake a disagreement with tactics with a disagreement of goals.

I simply do not think Sanders is the candidate for this election. I actually agree with him on many issues, but in my judgement, he would get flayed alive in the general election. I think he doesn't think on his feet well, and he's a bit of a one note Charlie.

And there is no need to argue with me. I know the arguments. I am not convinced. I think he is a great guy and fine man. The people of Vermont are lucky to have him as their Senator. But I think he is a mediocre general election candidate. I just do.

I think Hillary will do well as President. Do I think we'll get everything we want? No. But I don't think Bernie could either, even IF he were elected. The President is not king.

You wanna tell me you think your candidate is better? That's fine. You wanna say I don't care about the 99%? GTFO.

[rhett o rick]

179. Forgive my passion but at some point we must draw a line and fight. Sanders may not be

as effective as we would like but it would be a great start. Electing HRC is just a continuation of the last 40 years.

[Adrahil]

200. I disagree. But of course I forgive your passion.

It is well-placed passion. Bernie is lucky to have you as a supporter, but remember that earnest and intelligent people can disagree on this matter.

[rhett o rick]

201. Thanks. And yes I understand but I am getting scared. The farther we slide down this slope into

corporatism/fascism the harder it will be to get out. IMO HRC is part of the 1% oligarchy that controls our government. She doesn't hate us, she may even sympathize with us, but she is most focused on the accumulation of wealth and power.

[kcr]

210. Hillary loses and Ted Cruz wins. Dems will not think they have to move to the left to earn votes

They only see that an ultra right winger won and think it means they have to be more conservative, too. Staying home and allowing them to win will not make things better or teach anyone a lesson. It will just cause a lot of misery and death as a result.

[rhett o rick]

212. You can shake your finger all you want but those that decide to stay home will do so becaue they

see a system that is corrupted by the billionaires. They stayed home in 2000 and will again in 2016. Threaten them all you want, but they will not be bullied by the 1%. Will it be a disaster? Yes it will. So let's nominate someone we all can get behind.

[kcr]

214. And those who stay home can sulk and pout all they want. It won't change the fact

That a Republican like Ted Cruz winning will mean people die. Knowing that and not caring isn't all that progressive.

[rhett o rick]

234. But all we have to do to make sure that none of that happens, is to support a candidate

that is for the 99%. How hard is that? Instead you want to force the best of evils decision. And many people resent that. It's all on you and the 1%.

[kcr]

235. That's why I support Bernie. But I will also vote to make sure a Repub, especially one like Trump

or Cruz, doesn't make it. I don't want to force anyone to do anything they don't want to do. I'm only pointing out reality. I also think staying home and letting a Republican win is idiotic.

[DhhD]

118. I beleive that Bill and Hillary Clinton do not give a crap about me and that started in the

early 1990s.

IMO, the 1% are hoping to use a Hillary Clinton Presidency to correct a Capitalism that has destroyed its consumer base. Bill Clinton is not eligible to run again. Wall Street is like a gambling casino and Republicans will do nothing to reinstate Glass-Steagall and neither will Hillary Clinton. Where would money for the new NeoCon war be coming from? The US Treasury, as the Bush tax cuts were never ended in order for this nation to raise the standard of living (new income going to the 1%). We know that, $12 an hour may convert to $10, in 2020. And what about that tit for a tat 20% drop in drug prices in exchange for a 20% fee to Wall Street to manage our Social Security Trust Fund benefits, thingy.

Here come Romney to debate Hillary Clinton. Romney debated Obama on Obama's Newism and third way politic.

Senator Warren told us about how Hillary Clinton voted on the Bankruptcy Bill to the anguish of poor American women. Poor people remember and they have learned to wait; and wait for justice they will.

[Fast Walker 52]

241. do you think they are as bad as a Republican though?

I'm sure you have more shared values with the Clintons then any GOP candidate... obviously not on Wall St but there are many other critical issues.

[40RatRod]

115. Concur

My thoughts as well.

[pnwmom]

5. Voting for somebody who can't win out of "conscience" is assisting the GOP,

which no one of good conscience should do.

[JohnnyRingo]

33. Agree, there is no other way to put it

People who voted Nader because "there's no difference between the party candidates" are in a great way why the American middle class regressed through Reagan and both Bushes.

Voting one's losing "ideals" gains nothing but a self satisfying smug sense of elitism. If democrats voted like Republicans we'd see a permanent residency in the White house.

[zeemike]

46. Won't matter if we all vote for our party

And the GOP all vote for theirs...neither party is larger than the independent voter.

And IMO Hillary is our best chance to lose it because so many independents will come out to vote against her...especialy after a summer full of TV about scandal after scandal.
It will be like 68 when our party nominated the same old same old Hubert Humphrey (because it was his turn) that people were tired of and the nation elected Nixon, not because they liked him but because he was change.

[JohnnyRingo]

91. If you're saying the vast center elects our presidents...

...I believe you're correct. The fringe left & right only own about 20% each, leaving party moderates and indies to choose the winner. Having said that, far left and right candidates like Trump and Sanders would have a hard time winning over indifferent voters who want a president who would simply "do no harm" and maintain the status quo. (ie: people who know more about LeBron James than their representitives)

If the worst one says about Ms Clinton is that she's no liberal, I think that's an edge come November. Albeit she can be polarizing, but Fox News will attempt to turn any candidate into Chairman Mao.... as usual, but Senator Sanders already wrote the script for them.

[Enthusiast]

99. Bernie Sanders is not a FAR LEFT candidate! Why do you say that?

His issue policies are dead centrist and in line with those of the American people.

Take single payer, for example. Exactly 50% of the American people want single payer. On that issue Bernie is dead on centrist.

On the other issues Bernie espouses he is even more aligned with the American people. Like Social Security and raising the minimum wage.

The only possible accurate way to measure a candidate's place on the political spectrum is how they align with the American people. Anything else is bullshit propaganda.

The suggestion that Bernie is FAR LEFT is a fucking lie!

[raouldukelives]

121. +1000 To those on the right, he would naturally appear far left.

To those on the left, he appears centrist. Because, well, he is.

What we are seeing now is a giant game of Twister as corporate conservatives strangle themselves being forced trying to reach for once bedrock party principles.

[JohnnyRingo]

128. I think you're referring to what they call "socialized medicine".

It's true that if a poll is worded craftily people will say they approve, but once they learn their tax money will grant health care to low income people, they turn like a rabid dog. Even something as watered down as the ACA is still met with widespread derision by a huge percentage.

Every day I read posts here about how Sen Sanders is the only true liberal running for president. Your view that he's actually a moderate flies in the face of common knowledge and Bernie's own words.

Don't get me wrong, I think a liberal would make an outstanding leader, but getting one in the White House is a daunting challenge when it's outside the comfort zone of the moderate majority.

[Enthusiast]

131. What a load of crap! Yeah. If you mislead people about single payer they will turn against it.

The widespread derision was a creation of the heath care profiteers. We all know it. And you know it.

[JohnnyRingo]

140. I know it. I'm already sold.

...but you're doing a terrible job of convincing the huge bloc of working class America that it's good for them. The term "Obamacare" wasn't coined to give the president a feather in his cap.

Personally, I believe in Medicare for all, but try telling working people they'll have to pay for the poor and the support in the polls you cite evaporates like a pack of genies.

[Douglas Carpenter]

166. thank you. Given that Senator Sanders positions on issues come the closest to the way most ordinary

Americans think and given that most people just plain like him - he would have a huge advantage in the
general election. Polls bare this out.

Those who consider mainstream positions to be "FAR LEFT" are clearly on the fringe of political discussion and demonstrates just how out of touch with reality the extreme right is and how much they have infested our Party.

Of course I would support the Democratic nominee - even if they are not very well liked by most independents and would galvanize the Republicans and inspire minimal enthusiasm among Democrats. Still there is no doubt that any of the Republicans would be far worse. I would however prefer to vote for someone more representative on the issues of the American people's point of view. If we don't seize the opportunity now to move our country forward and seek a newer world - when will be the right time?

[zeemike]

117. Well you are wrong about that comparison with Trump.

Sanders is not far left...but that is how the Clinton folks want to portray him to scare us into thinking only Hillary can win.
The truth is she has high negativity ratings among those indy voters and many will turn out to vote AGAINST her not for the GOP whoever that may be.

But the worst thing about HRC is that she is a war hawk and is now openly expressing it to garner support from the MIC and keep their profits and stock prices up their.
And we live in a dangerous world and the last thing we need right now is a Thatcher for a world leader.

[eggplant]

49. That's funny, I was a Nader Trader.

I traded away my completely worthless D vote in NY in order to have a Naderite vote for our candidate in a swing state.

Tell me again how I'm not supporting our party?

Winning requires thoughtful nuance, not blind faith.

[pnwmom]

60. What you did was fine. But Nader saved his campaigning for the swing states

and didn't encourage his supporters to trade.

And he got 95,000 vote in Florida, where the dispute came down to the last 500 votes.

[eggplant]

78. So my point stands.

These inflammatory vendettas against people who choose to say they will vote their conscience in the general, REGARDLESS OF THEIR REASONING, have to stop.

It is a nasty, ugly, unfair way to paint people with whom they disagree. And it needlessly tears at the fabric of DU, and that weakens us all. It has to stop.

[JohnnyRingo]

92. It seems you supported the Green Party on election day

I get that you think your vote "didn't matter" because it was NY, but it only encouraged him to run again... and again.

I hope it felt as good for you as it did for him.

[eggplant]

126. It did.

Democracy functions better when there is more choice, not less.

If everyone who had the right to vote actually voted I would not contest the result, even if my own candidate lost.

[JohnnyRingo]

137. If everyone eligible to vote did so...

...Democrats wouldn't even have to campaign.

Conservatives are taught from birth to get out and vote for the republican candidate even if it's only the dog catcher. That's why every democratic vote is so precious and why I abhor vote splitting candidates. The republicans learned their lesson with Ross Perot that brought them "the horrible Clinton era", the left is slow to catch on.

As for "more is better", there are third world democracies where the ballot is swamped with dozens of candidates. Too often the winner gets elected with less than 25% of national support. We use primaries to sort the chaff and narrow it down to two major contenders. I think that's a better system.

[eggplant]

159. I respect your opinion.

I disagree with it, but I still respect it. It seems unlikely that we will sway each other in this forum, and I'm comfortable with that.

[JohnnyRingo]

168. I mutually agree.

[eggplant]

47. People who live in solidly blue states can vote for whoever they feel like without fear.

Enough with the hyperbole.

If I write in Bozo the Clown on election day, New York will still go to the Dem candidate. If thousands of us do it, New York will *still* go to the Dem candidate.

So get off your high horse and stop telling me that voting my conscience is assisting the GOP. IT'S NOT.

Or at least save it until *after* the primaries. Until then, it just comes across as a shrill, poorly argued, passive-aggressive slamming of the Dem candidate you don't like.

[pnwmom]

61. That's a good way for a "solid" state to turn purple or red. n/t

[eggplant]

76. Really?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_in_New_York,_2012

Popular vote
Barack Obama 4,485,877
Mitt Romney 2,490,496

You think A MILLION Dem votes will swing the other way because of people voting their conscience?

And, just as a thought experiment, what would it say if THAT MANY people were voting their conscience?

[skepticscott]

130. Sorry, but the "I live in a solid blue state, so my vote doesn't matter"

is a bullshit rationalization.

[eggplant]

157. Thank you for your concern.

The TWO MILLION more votes for Obama than Mittens in NY seem to disagree with you.

Have a nice day.

[LanternWaste]

104. Convictions and principle are indeed, rather inconvenient to the political process.

Convictions and principle are indeed, rather inconvenient to the political process.

[brush]

6. What if it is Hillary or Trump?

[peacebird]

7. Then we are well and truly effed.

[Gloria]

68. Yeah? Guess what, YOU would be the

one screwing us if you couldn't figure out who would be the better one to vote for...

update: this should be directed at "raindaddy" who apparently really WOULD let us get a Trump in the WH....

[JohnnyRingo]

34. Really?

Are you implying you'd actually have to flip a coin on that one?

[brush]

67. No, just wanted to see where the poster I responded to was going.

There seem to be many who are more about their candidate than the dem nominee winning and being the one who makes the appointments to the next SCOTUS vacancies.

With Scalia revealing more and more of his racist views, we don't need anymore like him on the court for 30 or 40 years.

[Hepburn]

189. IMO, we are screwed either way. n/t

[raindaddy]

37. I'm with you...

Last edited Fri Dec 11, 2015, 12:28 AM - Edit history (1)

I'm not going to support the degeneration of the Democratic party. We're at the tipping point.. Won't vote for Hillary, won't support a two party system where both parties support an economic system that is turning this country into a third world workforce!!!

[redstateblues]

64. You'll be missed around here

[raindaddy]

79. Probably not so much...

But there are probably another at least 5 t0 7% of the Democratic party that feel as I do and considering only 30% of Americans are currently registered Democrats I imagine they'll be missed...

[MissDeeds]

41. +1000

Could not agree more.

[The Second Stone]

62. Why shouldn't you vote your conscience?

Good for you.

I've got one too. But mine understands that the world is deeply imperfect, and that if I spread gloom if my own view is not adopted by people who disagree with me and generally be a brat, which is what the position you've taken amounts to, that the world will be a worse place.

There are worse things than Hillary or Bernie being the person I have to vote for. Like actually getting any of the current fascist republicans.

There must be a million court cases decided in the US every year, and those judges who preside over those cases and decide them decide real disputes with real people. I will not let those people down. Republican judges screw little people over in every case they can. Democratic judges do not. I will do whatever it takes to make sure the Democratic nominee is elected. And if that is the lesser of two evils, I'll not back down. That's my conscience.

I seriously doubt that Bernie Sanders will be the nominee. I have no doubt that if he is not, that he will endorse and vote for Hillary Clinton. But he is a better man than most of the posters here at DU, who really come off as a bunch of stupid brats.

[LW1977]

134. Agreed

Shame on these people who will vote against their own best interests because their person didn't win the Primary!

[1StrongBlackMan]

174. +1 ...

That's the difference between living reality and fighting a fancifulot "revolution".

[Lorien]

90. Same

I can't do the "lesser of evils" drill ever again either. It's Bernie or Canada.

[Lilith Rising]

190. I do hope you've done your research

on what's required to emigrate to Canada legally. It's not as easy as most people think it is.

Actually, it requires quite a lot of money...

[Javaman]

122. +1 nt

[MoonRiver]

133. Still don't care who you vote for.

We're not in the 1%, but are pretty close. If the Repugnants take over all 3 branches of government, we will survive here, assuming we don't move to Canada, which is currently being discussed in our family.

I am extremely concerned about others whose circumstances are more frail than ours, and who cannot move. What I feel is that this country is facing a real and present danger, not from jihadist terrorists, but from unhinged right wing lunatics, who are close to taking over our government.

I'm assuming you will also be safe and sound, should the right wing coup succeed. Otherwise you would not make such foolish proclamations. Peace to you and yours.

[zalinda]

151. And this is why you don't 'get' Bernie supporters

We, here at the bottom, see Hillary as just more of the same. She's talking tax breaks. How will that help the poor? We usually don't make enough money to pay taxes. Hell, I don't make enough to even file taxes. We are going to be stuck in our situation, and the middle class is apparently joining our ranks at a fast pace.

Hillary is politics as usual. That means that politicians will still be bought, and the poor don't have enough money to even buy one, much less buy a whole group. Bernie is what we poor NEED, not only want. We have to rearrange things. Trading imaginary paper with computers should be taxed. Any trade is a product and therefore should have a sales tax. If you are a day trader that should be part of your expense items. Commodity trading should only traded by those who actually use the product, that was how it was originally set up.

And, here's where things make real sense. The more money people have, the more jobs are created, because demand is high. It is not the other way around. Rich people creating jobs is a real myth. If there is no demand for an item, why would any one buy it. And this is where companies are 'cutting off their nose to spite their face', paying low wages or creating an item overseas just means that their are less people who can afford their product. It is common sense.

If all people have REAL health care, then their health problems can't spill over into your space, whether by spreading diseases or having to interact with a mental health problem.

When we are all treated equally, with equal respect, every person prospers. It doesn't mean their won't be millionaires any more, it just means that those at the bottom (whether by their own decisions, or act of birth) makes enough to live a meagerly comfortable life. Believe it or not, there are many, many people who don't want to be rich, they only want enough to live without having to worry where the next rent money is coming from.

I think this is the real split between Hillary people and Bernie people. Hillary people seem to have enough money not to worry about where they will be living next year. Bernie people seem to worry about themselves and their neighbors having enough to get them through the next year.

Z

[MoonRiver]

156. Most of Hillary's supporters traditionally have been lower MC.

People like my husband and I tend to vote Repub. We weren't born into families with money. But we were born smart (my husband is literally a genius). Using our innate abilities, we worked our asses off to get where we are, paying off several student loans in the process.

I like Bernie and his vision. If he miraculously got the nomination I would enthusiastically support him. But he could never win a general election. I also feel the demonizing of Hillary is completely over the top considering all she has done, or attempted to do, for liberal causes. And no I don't choose to give you a rendition of these. Hillary is my preferred candidate. I know she will be a wonderful president our country can be proud of.

[Lazy Daisy]

217. exactly

[kcr]

221. Speak for yourself. This Bernie supporter wishes others would actually listen to him.

Do you honestly think he wants everyone to stay home to see a Republican in the White House? I think it's a shame that his efforts to move the party to the left are being thwarted. Why should Hillary change if there's no chance you'll vote for her? What would be the point? What would be the point of other more progressives running if all it's going to do is help get Republicans elected? If they care about that, they won't run unless they have a solid chance at winning then, and that diminishes with each Republican win.

[philosslayer]

173. If you're not voting for the Democratic nominee...

Then why are you here? Have you not read the name of the site? its the DemocraticUnderground. NOT the ProgressiveUnderground.

[Fast Walker 52]

185. do you really think the Dems will move more left if Hillary loses to Trump?

seriously

[kcr]

211. I agree. I do not get that logic at all.

Why would a candidate move further left if they see Republicans winning? The message when a Republican wins is not "The people want more liberal policies" A liberal candidate will either give up because they know there's no use, or they will move their policies to the right to win.

[Fast Walker 52]

240. Indeed... and historically the Dems have moved more right when they lose elections

Not always, but that's been the trend with the DLC.

[lark]

188. Seriously?

You'd vote for Trump, Carson, Rubio, Cruz, Bush over Hillary? Then hope you will be happy when ACA is ended, social security and medicare are voucherized and privatized and Medicaid is ended? Are you looking forward to war with Iran? Hope you are happy when abortions are made illegal by the 3 new RW crazy justices and cops are given the right of killing anyone they want, without a reason other than fear and there is no penalty. OK, that last one may be a little far out, but not by much. Do you think Bernie wants someone like you, who's willing to destroy our nation so he/she can be right, as a supporter? I don't think so, since he's well aware of how dangerous all the Repugs running for office truly are. Too bad you don't meet the high levels of integrity set by your candidate.

[Katashi_itto]

196. I plan on doing the same.

[Shandris]

3. Not so much trolls as 'campaign season invective'. It's a lot like the old WoW forums.

They 'mean' it, in the heat of passion, but in the long term almost all of us will vote for whoever the candidate is. Just like on the WoW forums, where people would constantly threaten to quit if they didn't get [insert thing here], but almost never did. I wouldn't be concerned.

Now that's not to say we don't have a lot of trolls, I just don't think many of them post quite so profligately as our more regular members. Then again, I don't post quite so profligately either, so there IS that.

Anywho, all is well, have an egg nog milkshake!

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

10. How about 3 more Scalias?

How was he put on the court again? Oh right, 98-0. Basically every single freaking Dem in the Senate voted for him.

Roberts got in 78-22, as I recall.

If Democratic Senators feel that the Supreme Court needs to be made up of folks like Scalia or Roberts, who am I to gainsay them?

I stopped being scared by the Supreme Court boogeyman when I saw how the worst of the worst got onto the court in the first place, in a bipartisan effort.

[MADem]

13. It's not the votes of the rather collegial senate at issue--it is who does the nominating.

Look at Obama's nominees. Compare them to Shrub's.

You seriously don't notice a qualitative and quantitative difference?

You should be worried about that Boogeyman, if you care at all about equality of opportunity and rights.

[zeemike]

48. And it makes no difference

It's 5 to 4 and the chief justice is one of the 5 and he is the one who decides on what cases will be heard.
The Conservatives could give a shit less if there are liberal justices...as long as they have the chief and the 5.

[MADem]

53. It makes a difference when the nominee is a Sotomayor or an Alito.

And we've got some older justices on that bench, and Time Marches On.

I'd rather have Hillary Clinton picking the next crop of Supremes than Ted Cruz. YMMV, but it MATTERS to me.

[zeemike]

56. Well I would rather have Sanders do the picking.

But he will be replacing liberals and it will still be 5/4 with Roberts and CJ...and a 5/4 is as good as a 6/3 or a 7/2 or a 9/0

But one thing I am sure of is any Clinton pick will be corporate frendly...and that is what is important to the PTB.

[MADem]

57. That's not going to happen.

Unless President Clinton invites her cabinet to submit suggestions, and the Secretary of Labor knows a few good judges.

[zeemike]

58. That kind of certainty always gives me pause.

It is like someone telling me the fix is in...and that they know something I don't.

[MADem]

63. Look, I just have been around for a long time.

I've lived for many years now, and I've been involved in politics, and when I couldn't touch politics with a ten foot pole owing to my work, I was still in the thick of the political scene (in DC) for part of that time, and I have always followed politics closely.

You don't have to be a genius to see which way this is playing out, anymore than you have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing.

Sanders has plateaued, he has demonstrated an inability to 'pivot' readily, he is a one-issue, one-note guy, and his "plans" are not really plans--they are hopes and dreams. We understand that he has brought an important subset of (principally economic) concerns to the fore, but he hasn't demonstrated that he's the guy to FIX those concerns. He just isn't. He means well, but he's not ready for prime time.

I am not the only one, I know, who has close to zero confidence in his ability to manage international issues--I think he'd be chewed up and spit out, but he could do a lot of damage in four years (he'd never be re-elected, though I doubt he'll be elected, either).

He just doesn't have it, and he hasn't demonstrated, to my mind, a facility that suggests he intends to "get it," either. He is uninterested in issues outside his economic wheelhouse, and it shows. His rather minescule super delegate total tells the tale.

I think he'll be a great Labor Secretary, and I think he would do a lot of good in that job. I hope it is offered to him and I hope he takes it.

[zeemike]

83. Well I have been around a few years too.

And I am as cynical as you appear to be too, but I come at it from a much different perspective...a lower one, one not near or dear to the levers of power. A one that recognizes that there are devious and sociopath people at the heart of power who will stop at nothing to get their way, and I think you see it too, but just accept it as the way things are...and so you go with the flow. It is after all the best way to be successful.

But I am not willing to just give up on morality that quick...I think Sanders is exactly what this country needs...a decent honest man to change the attitude of this nation from the one Reagan gave us...the virtues of selfishness.

But honestly I am too old to expect to see that kind of change in my lifetime...narcisism has infected a whole generation of people and only hard times will knock it out of us...we may have to hit bottom first and I probably will not live long enough to see it.

[MADem]

87. I don't think Sanders wants the job.

If he really did, he'd have a more competent staff.

He wants to make a few points, is all.

All that "In it to win it" stuff was just for show.

I think our best years are in front of us and I think Hillary Clinton has, as a goal, the view that she will be leaving us with a better and safer world. I don't think she is a sociopath or evil, I think she, like many people I know, have at their core the concept of SERVICE to people, to our country, to the betterment of the world.

If she were really interested in the whole Greed is Good thing, she wouldn't keep plowing money into that foundation that does "terrible" things like eradicate disease and bring clean drinking water to people in dire need. She'd buy stocks in Silicon Valley corporations and other Big Stinky Money enterprises, and ride around from place to place in a golden Mercedes, partying and drinking mimosas, or something.

The characterization of her as someone other than a person who is interested in serving her nation and helping people is a bit shopworn. No one with an iota of fairness believes it.

Hope springs eternal for me and people like me. We like to make things better, not complain relentlessly about how everything sucks. A culture of negativity just doesn't resonate with me. HRC has that positive, can-do attitude, and it resonates. It's part of the reason why she will prevail.

[brer cat]

93. Excellent post, MADem. nt

[MeNMyVolt]

120. Make that two excellent posts.

Sure happy MADem is here. Always a joy to read.

[zeemike]

114. Hope springs eternal for me too

But it is that we will overcome the delusions given to us by media that you have so well expressed.
What you see as negativity I see as a reality check...and you cannot make the world a better place just by believing it is.

[Jinx]

198. I agree he seems to be in this more to make a point

He has not moved aggressively against Clinton, which suggests he doesn't want to hurt her for the general. He wants to draw attention to issues that might otherwise have been glossed over.

This is all well and good, I believe it's important for our candidates to be challenged to be better. And I likewise hope, like the OP, that those claiming they will not vote for Candidate X are liars. "The parties are the same" mantra has been pure poison, and has already cost us at least one election, and is objectively false to anyone paying attention.

It's a bit distressing to hear some of the exact same arguments used against Al Gore back in 2000 (Republican Lite) dusted off again and used against Hillary. With some exceptions, many of which are a matter of nuance, by and large the positions of all 3 of our candidates are virtually identical.

[kcr]

220. I'll also add that they're hurting Bernie and what he's trying to do

If you want more progressive government, you do exactly what Bernie is doing. You fight for it in the primaries, not spoiling GEs. It's why he's declared he won't run 3rd party. He doesn't want to piss people off and get them to stay home. The point is to run more progressives in the party to put the pressure to move it to the left. Show the solid support progressive ideals can attract. Throwing a fit and threatening to stay home sabotages that. More conservative candidates see the strife over there, the voters staying home as a response and and want no part of that. Why bother if they aren't even going to vote for you? It also hurts future elections. Why run to the left if it's going to mean riling people up so much they'll stay home and get a Republican elected? I wonder if that isn't why Warren stayed out.

[Progressive dog]

163. The chief justice does not decide what cases are heard!!!!

[zeemike]

183. Not exactly no.

The Chief Justice is considered to be the justice with most seniority, independent of the number of years of service in the Supreme Court. As a result, the Chief Justice chairs the conferences where cases are discussed and voted on by the justices. The Chief Justice normally speaks first, and so has influence in framing the discussion
The Chief Justice sets the agenda for the weekly meetings where the justices review the petitions for certiorari, to decide whether to hear or deny each case. The Supreme Court agrees to hear less than one percent of the cases petitioned to it. While associate justices may append items to the weekly agenda, in practice this initial agenda-setting power of the Chief Justice has significant influence over the direction of the court.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Justice_of_the_United_States#Duties

[Progressive dog]

208. Exactly so-"influence in framing the discussion"

sounds like just another way to deny facts to me. You didn't claim the chief justice had influence on the decision of cases to hear , you claimed he decided. That is still untrue, no matter how you try to frame it.

[zeemike]

229. Frame it as you will.

But in practice he does decide.
"in practice this initial agenda-setting power of the Chief Justice has significant influence over the direction of the court."

So the battle for the SCOTUS was lost when the Dems voted to make Roberts CJ...and he is relativly young and so we have lost for a generation.

[Progressive dog]

231. In your imagination "he does decide"

From June of 2015 Boston Globe
"The Supreme Court’s three highest-profile decisions since Roberts became the top justice were all decided in favor of liberals: It rejected two challenges from the right to President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, including one on Thursday, ensuring 6 million people would keep their health care. "

[zeemike]

236. Right, that Citizens United went the liberal way.

And liberals love for profit health care and hate single payer...and if single payer had come before the court liberals would have ben behind striking it down...Neo Liberals love for profit things.

But sense things are going liberals way then there is no need for concern about SCOTUS appointments right?

[Progressive dog]

242. The Chief Justice's importance seems to have disappeared

from your argument. I guess you actually looked up how the SCOTUS works.

[zeemike]

244. Not at all, in fact it is the argument.

The CJ Roberts was the one that decided to hear the case and it was in direct oposition to what he said in his conformation hearing.

In fact Move On had a petition to impeach him for that very thing.

http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/impeach-john-roberts

[Progressive dog]

248. It takes 4 justices to hear a case

and it doesn't matter which side the chief justice is on. Move-on petitions have nothing to do with SCOTUS rules.

[zeemike]

250. And the right has 5

And will have for the foreseeable future...the oldest ones are the liberals, so all we can expect is to hold it to a 5/4 court.
And I suspect that Hillary will appoint a Wall Street friendly one to replace the liberal.

And I know the MO petition has nothing to do with the SCOUS rules...it has to do with Roberts saying he would not do something to get the job as CJ and then blatantly doing it right in our face.

And of course Democrats are powerless to act...we take it in the shorts and hope for a better day...that is why you always hear them say "moving forward..."

[Progressive dog]

251. None of the RW 5 were appointed by Bill Clinton

or by Barack Obama. There is zero chance that Hillary will appoint any.
You or even Move-On cannot really expect a government official to either sign or obey some fantasy pledge to get an appointment.

[haikugal]

16. Thanks for the facts in this regard...

Recommend!

[Enthusiast]

100. You make an excellent point. And you made me say WTF?

98-0! Unfuckingbelievable.

[kcr]

232. So, those same Dems would have voted for Scalia, even if there was no Scalia nominated?

I'm not arguing that their vote was correct, but it's simply reality that our government is run by politicians, in a system where they work together tit for tat. More Republicans will not help that.

[onehandle]

12. We do.

Many, many trolls with little else in their lives other than online trolling.

Sad, really.

[dlwickham]

15. these people aren't trolls

they're just assholes

they may be around once Hillary wins the nomination but I doubt too many of them will stick around for too long; I'm pretty sure that vocally supporting anyone but the official Democratic candidate can still get someone banned

[AlbertCat]

27. they may be around once Hillary wins the nomination but I doubt too many of them will stick around..

Wow... what a troll-y thing to say!

[eggplant]

50. +1.

I've been around since nearly the beginning. I'm not going anywhere, and I'm not hounding anyone who votes thoughtfully.

It is shameful that there is so much nastiness about what people will do in the general when there hasn't even been a candidate chosen for our side.

Saying one will vote for someone other than the chosen D candidate in the general is NOT going against the party. Anyone in a solidly red or blue state can vote for anyone they like without affecting the outcome. That's the whole point of calling them "solidly" red or blue.

And calling out anyone who expresses their own opinion about how they intend to vote by ACCUSING THEM of failing to support the party... IS FAILING TO SUPPORT THE PARTY. We are supposed to be the party of rational thinking. Act like it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

113. Yes it is.....

You are going against what the OTHER Democrats decided. WE are not called "Democrats" for nothing....Anyone that hangs around political sites (thus ARE informed) and refuses to vote for the Democrat in the General means you are an Independent...not a Democrat. Its that simple. And if you are an Independent you have no right to tell Democrats who they should be voting for....not voting is tantamount to a vote for the Republican candidate...

[eggplant]

127. Um, no.

I have no need to defend my position to you. You are simply being a bully, and you know it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

132. Um yes....

its called reality...

Sorry if reality doesn't comport with your world view. It doesn't mean its bullying.

[eggplant]

158. Your concern is noted.

Have a nice day.

[VanillaRhapsody]

160. my concern was not at question

whether or not claiming to NOT vote for the Democratic Nominee...on a Democratic forum...IS

[Hekate]

14. Amen, Atticus.

[edgineered]

17. Billboards advertising a certain zoo started to appear about 40 miles away

The ones at 40 mile read Only 25 more miles! At 30 miles out they read 20, and they continued to mistate the distance, eventually to say things like Almost There!, Minutes Away, and Just Ahead. The effect created false hope and anxiety. I suppose it is a good thing that being misled is a thing of the past.

But just in case, so that I won't suffer any longer than need be, and with the help of your OP, I know that I better get behind Clintons campaign while I still have the chance. It would be a shame to miss a single moment of the excitement.

[Cali_Democrat]

18. Don't feed those trolls. That's what they want.

Instead tell them to fuck off.

[wildeyed]

19. GD:P is just training for the main event.

I've been doing timed snark intervals and HIIT ad hominem attacks. Apparently you still get a hide for the latter, even if it is just for practice But good news, I should be very fit for the General provided I don't get banned first.

[ismnotwasm]

20. K&R

[Kalidurga]

21. I still don't get this kind of post

It's like you are saying people don't know where the f they live. Most people live in solid blue or solid red states and they can vote for whoever it will not matter.

Now people in purple states on the other hand, yes their vote will matter. But, good luck getting them to be enthusiastic about a candidate that is so comfortable with Wall Street she gets 75% of her donations from them.

[Doctor_J]

22. The party cannot continue to move to the right and expect liberals to stay with it

The newest meme from the Clinton campaign - "Sanders is soft on terrorists" - is even lower than the race baiting of 2008. If the national party wants to run on a platform of more war, more "free trade", more guaranteed profits for the health insurance companies, and "no new taxes", it's ridiculous to think that they won't lose voters. IMO Bernie handed them a great opportunity to reach out to new and disaffected voters with a populist platform. They chose to go with a rich, conservative dc insider, and a price will be paid.

[kcr]

223. Wrong. The party will not move to the left if it cannot count on its votes.

All staying home does is discourage politicians from running to the left, and discourages genuine progressives from taking a shot at it unless they too don't care if a Republican wins, which means they're really not all that progressive. Effective change can only happen with a solid, reliable voting base.

[Doctor_J]

228. They will show up to vote for someone who will represent them

Mrs Clinton will not. This fantasy that new voters somehow have to vote for Clinton just because trump is crazy is ridiculous. If Sanders is nominated, they will come out, because 1. He's said he'll fight for the things that are important to them, and 2. He doesn't lie. Hillary fails on both of those points, and new voters aren't going to stand for it.

[kcr]

230. What is ridiculous about it? You don't care if Trump is elected?

What is ridiculous about pointing out what a disaster Trump as president would be?

[quickesst]

23. I'm still waiting...

...... to hear one Hillary Clinton supporter here that says they won't vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it is. Until then, this is still a one sided issue. You can't compare the two as long as there's only one participant. My opinion.

[cui bono]

26. Anyone who says they won't vote if Clinton is the nominee says so because

they care so much about the country and the Dem Party that they just don't want to see both continue their drifts rightward.

At this point in time we are at a tipping point. If Hillary becomes president there is little doubt the TPP or something just like it will get passed and then the people are royally screwed. If we don't pull back and away from corporate control now it will be too late to do so without something serious happening one way or another. We simply cannot afford to continue with the status quo.

Bernie is the only chance we have of rectifying this situation. He is the only one who is standing up to corporate power who has a chance to win the nomination. How anyone can choose Hillary over him when it comes to policy is baffling to me.

So if Hillary supporters are willing to say "too bad, you'll get Hillary and you'll vote for her or else", they will have no one but themselves to blame if she gets the nom and losed the general.

Give the people something to vote FOR, not something to vote against.

We want to vote to WIN, not vote not to lose.

.

[GummyBearz]

38. Amen to that

[quickesst]

52. Illogical

The same old, same old weak argument. Nevertheless, this is what I expect. I expect that if Bernie wins the nomination there will be but a few who might leave the DU, and if they do, it will probably be because of the taunts of vindictive children. It's what I expect, and I see no reason for that to change. If Hillary wins the nomination, expect quite a few to leave DU, and well they should, because at that point, when they have made their decision not to vote for Hillary Clinton if she is the nominee, they no longer belong on Democratic Underground. After all, supporting Democrats is the premise of this site.

[cui bono]

70. You say illogical yet you don't point out why.

You then proceed with mere speculation. And btw... Democrats are supposed to support Democratic Party principles. What good is it to support someone who does not do that as much as another candidate? The point of supporting Democrats is for Democratic policy. That is precisely why Bernie is the best candidate, he best represents the values of the Democratic Party. At least what they are supposed to be and were before DLC and Third Way watered it down.



.

[quickesst]

94. Simple

When it comes to Clinton, people run around here like their hair is on fire. It is drama at its best. Logic says that if you vote against a candidate or do not vote for a candidate, you give support to the opposition. Not directly, as in voting for them, but indirectly with the results being the same. To equate a presidency of Hillary Clinton to the presidency of any of the Republican candidates is quite simply, willful ignorance. To keep a Democrat in the White House is logical. Why would anyone contribute willingly in taking 10 steps backward, and have to make up all the ground that has been gained? Like I said, it is illogical

[TM99]

165. How about you read up

on external and internal reasons for action or non-action.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/reasons-internal-external/

Then maybe we can discuss logical choice.

[quickesst]

192. Interesting article, but.....

[TM99]

195. Think about...

[RoccoR5955]

125. I couldn't agree more. n/t

[cui bono]

24. You are completely wrong.

Because, at that point, OUR choice will be between a Democrat that some of us believe isn't liberal enough or consistent enough or---WHATEVER!---and some damned Republican/Teabagger POS. And, ladies and gentlemen, that is not a tough call for anyone who TRULY should be a member here.

Our choice will be between a true liberal and "some damned Republican/Teabagger POS".

Let's not accept the "inevitable" meme.

.

[Betty Karlson]

25. You campaigned for Adlai Stevenson?

Hat of to you, sir. That is historically long ago! And stand in awe of you long commitment to, and service to, the Democratic Party.

[Atticus]

45. I did.

Made my first one dollar bill posting signs for Adlai in 1956. Dad was a precinct committeeman.

[navarth]

84. That is damned respectable, sir. nt

[Hiraeth]

28. Fully capable of holding my nose and voting. Had a lot of practice. Hopefully, I won't have to this

time but, if so ... oh well ... btdt

[relayerbob]

29. Sadly ...

and being another old-timer Dem who believes that whatever we have is orders of magnitude better than the GOP *and* being a Bernie supporter, I've seen this far too many times. The worst enemies of Democrats are other Democrats. Then after they get done pissing all over each others legs, a huge number of voters get turned off and stay home. Republicans don't win elections, Democrats lose them ... when we come across as no better than the other side, it just reinforces the general population's opinion that there isn't any real difference between the parties or the supporters.

[flamingdem]

30. I agree. I know Bernie, rather met him one time but lived in his

environment - Vermont and Goddard College where his wife was president. He's a treasure and I respect him but don't think he can win. Hillary has a lot to offer and of course she's not perfect. Neither was Obama but he held the line against the Republicans who did everything, and still are doing everything to hobble his agenda, his presidency, it's shameful, it's illegal or should be, with the help of a muddled electorate many of whom watch Fox and listend to RW radio we've gotten into a rough situation. Hillary has the chops to deal with them, many could not. I'm sure that Bernie would not want people to fail to vote for her, in fact I'm sure he'll campaign for her because he's a great guy. If he's nominated I will be a fervent supporter, as with Hillary, but I fear that won't happen.

[PufPuf23]

31. The problem with Hillary Clinton is that she is the fulcrum of a deeply divided Democratic Party

as well as the most disliked national-level Democratic Party politician within the DP and in the USA as a whole.

The Democratic Party should and likely will win the next election for POTUS easily with or without HRC as candidate.

In the likely event that Hillary Clinton wins POTUS, the nation and the Democratic Party will retain a political landscape that is deeply divided and bitter and would likely get worse.

I worry that the GOP will draft a POTUS candidate late in the cycle that is competent and sane and as a result Hillary Clinton loses and we have a GOP POTUS in 2017.

The Democratic Party would be better off if Hillary Clinton dropped out of the POTUS cycle and allowed a clear and open field to develop. Other suitable and superior DP candidates are blocked by HRC.

If Hillary Clinton and her supporters put HRC and their ambitions second to what is good for the USA, Hillary Clinton would drop out of the POTUS election cycle.

I have spent my life as a good partisan for the Democratic Party.

[MisterP]

42. not that DUers will be the election's focus

some candidates simply can't win even when faced against Donald friggin' Trump

[annabanana]

32. Of course there are.

DU is big enough and well enough known to attract a fair coterie.

[TDale313]

35. Well, for good or ill,

my vote for president will pretty much be inconsequential in both the primary or general, since I'm in California. If Hillary's in trouble here in the general, she's already lost. I'll vote, mostly cause of state and local issues. But it's ridiculous that many of us in the most populous states have so little voice when it comes to choosing our nominee and president.

[Art_from_Ark]

54. A lot of us from less-populated states have even less voice

For example, the last time a Democratic ticket that didn't have at least one Southerner on it won in Arkansas was back in the '40s. And I can't remember the last time I voted in a presidential primary that was still up for grabs when it was my state's turn to vote. Since the state is participating in Super Tuesday this year, though, I might have more say, although in all likelihood Hillary has it locked.

[L. Coyote]

36. I support the Democratic party candidates. Hell, I'd support more of them. Show folks who we are.

The one election that really matters is our primary, it decides the next President.

[gordyfl]

39. Let's Discuss This Later..

This should be discussed" after" the Primary Election.

[TheFarseer]

43. How many of these threads do we need? nt

[eggplant]

51. Apparently, an endless echo chamber of them.

It sucks. Argue the merits of your candidate for the primary. Stop whining about what people will do in the general.

[jeff47]

150. Until the beatings cause morale to improve. (nt)

[spanone]

44. Supreme Court

[Pharaoh]

55. yep, move in lockstep!

[murielm99]

59. There are a lot of trolls here,

trying to undermine the Democratic party.

I support Hillary. Of course I always vote for whomever wins the nomination. That has not always made me happy, but I do it.

I helped my dad campaign for Adlai. I helped him knock on doors and hand out literature.

[rhett o rick]

72. If you define a troll as someone that never posts anything substantive about issues

but only make ad hominem attacks, yes there are a lot here.

[murielm99]

86. Oh my, aren't we a ray of sunshine?

p.s. You don't get your own definition of troll any more than you get your own definition of facts.

[Gloria]

65. Thank you for being a voice of sanity....

I turned to HRC largely because of the nonsense I have been reading here at DU...a huge turnoff.
However, if Sanders were to become the nominee, I would vote for him.

Because, the main goal is to a Supreme Court into Dem hands and to defeat these insane Republicans
who will really screw us...

People need to think beyond their own obsessive "beliefs" when we are confronted by a crappy Republican nominee...and, they are ALL crappy. Not getting this and insisting that one will "go down with the ship" is as offensive as watching religious crazies....

[w0nderer]

66. trolls and move right

During the early years of Bush II DU was pretty Left

during Second term of B II

a lot of 'Republican lite', 'diet republicans' and D.I.N.O. "centrists"
Joined up

During Obama t1, more so
and
During Obama t2, even more so


DU is following the mainstream US politics, moving to the right!
DU USED to be the 'left' now largely it's the center left


I'm not allowed to vote (immigrant) i am allowed to fight for a candidate!
and i do, when i'm not working, sleeping or eating (or showering and sometimes i skip that) i'm volunteering
this is 'duty' <<--support the democratic way as stated on immigration papers!

[Diremoon]

71. Damn straight

I prefer Bernie by miles to Hillary, but not voting for whoever the democratic nominee is would be like condemning my friends and family to slow death by torture. It is like forsaking the country I fought for.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

73. Primaries are also where you build a platform....

Not a pedestal.

[Enthusiast]

101. Huge +1!

[frylock]

169. Well stated.

[bigwillq]

74. I will vote for a non-repub and a non-Clinton in the GE

Can't vote for a repub or a Clinton.

In my state (CT) it won't really matter. The DEM will win my state.

If Hillary is the nominee, I wish her well. I just can't vote for her.

If you think I am a troll, fine.

Have a great day.

[redstateblues]

75. Not a troll. Not a democrat either.

You'll be missed around here

[bigwillq]

77. Nah

I'll be here advocating for progressives, liberals and democrats to win in the other races.
I don't vote for people I don't like. Luckily I live in CT where we have some pretty good candidates to vote for in the other races.

[wildeyed]

105. And I live in NC

so I will vote and even campaign for pretty much anyone with a D next to their name in any state-level race or higher. The Dems control my urban center, so I have lee-way there, but OMFG the state GOPers are bad. And it is not outside the realm of possibility that we could swing back to blue in the Electoral College. Happened before...


Wasn't Leiberman from Connecticut? I always resented the CT was sending such a conservative dem to the senate. But if he was from NC, I would have knocked doors for him, since that was about as good as we could hope for from here.

[bigwillq]

110. If I lived in red or purple state

I would vote for the D even if I didn't like them. But it's different living in CT.

Lieberman was awful. I never voted for him and he won anyway.

[ecstatic]

141. Why do some of you keep repeating the dangerous meme about

your vote not counting anyway because you're in a red or blue state? Do you understand that if enough people do that, the state could tip in the other direction? I can't help but question the motives of people who keep planting that dangerous seed. At best, they're shortsighted, selfish, and irresponsible.

I'm so glad Bill Maher shut Dylan Ratigan down when he tried to spread that stupid idea on his show!

[frylock]

171. If enough people do that, then maybe the party establishment is pushing the wrong candidate on us.

If Clinton loses California, that's not on me.

[ecstatic]

203. And again, you miss the point. You view this as a chance to get back at the party

I view this as the difference between 3 additional Scalia-types on the supreme court, or as possibly the only thing standing between a woman's right to choose. None of those things matter to you, of course. So why should I take anything you have to say seriously? If you want party leaders to listen to you, don't act unhinged / irrational.

[frylock]

204. Let me lay this out for you: I'm not a Democrat..

I have voted for Democrats most of my life, but I have never registered as a Democrat. I couldn't give two fucking shits about your party. I owe your party nothing. If your party wants my vote, then they need to give me something to vote for. I'm done voting against Republicans, and I'm not going to succumb to fear. If enough people out there feel the same as me, than the party needs to take a long, hard look at itself and make a decision as to which direction they want to go.

[ecstatic]

205. Fine, but this is *DEMOCRATIC* underground. FYI. nt

[still_one]

80. The only ones who say they won't vote for the Democratic nominee whoever it is, are irrelevent

It won't matter what the stakes are, they don't care, and no convincing will work. They believe there is no difference between certain Democratic candidates, and the republicans. like Nader, you cannot reason with that. They will do what they want regardless, so personally I wouldn't waste much time trying to convince them otherwise. It's not going to do any good.

People should work and fight for who they believe is the best candidate in the primaries, as the OP said, and then vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election.

I have no idea why Some feel the need to declare they won't vote for the Democratic nominee in the general election if it isn't their candidate. They aren't going to change anyone's mind with that argument, and no one is going to change their mind, so why waste the time?

[kcr]

219. The same reason you're posting in this thread. The same reason anyone posts anything anywhere

People who want to express themselves aren't going to listen when they're told it's pointless.

[applegrove]

81. Oh yes. Definitely some gop trolls on this board stirring up meme like Bernie supporters not voting

for Hillary if she is the nominee. They were seething when asked about it. Then pretty silent on Hillary for a month after she trounced the GOP in Benghazi hearings. Thankfully Trump and the whole GOP clown car are so scary many Bernie supporters have woken up. But you do see more and more disruptions on the DU.... doing incredible feats that defy logic. There are also more disruptions on all the message boards and forum sharing slurs to further the GOP.

[ffr]

85. K&R GOTV and let's put an end to GOP stalemate

Because we have 'real people' candidates and the GOP has hate mongers.

Like OP suggests. Simple. Vote.

Let me repeat. VOTE!!

[Maedhros]

89. I will not be bullied into voting for ANYONE.

That's exactly what the real brownshirts did - coerce votes.

[Arneoker]

95. My conscience will direct (or bully, if you will) how I vote

I will vote for the Democrat, for all of the reasons stated, in order to prevent calamity for my children. It's going to be tough enough for them as it is.

Self indulgence (or "taking a stand," if you will) has never been for me.

[Maedhros]

144. My conscience won't let me vote for Hillary. [n/t]

[PowerToThePeople]

96. Ooga booga, must vote hrc or you get worse.

Ya, how about I choose to give the bird to a fucked up nation that has given me no good candidates for all of my adult life. (Truthfully I did think Obama was a good candidate in 08, but the deception did not take long to discover after.)

[wildeyed]

106. Or you could start developed a more nuanced understanding of the process

and realize that politics is political and politicians always suck, it's just that some suck harder than others. It's the nature of the beast.

To avoid complete disillusionment, I do most of my political work as an issue activist. Issues never compromise, run bad campaigns or have sex scandals. It's really much easier to love one of those. And then I pick the candidate who can win and who I think might be persuaded to my cause. You would be surprised. Many candidates WANT you to force them to act.

[wildeyed]

108. And BTW, you not voting is part of the plan.

Part A: Cheap food and cheap entertainment to distract and anesthetize the populace. Add cheap gas if you are from the USA.

Part B: To frustrate and confuse citizens so much that they don't participate in the process.


If you don't vote, they win. You have been assimilated. Ya'll like to "follow the money". Ask why we have such ridiculously low voter turnout rates in this country and then follow the money. It's not an accident.

[Buzz Clik]

107. Well, I certainly have been convinced that if HRC is not nominated, that...

... I can vote for her political twin, Donald Trump, and there will be no difference.

[alarimer]

109. Hillary's chokehold on the nominating process is deeply undemocratic.

She (or rather the third-way types who care more about winning than doing the right thing) and her machine have eliminated any semblance of a race. We are expected to fall in line, no matter how horrible a candidate she really is. Bernie is a better matchup against a lot of the GOP.

Not sure what I'll do, but I live in a blue state, so I won't vote for Hillary.

[wildeyed]

139. They said that about her in 2008 too.

She lost. You are entitled to not like her and not vote for her, but saying she is cheating is just sour grapes. And I guarantee, any candidate the GOP puts up will be even more horrid.

[bigbrother05]

111. My biggest worry are the Dems that won't vote at all

The GOP's strength isn't in the WH, even though they want it dearly. They succeed by filling the local/state/congressional offices that have the most effect on our daily lives. Federal laws provide a framework, but it's local application that we have to live with.

Please, regardless of affiliation, work and vote for your interests, the GOP certainly doesn't.

[eridani]

112. There are more independents than Democrats

They call the shots in the GE.

[PatrickforO]

116. It's interesting, because on the ground here in my home state, the

people I'm talking to are still saying they are going to vote Bernie in the primary. So I'm still thinking (check the nice iceberg poster on my signature line) that Bernie might have some serious surprises for pundits, establishment, and everyone else. Like winning a bunch of primaries. That we will see when it happens, whether or not.

But OF COURSE, as the OP writer says, I'll be supporting whomever the Dems nominate. Because...ku klux klown kar...I mean, seriously. We cannot afford giving these wannabee Brown Shirts ANY more power than they already have. Because this Trump thing is the downright scariest thing I've seen in national politics since Barry 'in your heart you know he might' Goldwater ran for Prez in 1964. But, you know, he got trounced SO BAD that the right wing crazies had to retreat under their rocks for about 40 years until the Koch brothers let them out...

[JeaneRaye]

119. Amen!

You said that perfectly. Pretty much what I've been thinking for a long time now.

[Javaman]

123. this thread wins the award for best hyperbole.

[wildeyed]

143. It actually might.

Seriously. So far no hidden posts that I can see. Low abuse of the rhetorical question, that was getting old.... There is some actual back and forth between factions that doesn't involve the f-bomb.

[Javaman]

181. also lacks real substance and evidence. nt

[wildeyed]

194. True dat.

Part of the game, I guess.

[Hepburn]

124. You are not the problem and I am not the problem...but there is a problem.

Hard-core liberals like you and me who went through the 60s are going to realize the perils of a R presidency.

Here is the problem: Hillary Clinton does not pull R cross-over votes and independents. Her negatives are very high in both of these groups. While most of us will do the right thing -- and some like me will have to hold their noses and fight down the nausea -- we will go to the polls and pull the D lever for HRC or fill in the circle or whatever. Those who are not like us will either pass their votes, stay at home and not vote at all or vote R. To win, we MUST have the cross-over and independent voters. HRC cannot bring that, along with her 1% pals, to the table.

Hillary Clinton is a disaster for the next GE not only for the Office of POTUS, but for downline candidates.

JMHO

[LW1977]

138. Okay then..

I smell a Republican plant..

[wildeyed]

145. Whaaaat?

You can't accuse someone of being a troll just because they disagree with you. Friendly note from a Clinton supporter

[Hepburn]

147. Yeah, I planted myself here in 2004 just in case HRC ran for POTUS!

Did you even look at my profile?

[jeff47]

154. Fucking polls and their right-wing bias, right?

Clinton is not polling well among Democratic-leaning independents. Very large deficits in likeability and trust. (They usually don't poll independents for primary votes, on the assumption they can't or won't vote in the primary. So we've got to go with secondary traits).

Democrats are about 30% of the electorate. Democratic-leaning independents are about 20% of the electorate. Republican-leaning independents are about 20% of the electorate....but they will never vote for a Democrat. True "swing" voters that will vote for either party are a negligible fraction of the electorate.

So, if we only get Democrats, we lose. We have to get Democratic-leaning independents.

They will not "fall in line". They are not Democrats, so you can't rely on party loyalty.

They will not vote based on "Republicans bad". That's why their turnout was abysmal in 2014, 2010, 2004 and 2000. It's also why their turnout went way down in 2012 compared to 2008, but Obama managed to get enough of them out to win.

They are also to the left of the median Democrat. "Pivot to the center" is exactly the wrong thing to do in order to get there vote. Pollsters will often pretend independents are a monolithic block, but they aren't. Democratic-leaning and Republican-leaning independents are very different. Treating them as one block creates the illusion that they are centrists, because you are effectively averaging pseudo-Democrats and pseudo-Republicans.

Clinton as the nominee is extremely dangerous in the general election. The bigger issue is Team Clinton doesn't seem to think that there is even the possibility of a problem, much less have a plan for dealing with it.

[frylock]

172. Try some deodarant.

[redstateblues]

146. Yeah- all the down ballot Socialists will be hurt

[Hepburn]

149. All the down ballot liberals will be hurt.

That may or may not include Socialists. Since Hillary is neither a liberal or a progressive, she is not going to draw much from the true liberals such as myself. While if she unfortunately gets the nod from our party to run in the GE, I will hold my nose and quell down the nausea and vote for her. However, the RWs see her as a liberal (too funny for words since she is more like them than a true Dems) and they will be out to vote against her.

BTW: There is nothing wrong with being a Democratic Socialist. While I have for over 45 years been a register Democrat, I am far more liberal than the vast majority of Democrats. Any you? Are you one of the Third Way Dems or a real FDR Dem?

I am out for the rest of the day...so don't feel as thou you are being ignored.

[ecstatic]

135. Trolls, anarchists, and one issue (or one candidate) voters

The one-candidate-issue voters aren't liberal or progressive but they like what one of our candidates says about one or two issues. In GD-P, they're always on message, but when in GD, their true colors start flying: They use phrases that the right wing uses when discussing cultural/social issues, they tend to be very dismissive of civil rights, etc. If they're truly going to vote for one of our candidates, that's great! But I wish they'd spew their nonsense and take their bad attitudes elsewhere because they're really stinking up these boards!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

136. Trolls...

Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost. John Quincy Adams

"Were parties here divided merely by a greediness for office,...to take a part with either would be unworthy of a reasonable or moral man." --Thomas Jefferson

"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

[JEB]

142. This is the primary. Advocate for candidate.

We will all jump off the general bridge when the time comes.

[modestybl]

148. Given who owns HRC, what makes you think she won't appoint corporatists ...

HRC needs all of the big money she is spending ... the Dems will stand up against a Repub POTUS
who proposes "reforming SS and Medicare... HRC may succeed.

[sufrommich]

152. I don't take anyone seriously who threatens to

take their ball and go home if their nominee doesn't win. Treat them as the petulant children that they are.

[aikoaiko]

161. I think what HRC needs to worry about, if she is the nom, is the growing # of left independents

Folks who probably vote Democratic when that the best choice, but can't be badgered by the "get in line" marching orders of the Democratic party because they are not in the party.

[kcr]

216. If a growing number of the left are petulant, that's a problem

It reminds me of people who refuse to wear their seatbelt because they don't like being told what to do. Those who would see reminders of the suffering caused by Republicans as "badgering" are selfish.

[aikoaiko]

227. Some may be petulant, others genuinely disenfranchised

Not too long ago a vocal HRC supporter made OPs about how Bernie supporters can afford to put up a someone like Bernie Sanders because if he loses the GE it won't matter much to them because so many are white, male, and middle class or better.

Implicit in that argument is that HRC won't provide much better than a republican.

Of course he wa making the case to vote for HRC for non white middle class males , but you can see how disenfranchisement could result. In states like FL, OH, VA, and NC it could really matter for HRC

[kcr]

233. How does that imply that Hillary is no better than a Republican?

I agree that some Bernie supporters are exactly so, and I say that as a Bernie supporter. I don't get how that implies Hillary is no better than a Republican. If someone thinks that both parties are the same, they're more inclined to agree with you than me.

[aikoaiko]

237. It implies itbecause otherwise white liberal middle class males would support HRC

It's not that the parties are the same ( for all) but that not much different will happen for a large segment of Bernie's base.

[dpatbrown]

162. 100%

I totally agree with you. I am working hard for Sanders, but will not put any hurt feelings on my part, to not vote for Clinton if she goes to the general. How in the world would any Dem want the GOP to control the White House, and everything that goes with it.

Thanks for the common sense.

[briv1016]

164. Don't confuse hoping they win the Republican nomination with hoping they win the election.

[Iggo]

175. Meta!

[Beartracks]

178. Big f'in KnR!

"At that point, OUR choice [may] be between a Democrat that some of us believe isn't liberal enough... and some damned Republican/Teabagger POS."

If any DUer truly thinks they can't have voting for HRC "on their conscience" then they'd better be in such a red, red state that it won't matter if they even go to the polls at all. Otherwise they could have President Trump or President Cruz on their conscience. And think what you will of Hillary, but I'm pretty sure that would be far, far worse, and not just for your conscience but for the rest of us and our children and their children.

Let's see: Fascism or Status Quo? Gee, not a hard choice, really.

Should Hillary get the nomination, be assured that the GOP machine will generate massive, massive, furious turnout to make damned sure that she, of all people, is not elected -- with Hillary, it's practically personal for Republicans -- and so Democrats who want to see a Democrat stay in the White House had better all pull together and vote for her regardless of anything.

====================

[floriduck]

180. Pardon me while I call bullshit on your post.

Here's the Cliff Notes version. If Hillary is elected, this country continues down a slow path to destruction or a major revolution. That same result will happen, perhaps more quickly with an establishment GOPer. Her principles will be similar to Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and even a bit of W Bush. All of those leaned center right to mid right.

I have said since day one I intend to vote for Bernie in the primaries and write-in Bernie if he does not win the primaries. Sounds radical but it is pragmatic. I feel an obligation to support my candidate whom represents my interests. Hill just doesn't cut it for me for many reasons.

Now back all you Hill people who want to use the SCOTUS as a reason to support Hill, have no clue as to how liberal her nominees will be. Even Reagan put justices on the bench who turned out to side with the left. Hill's latest claim is that she is a moderate. So her justice selections could be as right as Scalia, Alito and puppet Thomas.

For that reason I will stick with Bernie. ALL THE WAY!!

[Fast Walker 52]

186. she will support justices that support women's rights, that is for sure. If nothing else, that is

pretty important.

She will also promote action to fight climate change, which is also freaking important.

She will respect diversity, which is important.

I will vote for Bernie in the primary too, but I cannot see how Hillary is anywhere close to how bad the GOP is these days.

[Hepburn]

191. Maybe...unless her 1% pals disagree. n/t

[kcr]

218. Let's say you're right and it's a maybe. I would take my chances with maybe over definitely not.

Because even if it may not personally affect me, it sure will affect a lot of other people.

[Hepburn]

238. Here's the problem

No one knows where Hillary really stands. We often can protect against the known qualities we don't wish to have vested upon us. However, there are those who hold unknown positions because they are intentionally hiding the truth. Hillary goes where the wind of the most advantage to her blows. If it were an advantage to her, there is no doubt in my mind that she would throw women's issue out the window. Hillary, IMO, has only one true core value to which she always remains faithful and that is taking whatever position most advances Hillary.

JMHO

[CharlotteVale]

197. +1000000. I don't trust Hillary. On anything.

[Hepburn]

239. I'll raise you 1,000,000 on that! n/t

[stillwaiting]

182. I am also supporting Bernie, and I will vote for Clinton if she's the nominee.

The problem is that there is a cumulative effect going on here over many years. The firmly entrenched Establishment has nothing but contempt for those of us who support the values that Bernie espouses.

You can see it often even here on DU with some of Hillary's supporters. They truly don't like us, and they do NOT support our values. They are open about it. Their disdain is visceral and palpable.

I completely understand why some might have a difficult time continuing to vote for candidates that truly don't represent them on many different issues. They, in fact, oppose them/me/us on a number of VERY important issues that are vital and fundamental to the health and well-being of our country.

And, we will be asked to vote for that should Clinton get the nomination. I will vote for her, but I won't be happy about it and I simply can't pretend that I am. That makes it very difficult to rally voters for her in my case, and I will be far from alone.

I truly do hope that Clinton can win the WH if she's the nominee simply from a harm reduction standpoint. To be clear, I DO believe more harm will be levied against the working class and poor if Clinton is in the WH. But I believe it will be less than if a Republican sits in the WH.

It's quite awful feeling like no matter who one votes for things will get worse in this country though. Not everyone can rally to vote for the lesser evil over and over again. We eventually need someone we can vote FOR and not just someone we are voting AGAINST.

It really will be the Establishment's fault if the Democrats don't win in '16. There is a RECORD of their failures that is simply undeniable. What they are doing has not worked, and Hillary is doing it again during this campaign cycle.

Edited to add: No part of me believes that the Party Leadership cares if they win or lose against Republicans. They seem to have one objective and that is to BLOCK progressive politicians and progressive legislation from ever seeing the light of day. When you're a progressive and believe this to be true, it's definitely not fun to have to vote for this type of candidate.

[Fast Walker 52]

187. I cannot see how Hillary is anywhere close to how bad the GOP is these days.

I prefer Bernie, but also will vote for Hillary in the general. I cannot fathom not voting for a Dem in this next election, and enabling a Republican win in any way.

[randome]

193. I absolutely will not vote for Pat Paulsen again and you can't make me!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[wolfie001]

199. 100% agreement!!!

[rpannier]

206. There are also a lot of people who talk madness

I don't know if it's emotional attachment, wanting to sound better than others or what

[certainot]

215. sometimes i can't tell the diff btween trolls and idiots

[WhaTHellsgoingonhere]

222. We're still doing this? Is it just copy/paste at this point?

[peacebird]

226. I will vote for Bernie. I am done being the good girl & voting for the lesser evil.

As I have posted before, I will vote Bernie in the primary. Hopefully he wins.

I will vote Bernie in the general also, even if it is a write in. If Bernie loses the primary to Clinton I will stop posting at DU, per the rules. But I will never, ever vote for her.

[philosslayer]

246. Well, i hope you enjoy your last few weeks at DU

Because by early March, this will be over. And Senator Sanders will resume his full slate of Senatorial duties.

[peacebird]

249. I think you and the Hillary team are in for a shocking case of deja vu!

[reddread]

243. not this shit again

Clarence Thomas and Joe Biden put a real wrinkle in that phony argument.