If Your Favorite Dem Doesn’t Win The Nomination And You Decide To Stay Home, You’re A MASSIVE Idiot

[Orrex]

Before we begin, let’s be perfectly clear: this is not an article in support of either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. I know who I’m voting for, but I’m not endorsing nor publicly supporting either. My “guy,” in the political sense, was and always will be Barack Obama and I fought the good fight in 2008 to help him get elected. I have no interest in repeating the same shovel fights this time around.

With that out of the way, if your favorite Democratic presidential candidate doesn’t win the nomination and, consequently, you decide to stay home or vote for a third party in November, you need to grow the hell up and keep your contrarianism to yourself. Ben Spielberg, writing for The Huffington Post, along with his colleague H.A. Goodman, have each pledged to not support Hillary Clinton if she wins the nomination over challenger Bernie Sanders.

They’re otherwise smart guys, but they’re being really, really stupid.

[hr]
More at LINK.

[draa]

1. The only idiots

are people who keep voting for the same shit and expect different results.

I'm writing Sanders in regardless. Thanks.

[Chan790]

6. careful. That's bannable in these parts. I suggest a quick edit or delete. n/t

[draa]

9. They're free to ban me if they see fit.

I hope they don't but it is what it is and I'm willing to accept whatever they decide.

[Orrex]

12. No, that's not bannable.

According to Skinner himself, no one has been banned for expressing the intent not to vote for one candidate or the other. Those who have been PPR'ed were encouraging others not to vote for the nominee.

He states it clearly HERE:

We have not banned any long-term members this election cycle for simply stating an intent to personally not support the Democratic nominee in the 2016 general election.

I'm sure you would agree that we do not want to ban everyone from DU who states a personal intent not to support the eventual nominee. As you yourself pointed out, surely most of such comments should be taken with an enormous grain of salt. And furthermore, such banning a would overwhelmingly target the supporters of one candidate over the other, to the tune of about 150 to 1.

[draa]

14. Thanks.

[Orrex]

21. But if you post EP7 spoilers, then watch out!

[draa]

39. lol

Not a chance.

I see a lot of movies spoiler threads on DU and I'm guessing there's not much cheering going on.

[JackInGreen]

151. This!

Even my fellow berners will get an alert from me for obstinance on that.

[SCantiGOP]

34. You're still wrong, draa

Moral and practical equivalent of voting Republican.
I will proudly vote for whoever is on the November ballot. I think there is a 99% chance that will be Hillary Clinton.

[draa]

45. Good for her, but I can't support her.

It's not that I don't like her, it's that I don't like what she stands for. Her positions may be fine for some, and I'll support their right to vote for whoever they choose, but I can't vote for that myself. Sorry.

Also, I didn't serve our country to have someone tell me, or you, how or who we should vote for. That's a personal matter and if asked I'll gladly tell (as I did above), but it's my choice in the end who gets my vote. People should respect that on both sides.

[catbyte]

91. Then you're turning over the Supreme Court to the Republicans and that is

unspeakably evil. But have at it. I'm old enough so I'll be dead before the shit really hits the fan. I hope you're not so you can live with the consequences of your "principles."

Unfuckingbelievable.

[draa]

96. Since you want to use abrasive language when I've been respectful so far,

I don't give a fuck what you think. I didn't serve my country to have someone tell me how I should fucking vote. Don't like it? Change the goddamn law and force me to vote for who "they " pick, as if that's not what they're trying to do right now.

You better do it fucking quick though because I'm voting for who I want when I want. And I don't give a good goddamn what you think.


Unfuckingbelieveable is right. The never of some fucking people.

[catbyte]

134. I'm sure your grandchildren will be happy to know that you "stuck to your priciples" when

every right that we've fought for has been gutted by the Supreme Court. Have a fucking SUPER day.

[draa]

138. Fear of the unknown is a disease. It's what's lead to this state America is in.

Fear of what might happen is pointless. You'd just as well cower under the covers in fear of the dark. Or go bomb the wrong country, because that's what pants wetting fear does.

The current SC has 3 members who are bat shit crazy and yet we've gotten more positive change from that court than we've had in decades. Marriage Equality was upheld. The ACA was upheld. Twice. The Fair Housing Act was upheld as well. And we've had countless smaller victories pertaining to social issues and societal change. So you'll have to excuse me if I'm not panicking over something that hasn't even happened yet. smh

Fear of what might happen is unhealthy and I refuse to play that game. You have a fucking super day as well.

[Live and Learn]

119. What makes you think Hillary will do such a good job with the Supreme Court?

I don't share your faith in her.

[Live and Learn]

118. +1000 nt

[okasha]

22. This one's a five-year member with 81 posts.

[Orrex]

25. :shrug:

[draa]

37. Yep.

Because I have 2 wonderful grandchildren to spend my time with. A 6yo girl and a 2yo boy. I also have a 3rd grandson on the way. No offense, as much as I like you folks, you can't hold a candle to those 2 children. I went almost 4 years before I came back.

The main reason I'm voting for Sanders is those 2 kids. He's the only one I trust to do what's right for them. They don't have a voice so he's it.

By the way, I'm not sure what my time on site or how many comments I've posted have to do with my opinion and what I plan to do come general election. If you think it makes both less important then you're free to put me on ignore (but I hope you don't).

[floriduck]

68. Zing!! Well stated.

I like your style and political position.

Bern on, draa.

[zentrum]

89. Ignore her.

This is not a high school clique—where if you don't do the proscribed things, you're to be shamed for your observations.

Most of us understand that there are lots of different relationships to this site. Democrats are tolerant, after all.

Hi to your grandkids—

[draa]

90. Thanks zentrum, I'll do that.

I'm quite a few years out of high school - and a good portion of my hair - so cliques are a thing of the past (just like my poor hair).


/Bernie's hair looks like a 20yo Mick Jagger's compared to mine.

[Live and Learn]

120. +10,000 nt

[DrDan]

128. so you would allow a Cruz or Carson to win the WH over HRC, even though you know

how bad that would be for your Grandchildren.

Amazing.

But stay true to your ideals. Your conscience will be clear.

[draa]

140. My conscience will be clear.

Much clearer than someone who supports a flawed death penalty, perpetual war, and our current surveillance state. Not to mention the half dozen issues that are clearly anti-Democratic Party she supports, supported, or voted for outright.

She had a choice many times to do the right thing when it mattered. She made her choices and while I'm fine with her convictions, I hate many of them completely. Always have, always will.

Have a nice day and Happy Holidays.

/perhaps we could stop with the vote shaming. it's not what our party is or ever was. thanks again.

[DrDan]

145. I have absolutely no doubt your conscience will easily handle a President Trump

[draa]

149. Yep, as well as I've handled any other American President in my 50 years.

While we're at it, I have to assume you'll also ask some of the 100 million people that NEVER vote for some help, too. I'm not alone in my views and there's a reason the electorate won't or don't vote. Try them instead.

Thanks again.

[Dream Girl]

159. Maybe things will be all perfect for your grandchildren's grandchildren

But dagnabit you would have showed 'me by sticking to your guns.

[draa]

162. If we let the neo-liberals take over our party what then.

Is it better to starve slow or die quick. That's the jest of it.

The childhood poverty rate is higher in 2015 than it was at the worst of the great recession. Instead of helping us feed our children they help steal our wealth. That's a fact.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/21/children-poverty-great-recession_n_7841576.html

There's 16 million children living in poverty. 22% of all children. That's what neo policies do. On both sides of the isle. All while the wealth of the 1% and 01% rose even higher. It's pathetic. And neos in our party just stand by and let it happen. Hell, they don't even try anymore.

http://www.nccp.org/topics/childpoverty.html

As far as my grandchildren? If you support Clinton then you support neo policies and you don't really care anyway. Or you just don't understand what they are doing and why we must change our party for the better. If you did you'd stop voting for them and support someone who could help. But that's your choice. Happy Holidays.

[A Simple Game]

76. So what's your point? n/t

[draa]

85. It's a purity test.

If you haven't posted 1000000 comments you don't get a say.

I had another poster call me a newbie the other day. They also complained about my lack of a star, whatever the hell that is.

Let 'em go, it doesn't bother me in the least.

[one_voice]

111. It's not a purity test. It has nothing to do with how many

posts you have or don't have.

It's that you've been dormant for many years and that's how many trolls present.

Anyone that's served on MIRT will tell you that. They get their post count up then all hell breaks loose. They use sleeper accounts during specific times.

It's nothing personal. We have volunteers that that serve on MIRT and sometimes keep serving even when they're not on MIRT. It's just something you do. I do the same thing. I looked at your profile and noticed the same thing.

Happy holidays.

[draa]

112. NP.

Happy Holidays to you as well and if we don't talk before New Years, I hope it's a great one.

[Live and Learn]

121. And???? What the hell is your point?

Do you really believe posting a lot, especially when it is simply useless insults makes a person more important?

[BainsBane]

116. He didn't say it wasn't bannable

rather than they haven't yet done it. TOS:

Democratic Underground is an online community for politically liberal people who understand the importance of working within the system to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of political office. . . . Winning elections is important — therefore, advocating in favor of Republican nominees or in favor of third-party spoiler candidates that could split the vote and throw an election to our conservative opponents is never permitted on Democratic Underground.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=termsofservice

[DrDan]

127. wrong - encouraging others is

but you knew that

[RoccoR5955]

10. I couldn't agree more.

[Speed8098]

62. Are you trying to give it to the knuckleheads?

Look,
I'm a really busy guy and if you look at my profile you'll see I've been here for a hell of a long time, I just keep my mouth shut most of the time. In this case, I just can't remain silent.
As much as Bernie Sanders has done and the fact that he has gained momentum through grassroots donations is admirable. Hell, I like what the guy is saying, but.........................if he is not the nominee and any of you write him in, you can count on the destruction of the world as we know it today.
These right wingers have alienated every possible powerful ally we could ever negotiate with. They have made us a joke to the rest of the civilized world. I beg of you, don't write in someone who couldn't even win the nomination, vote for the blue candidate that can win. It only make sense. Just my $02

[Cha]

122. Good for you.. I don't care. We're going to do all the work to make sure our country doesn't fall

into rwinger grips.

[draa]

141. Sorry Cha, I missed this last night.

I really admire you because of your dedication to this site and presumably the Democratic Party. With 169K+ comments I have to assume many were in support of the party but either way...WOW. For that reason alone I will reply.

I would expect nothing less. She's your candidate and you should fight to get her elected. If she represents your values and what you believe, fight and fight hard. That's what I would do. Or rather am doing for Bernie. It's your right to support your candidate, or not support one if that'd be the case. Be thankful we still have that at least.

Thanks Cha, Happy Holidays and Peace to you.

[peacebird]

126. True that! & I would add that it appears some people are getting very nervous that their candidate

is *inevitably* going to lose the general election, so they are setting up scapegoats in those who will not vote for status quo. Hence the myriad of "you would have to be an idiot if you don't vote for our nominee" posts......

[Squinch]

157. Maybe you guys should ask if you can open a Trump supporters forum.

[reformist2]

2. Can we have this discussion after the primaries are over?

[peace13]

57. I agree!

X 1000!

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

86. THANK YOU!!! Regardless of anyone's intention to vote after the nomination process is over, the only "idiots" are the ones who broadcast those intentions...

whereby their vote will be taken for granted. I, for one, will NOT compromise my principles, and give ANY candidate the latitude to take non-progressive positions, especially before the first vote has been taken.

Talk about idiotic!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[razorman]

94. Smart move; playing your cards close to the vest.

I own a small business, and am occasionally asked to put up a poster or some other campaign material for one candidate or another. I always politely decline; since, although it is silly, there are people who will refuse to do business with me if I support someone they do not like. However, I will allow any candidate of any party to display position pamphlets to inform people of where they stand on the issues. I urge folks to study the issues, make an informed decision, and vote. If you do not vote, you do not have a right to complain later.

[Karma13612]

99. +100 eom

[EdwardBernays]

3. Ehh

More bullying.

The truth is that America has faltered so much in relation to so many other countries precisely because of people voting out of terror.

If Americans voted for what they actually wanted America would get a lot better and quick.

But no. We're all sooooo scared of the GOP that we vote for anyone at all with a D next to their name.

Weak minded nonsense.

[Orrex]

20. Well, no.

But no. We're all sooooo scared of the GOP that we vote for anyone at all with a D next to their name.

No, that's a silly mischaracterization of reality. You are not being asked to "vote for anyone at all with a D next to their name." The article is correctly noting that you're a fool if you stay home and by default give your vote to the GOP rather than voting for the Democratic nominee. If you live in a securely Blue electoral state, then knock yourself out. But if you think that you're doing the right thing by helping to throw a swing state to the GOP, then you're voting for the GOP. That's true whether your preferred candidate is Sanders or Clinton.


Incidentally, I haven't seen even one single Clinton supporter declare that they won't vote for Sanders if he's on the ticket. Funny that so many of Sanders' supporters are so personally invested in their newly minted Democratic convert that they can't possibly imagine voting the Democrat who's on the ballot in 2016 if it isn't him.

And they pretend that it's a principled decision.

[EdwardBernays]

24. Typical

Typical response.

You are of course being asked to vote for whomever has a D next to their name.

And the fact that Clinton supporters are willing to blindly support whomever the party puts forward isn't some sort of thing to be proud of either. The fact that you think it is illustrates exactly why America is in the sorry shape it's in.

[BeyondGeography]

29. Orrex killed America?

[Orrex]

32. Not for the first or last time, I'm sure.

[Orrex]

30. And your response is petty and childish

You are of course being asked to vote for whomever has a D next to their name.

I won't call that a lie, but it's a statement that is obviously contrary to objective fact, so call it what you will.

Absolutely no one is "being asked to whomever has a D next to their name." Instead, you are urged to vote for the candidate who has emerged victorious from the Primary process, even if that candidate is an Independent masquerading as a Democrat for purposes of electoral visibility.

And the fact that Clinton supporters are willing to blindly support whomever the party puts forward isn't some sort of thing to be proud of either.

Blindly? That's a petulant attack on anyone who isn't of your flock, and you think that you display some greater wisdom or integrity by "seeing" some big picture that will help elect the GOP. Do you imagine that Sanders will withhold his vote if Clinton is on the ballot? Or will he behave like a grownup and act to defeat the GOP candidate?

Flatter yourself however you like, but don't pretend that you're guided by a higher principle or purpose. You're simply being stubborn.

[EdwardBernays]

41. Lol

I'm not sure what hair you're trying to split when you say:


"Absolutely no one is "being asked to whomever has a D next to their name." Instead, you are urged to vote for the candidate who has emerged victorious from the Primary process, even if that candidate is an Independent masquerading as a Democrat for purposes of electoral visibility."

There's literally no difference between the two things you describe. And it's odd that you have contorted the situation to such a degree in your own mind - to find some illusion of freedom.

And I also find it funny that you go way out of your way to say Clinton supporters will vote for whomever the nominees is and then laughably claim it's not blind loyalty to the party.

Maybe you think we were all born yesterday, but that's not the case. I can easily remember a string of threats about the end of the world unless we support some extremely flawed candidate.

And if you dare question this or note the results of endlessly electing shitty candidate after shitty candidate you're told you are supporting whomever the current GOP bogeyman is.

It's obviously not working, it's obviously a failure and its going to continue to harm the country until people vote for what they want, instead of voting based on fear of the other.

If no dems went out and supported Hillary she would lose. And we might get four years of Trump. Yes. But then guess what... we'd survive. And the people that created that disaster would be more likely to put forward someone that people gave a shit about.

Anyway - it's meaningless. The establishment wants the multimillionaire Wall Street protector. They don't want proper universal health care or a proper education reform. They are desperate to have someone willing to bomb ISIS and Syria etc etc etc.

Bernie is probably going to lose as a result. And America will get worse.

And you'll pat yourself on the back for the part you played in that farce.

[Orrex]

47. I don't care when you were born; you're being childish

"Absolutely no one is "being asked to whomever has a D next to their name." Instead, you are urged to vote for the candidate who has emerged victorious from the Primary process, even if that candidate is an Independent masquerading as a Democrat for purposes of electoral visibility."

There's literally no difference between the two things you describe. And it's odd that you have contorted the situation to such a degree in your own mind - to find some illusion of freedom.

You're flatly incorrect. Again, more slowly this time, you are urged to vote for the Democrat who emerges victorious from the Primary process. When you claim that you're "being asked to whomever has a D next to their name," you are pretending that the candidate is some random name on a ticket, as if "anyone" can wind up on the ballot to represent the party. That's simply not true, and it's not a matter of hair-splitting.

And I also find it funny that you go way out of your way to say Clinton supporters will vote for whomever the nominees is and then laughably claim it's not blind loyalty to the party.

It has nothing to do with party loyalty but rather to steadfast denial of the GOP. Your inability to recognize this distinction is your failure, not mine.

Maybe you think we were all born yesterday, but that's not the case. I can easily remember a string of threats about the end of the world unless we support some extremely flawed candidate.

Really? If you're old enough to remember 2000, then perhaps you remember that the "threats" proved to be correct?

If no dems went out and supported Hillary she would lose. And we might get four years of Trump. Yes. But then guess what... we'd survive. And the people that created that disaster would be more likely to put forward someone that people gave a shit about.

That might very well be the single dumbest thing I've ever seen posted on DU.


You are unworthy of further response. Not because you support Sanders, but because you are disastrously short-sighted and you congratulate yourself for your short-sightedness.

[EdwardBernays]

92. Pretty hilarious

All the little hoops you're jumping through to make it seem like you're able to make some choice.

I'd laugh if it wasn't America at stake.

Anyway. Don't worry. The same dumbass strategy that people like you have employed for years will work again this year.

And we'lol elect another subpar candidate who won't do much but make things stay about the same. In other words: crap.

Enjoy making the world worse for future generations, because you're too scared and too party loyal to do anything worth doing for your country.

[A Simple Game]

80. I remember when we accused the Republicans of voting party before Country, now we

want to emulate them? Not me, I will vote for the best candidate for our Country that on the ballot regardless of party.

The only way the best candidates wins is if you vote for them.

[Fumesucker]

4. If every vote for one is also a vote for the other then both are equally electable

And we can make our choice based on rational criteria such as track record, do we feel they are honest, amount of evolution needed to come to liberal or progressive positions and so forth.

[greenman3610]

5. we ran this experiment in 2000, remember?

"There is not a dime's worth of difference between Al Gore and George Bush."

I sure as hell remember.

[enid602]

7. xplode

This argument is moot, as the people to whom ypu refer will suffer from exploding heads once the inevitable occurs. They'll not be in any condition to vote for anyone.

[draa]

11. That's correct.

I don't see tempers calming down over this anytime soon.

[Juicy_Bellows]

8. I'll be staying home.

Because Oregon has vote by mail.

[Orrex]

13. Dammit--you win this round!

[artislife]

100. WA State, mail in ballots!

The premise is that we won't vote, but I think plenty of people will vote. It just may not be straight Ds down the line.

[nc4bo]

15. IOW.....take a clothes pin with you to the polls. Buy a bag, share with your friends.

Clothes pins are more sanitary than fingers.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

So sad that it boils down to this crap.

And some wonder why there's a lack of enthusiasm.

[in_cog_ni_to]

16. Oh, I would NEVER stay home on election day.

All ballots have down ticket candidates to vote for and a candidate write-in line.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[nc4bo]

18. Now THAT'S some truth right there! nt

[ejbr]

17. I live in New York

Even if I convinced everyone in my town to vote Republican, the Democrat would carry the state. That being said, I understand the sentiment. Trying not to think too far ahead.

[Gothmog]

19. I will support the Democratic Nominee no matter what

[Orrex]

23. ^^This is the correct and realistic attitude.

Again, outside of strongly Blue states with huge Democratic majorities, there's too much at stake to make meaningless and self-defeating statements of dubious principle.

[Gothmog]

33. While Texas is currently a Red State, it can and will turn blue

Even in a deeply red state, it makes no sense to vote against the nominee of the party

[bowens43]

63. ^^ this is thye attitude tha got us in the fucking mess in the first place

[Orrex]

73. How so? Please be specific.

Which pseudo-Democratic president was elected in this way?

[FSogol]

27. Same here. n/t

[NuclearDem]

36. Amen.

[bowens43]

61. what if it was trump or cruz? Would you still do it?

[JoePhilly]

26. +1

[cherokeeprogressive]

28. The moral of the story is... vote for Hillary and be a USEFUL Idiot.

[Orrex]

31. Or what? Vote for Sanders and be a useless idiot?

I don't see it that way at all. Why do Sanders' supporters?

[okasha]

35. If you',re already an idiot

better to be USEFUL than not.

[coyote]

113. Or stop being part of a system that perpetuates the power

Of the top 1% of the country. Not only do I think Clinton is a bad candidate (her history shows me that), but feel she will actively work against my best interest...IWR, bankruptcy bill, TPP, just to name a few. She does not represent me in the slightest, and I cannot in good conscious vote for someone like that.

[okasha]

114. So you'd help a Republican win?

And bear responsibility for betraying voting rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, people of color, low-income families,, ,,?

I thank the gods I have no such Princess-and-the pea conscience as yours.

[leftupnorth]

135. Sounds like a recipe for popular revolution.

Don't you dare threaten us with a good time!

[Agnosticsherbet]

38. We have a government elected by a majority of those who vote. There are lots of voters who will

happily vote in the place of those who stay home.

Sadly, most of them are rabid Republicans.

[Dream Girl]

160. Sadly, some don't seem to realize that. Majority rule means you are not going to always

Get what you want.

[Agnosticsherbet]

164. The "majority of those who vote rule." If only one person shows up to vote.

That one person is the majority.

[Purveyor]

40. Hell no I won't stay home but that doesn't mean I'll vote in every

race down the ballot.

[Le Taz Hot]

42. Activists never stay home on election day.

Ever.

[zappaman]

43. CA is solidly blue so I can afford to waste my vote.

But I won't.

[MisterP]

44. even leaving aside the party's repeated sabotage of its own candidates, its backscratching with

the Republicans, its passing of GOP policies (heck, even Clarence Thomas), and its Nurse Ratched-like guilt trips whenever someone makes a squeak--

that's not a very sparkling motivation for those who aren't wonks, now is it?

[jfern]

46. Martin O'Malley isn't my favorite candidate, but I'll definitely vote for him in the general

[pansypoo53219]

48. i guess asshat georgee w bush didn't teach ANYBODY a lesson. especially his 2 JUDGES on the supreme

court. why not 2 more scalitoes. MORE anti left decades.

[Orrex]

50. Yeah! Who needs reproductive freedom or voting rights anyway?

[ish of the hammer]

109. did the democrats in the senate vote for those guys?

just a question

[WillyT]

49. Are You Listening Hillary Supporters ???

[TIME TO PANIC]

153. +1

[DrewFlorida]

51. I could not agree more!

[marble falls]

52. Agreed. I hope Hillary supporters will back Bernie when he takes the nomination.

[Orrex]

58. I haven't seen one Clinton supporter state that they won't vote for Sanders

That kind of my-way-or-fuck-it attitude seems to occur only in those who Feel the Bern.

[ish of the hammer]

115. I think that people who "Feel the Burn"

have finally found a candidate that speaks to and for them in ways that few other candidates have and certainly not for the past 50! years. (RFK ?) for the DNC to say nuh-uhh, it's Clinton, AND we want a loyalty oath is stupid beyond belief.
I am not convinced that the Clintons are anything other than the representatives of the oligarchy- conservadems. so Clinton does not get my vote, in the primary or the general. don't bother me the about the supreme court. google tells me the vote FOR ScALIA WAS 98 - 0! GREAT WORK DEMOCRATIC PARTY !!!!!

[Douglas Carpenter]

166. Actually a number of Hillary supporters have said that they would never support Bernie

even if he became the nominee.

Here is someone who also said on another post that they would support Trump over Sen. Sanders:

Douglas Carpenter (19,801 posts)

129. I pledge to support Hillary if she is the nominee? Do you pledge to support Bernie if he is the nominee?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868787

-----------

131. Absolutely not
I'm a Democrat. He is NOT a Democrat. I wouldn't vote for him if you held a gun to my head, just like I would never and have never voted for a republican in my 38 years of voting. In fact in the minuscule chance that he was nominated I would never give another red cent to the party, knock doors, or phone bank for Dems.

Not in a million fucking years. And frankly, at least 50% of that feeling could be credited to his supporters who have spent the last several years smearing the shit out of real Democrats.

So no, never, ever, ever would I vote for him. Never.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=868804

[Orrex]

167. Where does she say she'd support Trump over Sanders?

She makes an interesting point, by the way; if Clinton had switched parties simply for the sake of electoral visibility, she'd be condemned as a carpet-bagging pseudo-Democrat.

[Douglas Carpenter]

168. she has said it elsewhere. But, the fact is she makes it clear that under

no circumstances will she support the nominee the nominee of the Democratic Party if it happens to be Bernie Sanders. I'm frankly a little surprised that anyone here would have preferred Sen. Sanders run as a third party candidate - especially considering he has always caucused and generally voted with the Democrats and has been endorsed by the Party the vast majority of times since his election to Congress.

[BainsBane]

53. It is effectively deciding you prefer the GOP candidate

as President, or that you don't care which is elected. The same goes for a write-in or third party vote.

[TDale313]

54. I'd never dream of staying home...

Because of State, Local and other federal-level races. But I'm in California. My vote for president won't make a bit of difference in the general (and likely not in the primary) I'm in the fortunate or unfortunate position where I can vote my conscience without it harming anyone, and I intend to. If Hillary is in trouble in California, she's already lost.

[Duckhunter935]

55. my vote for the top of the ticket does not matter

And will not be missed, but I will vote down ballot

[TDale313]

75. Just posted pretty much the same thing. n/t

[dana_b]

146. and I'm with you both!

There are lots of people and issues to vote for/against. Not just the President.

[Hiraeth]

56. I don't believe half these people. They are passionate and caught up in it all.

The heat of the battle as it were. Once primaries are over things will come together.

[bowens43]

65. there comes a time in everyone's life where they have to decide that enough is enough....

no more lesser of two evils for me. I will only vote for a candidate I believe to be fit to lead the country.

[Hiraeth]

72. I understand. Believe me I do and I think a lot of people feel the same way as you. GOTV !!

[bowens43]

59. step in to line! step in to line! Bow down and kiss the ass of the appointed one!!!

The MASSIVE idiots are those who will vote for anyone no matter repugnant if they have a 'D' next to their name on the ballot.

I know who I am not voting for , I am not voting for anyone I feel is unfit to lead the country.

[Orrex]

67. That silly mantra is recited by Sanders' supporters--several times in this very thread

The MASSIVE idiots are those who will vote for anyone no matter repugnant if they have a 'D' next to their name on the ballot.

That's a convenient way to mischaracterize reality, and I'm sure it makes people feel all moral and superior, but it's not at all a matter of voting "for anyone no matter how repugnant." In fact, it's a call to vote for the Democratic candidate who emerges victorious from primary season, not some random person who simply claims the "D" label.

The distinction is subtle but appears to be beyond the capacity of certain my-way-or-fuck-it thinkers.

I know who I am not voting for , I am not voting for anyone I feel is unfit to lead the country.

It's rewarding to recite empty slogans of personal conviction, isn't it?

[Squinch]

158. That's one way of looking at it. Just like "Support Trump!" is what I think your position amounts to

[world wide wally]

60. I think that considering our forum here, if you don't vote for the Democratic candidate,you are

just an asshole.

[bowens43]

64. IMO if someone votes for someone simply because they claim to be a democrat they are just an asshole

[world wide wally]

70. You want to see an asshole?

Just let Trump become the President.

[Orrex]

71. You mean like voting for an Independent who switched labels solely for the sake of visibility?

[fbc]

66. H.A. Goodman is an idiot

With friends like him...

[Orrex]

69. edited

[fbc]

78. I'd say my previous post displayed a firm grasp of the concept

[Orrex]

79. edited

[fbc]

82. It's a statement of fact.

I am a HUGE Bernie Supporter, but HA Goodman's articles are cringeworthy.

Have you read many of them?

There's my argument, go read 4-5 HA Goodman articles and come back if you don't agree that he's an idiot.

[Orrex]

84. Whoops--look like the mistake here is mine, and I misread your intent.

Never mind.

[bigwillq]

74. I would never stay home.

As for third party, I feel it's low risk for me since I live in CT.
I would never vote third party if I lived in a swing state--the DEM would always get my vote.
The DEM nominee will win CT with or without my vote, so I feel third party or write-in is low risk.
Idiot? Maybe, and you're free to think that.

[wysi]

83. Orrex already clarified that point...

... if your state is solidly blue, do what you like. As for me, I vote in Virginia (I live overseas) so I definitely will be voting for the nominee from the Democratic Party, as I always do. My vote really counts and cancels out the stupid vote cast by my redneck cousin.

[mike_c]

77. LOL...

...at the spittle spray of angry pundit droidlets who are preemptively outraged that some of us might not follow the herd. Meh.

[Orrex]

81. LOL @ another Sanders supporter ignoring reality

If Sanders fails to win the primary, then how do you think he'll vote? Do you think he'll write himself in or make some other meaningless statement of simplistic conscience? Or will he vote to keep the GOP out of the Whitehouse?


Sanders gets it. Why don't his supporters?

[GoneFishin]

87. If you vote for a candidate who does not represent your interests then you are an idiot.

[Orrex]

88. The time to make that statement is during primary season

Once the nominee is decided, you are voting either for the nominee or for their opponent.

[razorman]

93. I actually think that behavior is more likely to occur among Republicans

in this election. They seem to be much more divided to the point of hating anyone who is not "their guy". I guess we will see how it goes as their field shrinks to the last two or three.

[wildeyed]

95. Of course.

I will vote for either if they are the nominee. Of course.

But I dunno if those guys are smart, or at least in the way he means. Look, I started my own HuffPo article. Wonder what I need to do to get it published?

HA Goodman is a massive tool. How do I know this? Because before he was Bernie Sander's biggest fan, he claimed to be a Liberal Democrat for Rand Paul! Also, he equates the Democratic front runner with Donald Trump. That is faulty logic if I ever saw it! In fact, he is such a mindless tool that he advances the opinion that an over-the-Hill (I'm punny!) rapper from Atalanta will influence the voting choices of non-white Democrats and win Bernie Sanders the presidency! In hindsight, he probably shouldn't have written that since it made him sound like a vapid, privileged prick, but how could he pass up the chance to paint Hillary Clinton as a racist and friend to prison lobbyists? The reality is, a writer who first advocated voting for a Libertarian should not be trusted when he tells Democrats to stay home from the General Election to teach the DNC a lesson. And if you do what he advises, then I have a bridge for sale. Special price for you, today only!

See, I am getting pretty good at HA Goodman impersonations. God, he is a bad writer......


Ben Spielberg is new to me. He is a much, much better writer than HA, but he follow the same basic pattern. His false premise is that Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the presidency in 2000 so you should you should feel comfortable voting third party or not vote at all if Clinton is the nominee. He is wrong. Nader's 97,488 Florida votes contained vastly more than enough to have overcome the official Jeb Bush / Katherine Harris / count, of a 537-vote Florida "victory" for G.W. Bush, even if you figure 1/3 would have stayed home and 1/3 would have voted for Bush.

Nader cost Gore the race. He is the reason we had that that fuckwit GWB as our President for eight interminable years. Asshole.

So the argument that Nader gave us Bush is perfectly valid. And the idea that you can stay home if Clinton is the nominee because she is the same as Trump or Cruz? Outrageous. Your choice, of course, but do you really think that Gore and GWB were the same?

Also, did you read his HuffPo bio?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ben-spielberg/

His high school elected Dennis Kucinich as the Democratic nominee for President in a landslide in 2004, so he knows progressive candidates can win elections if they message effectively.

YES! Presidential Elections are exactly the same as your uber-liberal high school pretend election!

Also, he is a middle-school math teacher, so who give a single shit what he thinks about politics? He is entitled to his opinion, but nothing more.

[gordyfl]

97. They Say Democrats "Get in Line"

Before the ABC Debate George Stephanopoulos and others were discussing the election. They said that Democratic candidates used to have to win over the hearts and minds of their voters while Republican voters would just get in line behind the establishment candidate.

They said that now the opposite is true.

Republicans are not "getting in line" behind the establishment candidate while Democrats are.

I didn't necessarily agree with them, but that is what they said. Hmmm...?

[Kennah]

98. D to go forward, R to go backward n/t

[gordyfl]

101. "B" to Go Forward, "H" to go Backward

[Kennah]

105. I yield to a superior quip n/t

[itsrobert]

102. Agreed.I will vote for either Hillary or Bernie happily

thanks

[IronLionZion]

103. If it's not Lincoln Chafee, then

[MrScorpio]

104. Damn Skippy! nt

[raindaddy]

106. We're at a crossroads. Do we want to continue down the road of corporate & Wall Street lobbyists ...

writing legislation. Banks allowed to become too big to fail and powerful enough they can threaten our economy? Do we want to remain the only major country that allows insurance companies to become overlords when it comes to our basic right to access health care? And then there's the continuous for-profit wars..

If people don't become massive idiots voting in the primaries, my favorite Dem not winning the nomination won't be an issue.

[EndElectoral]

107. Nothing like an insult to rally the troops

[PatrynXX]

108. and if I write in Bernie's name what this

face palm. I vote whether or not. Our mayor was voted out but the write in candidate was the heavily funded one. Didn't work but it broke a local record. So basically the area just voted to make sure we have 6 roundabouts stuck in down the middle from cedar falls to waterloo. But I stood my ground and Wrote the anti Roundabout candidate in. Choice between having a Republican run as a Democrat I choose to write in the actual Democrats name. Hillary supporters don't see it. Bernie supporters do. Her conservative record speaks for itself as far as the economy goes , so if you are doing great and are Rich shouldn't be a problem but if your not there is no choice but Bernie. Republicans became robots and voted for a Liberal Mitt Romney in 2012 and we joked about it. Who knew it would happen to us. smh

[quickesst]

110. Ok...

"They’re otherwise smart guys, but they’re being really, really stupid."

On the other hand, Trump and Cruz would probably say........
"They’re otherwise stupid guys, but they’re being really, really smart."

[Cha]

117. Wow I bet this got an alert.. but survived.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

123. I always vote. I reserve the right to vote for whomever I choose.

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

[Jamaal510]

124. K&R

[randome]

125. No, we must seize power and do nothing to show that we...have...no power.

Hey, you're right, not voting sucks big time!
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]

[djean111]

129. I wish we had a group dedicated to the Pledge-y Thing.

It would be hilarious, seeing them all at once.
The time for this is AFTER the primary. Banging this drum now is really saying the issues do not count.
Maybe they don't, for some people, but they count for me.

[Karma13612]

131. I want to find a gif image that represents "no pledges

Until the nomination".

I'm tired of it also.

And also very tired of the "Bernie has no chance of winning" meme.

I am not giving up, or backing down.

[djean111]

133. At this point, I just roll my eyes.

And talk up Bernie every chance I get.
I live near Tampa. Have never seen a Hillary sticker. And the response I get about Bernie is positive, and there are a lot of people who just plain dislike Hillary.
Does not matter in the least if that is unfair or whatever - this will definitely influence voting. Which is what we are being harangued about constantly.

[Dem2]

130. A massive idiot

Can't imagine anybody wanting whatever bigoted psycho the Republicans put up picking yet more right wing justices that will destroy what little protections we have left. I know some get all pissy and look to take their ball home when they lose one of many fights they'll participate in over a lifetime, but I've seen it happen and it's very childish and hurts the rest of us who never ever stop fighting for what's right, even if that means compromise. I don't know how many Democrats I see criticized the Republicans for not compromising, yet they are obstinate when it comes to doing the same.

[hobbit709]

132. I have NEVER stayed home for an election no matter who the nominee was.

But I'm going to need 3 hands to vote if HRC is the nominee.
One to hold my nose, one to carry a barf bag, and one to actually push the buttons on the machine.

[LWolf]

136. I will be staying home.

I always do. My state votes by mail, and I love it. It means I get my booklet and ballot with a couple of weeks to curl up with it in a comfy chair, with some tea, consider all of the research I've done, and make a thoughtful choice. If I don't get that done in time to mail it back in, there's a drop-off box outside my local library on my way to work, with no lines.

Also...I always vote. Always. "Staying home" doesn't stop me from voting. I ALWAYS VOTE FOR THE BEST CANDIDATE ON MY BALLOT. If there is truly nobody I can, in good conscience, cast a vote for, I'll write someone in, but I ALWAYS VOTE. That's my civic duty.

If you think ranting about people who don't want to cast a clothespin vote is really effective at getting them to the polls, you might want to think again. It's counter-productive and just might cement their determination to "stay home." I know you won't accept any responsibility for helping them to make that choice, so why not think about it now, and see if there's something more productive you could be doing to achieve your goal? Here are a few suggestions:

1. Back off. It's not the general election, there is no nominee to protest, and not a single primary or caucus has been held. Wait until after the nomination. Give the backers of losing candidates some time to process their disappointment and move on. The results of that backing off will be better for the Democratic nominee than getting in their faces, whining and ranting.

2. Respect your fellow Democrats. Give them credit for some intelligence, and respect their right to make their own voting decisions without your demands and instructions. Again, it sends a better message and is more likely to achieve your goal.

3. Avoid "fear" campaigning. While it works for some, for at least a few elections, in the long run, it turns people away; it doesn't bring them in.

Just my 3 cents, of course. Take it or leave it as you choose.

[Orrex]

137. I think it's understood that "staying home" in this context means "not voting"

In other words, "withholding your vote" or "casting a deliberately contrarian vote," especially as it pertains to people painting themselves as uncompromising moral paragons for preemptively refusing to vote for the Democratic candidate.

1. Back off. It's not the general election, there is no nominee to protest, and not a single primary or caucus has been held. Wait until after the nomination. Give the backers of losing candidates some time to process their disappointment and move on. The results of that backing off will be better for the Democratic nominee than getting in their faces, whining and ranting.

Not a bad suggestion, but it's also worth suggesting that supporters of one candidate or another "back off" on their premature declarations that they won't vote if their favorite isn't on the ballot.

2. Respect your fellow Democrats. Give them credit for some intelligence, and respect their right to make their own voting decisions without your demands and instructions. Again, it sends a better message and is more likely to achieve your goal.

Fair enough, but that's certainly a two-way street. Supporters of one candidate should refrain from insulting those who support another. To wit, they shouldn't denigrate fellow Democrats as "blindly corporatist Third-way enablers" or the like. Surely if it's disrespectful to urge Democrats to vote against the GOP, it must also be disrespectful to mock them for not choosing one's preferred candidate?

3. Avoid "fear" campaigning. While it works for some, for at least a few elections, in the long run, it turns people away; it doesn't bring them in.

Also a fair point. However, I'm not sure that I would characterize it as "fear campaigning" to urge Democrats to vote against the GOP, and I submit that no one would be doing this kind of "fear campaigning" if not for people beating the my-way-or-fuck-it drum in the first place.

[LWolf]

139. Every citizen

has a right to vote their conscience, whether or not you agree with it. Characterizing those who don't vote your way as "deliberately contrarian" is more than a bit authoritarian and anti-democratic.

It IS a 2-way street. Thanks for recognizing that. As far as "fear" campaigning goes, I submit that voting out of fear is for weak people, and has led to the continuous encroachment of the right wing across the nation, and the conceding of the party structure to neo-liberals. I prefer this response to those whose votes aren't assured:

Either earn them or let them go without bitterness. Either of those options have more integrity than trying to bully people into voting against their conscience. I suspect that respecting them enough to allow them to vote their conscience without establishing an ingrained distrust and dislike of the party establishment will gain plenty of Democratic votes, and be healthier for the long-term future of the party, as well.

[Orrex]

142. You're arguing for a double standard

Every citizen has a right to vote their conscience, whether or not you agree with it.

I defy you to find anyone on DU who has claimed otherwise. Find me an example of someone denying that right. I'm not talking about urging someone to vote for this candidate or that, but actually denying the right to vote one's conscience. Go ahead--I'll wait.

Characterizing those who don't vote your way as "deliberately contrarian" is more than a bit authoritarian and anti-democratic.

It has nothing to do with "my way," so that's a red herring. Instead, the issue is that people are now--during primary season--crossing their arms and refusing to vote for anybody except their most favoritest candidate, typically by preaching about how vile the other candidate is, or how that candidate is no better than the GOP, and how anyone who might vote for that candidate is a "blindly corporatist Third-way enabler."

I'm fine with you lecturing me about how I should coddle that kind of petulant stubbornness, but it would be nice if you would scold them about their invective as well.

It IS a 2-way street. Thanks for recognizing that. As far as "fear" campaigning goes, I submit that voting out of fear is for weak people, and has led to the continuous encroachment of the right wing across the nation, and the conceding of the party structure to neo-liberals. I prefer this response to those whose votes aren't assured

Sanders' supporters have been playing the "fear" card for months, insisting that anyone who questions Sanders' unquestionable electoral success is driven by "fear" of him. You can see it, on average, at least once per day on DU's front page. Typically it takes the form of one of these declarations:

Clinton is afraid of Sanders.
Trump is afraid of Sanders.
DU Admin is afraid of Sanders.
The GOP is afraid of Sanders.
Clinton's supporters on DU are afraid of Sanders.
The media is afraid of Sanders.

Everybody is afraid of Sanders, it seems, except for those wise few who can't wait to scold fellow Democrats for doubting Sanders' inevitable victory.

So if you're going to lecture about "fear campaigning," you might do well to share your wisdom with Sanders' supporters, too.

[LWolf]

144. How about calling those who

vote their conscience even when it means they don't get obediently in line "massive idiots?" What kind of double standard are you really talking about?

[Orrex]

147. Frankly, "voting your conscience" doesn't impress me, because...

if it means helping to throw the Whitehouse to the GOP, then "voting your conscience" means "being a massive and selfish idiot."

Vote for whoever you want in the primary. In the general election, there is no valid reason for a Democrat not to vote for the Democrat, whether it's Sanders or Clinton or O'Malley.

It's not hard to understand. Sanders gets it. O'Malley gets it. Clinton gets it. From what I can see, O'Malley's supporters and Clinton's supporters get it. Why is it that only a small and vocal subset of Sanders' supporters seem to think that the election is about them and only about them?

[LWolf]

150. By extension, that suggests

that HAVING a conscience doesn't impress, either...that you prefer that people be obedient sheep without conscience. You don't trust fellow Democrats with a conscience. Got it.

[Orrex]

152. You are free to project whatever grotesque fantasies will satisfy you

Also, your pathetic mischaracterization of my position simply confirms my impression of you.


Your unsupported conclusions are not my fault or responsibility.

[LWolf]

154. Of course not.

It's interesting to note that you now feel the need to bring in the language of put-downs...which is, of course, what you started this thread with. Calling people "idiots."

Now you're adding "pathetic."

To be blunt, I don't give a flying fuck about your "impression" of me. I haven't tried to make any impression upon you.

My conclusions are based on your eagerness to attack; to put down fellow Democrats. I'm not sure you even know what those conclusions are, let alone what I've taken to support them.

You are correct, though, in that my conclusions are not your responsibility. I can arrive at conclusions without you, believe it or not.

[Orrex]

155. You mischaracterized my position in order to gain advantage. That's pathetic.

If you don't like it, then don't engage in pathetic tactics.

You are correct, though, in that my conclusions are not your responsibility. I can arrive at conclusions without you, believe it or not.

You certainly can, and it seems clear that you will proudly continue to arrive at the wrong ones.

[LWolf]

156. lol

And it seems clear that you will continue to magically get inside my brain to see thoughts that I've never shared. Because you are a mind wizard!!!

You called people idiots. You assume you know the motivation for any and every person's actions that you disagree with. Pot, meet kettle.

[bvar22]

143. I agree. Nobody should stay home.

If Hillary is the nominee, the down ticket Dems will need all the help they can get.

[dana_b]

148. Yes, and there are always some local and state issues that need deciding. n/t

[vi5]

161. I would never stay home....

Too many important races OTHER than president. While I'd love to have the President I want on the ballot to vote for, and probably may even just leave that blank rather than holding my nose, we all need to start doing what Republicans have been doing and focusing on other races as much as we do the presidency. As we've seen (and been told by many on here), the President can only do so much (or sometimes nothing at all).

[riversedge]

163. Bingo.

[DFW]

165. My favorite Democrat already does not win the nomination

He's not even running this time.

I not will support any maniac just because he or she gets our nomination. However, we don't nominate people like Sarah Palin, Rafael Cruz or Donald Trump.

Barring some unforeseen event, our nominee will be either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. I have no trouble voting for either one.*

*Should either one choose a VP running mate I consider a danger to the country should our nominee be elected and then become unable to serve, I will change my position. But seriously, does anyone out there think there is a chance either Bernie or Hillary will choose a Sarah Palin, or even a Joe Lieberman for a running mate? (hint, if you do, rest easy--neither will)