"I won't vote for the nominee..."

[CTLawGuy]

I don't see why we have to tolerate people who come on here and say "I won't vote for X if s/he wins the nomination", even at this point.
---------------------
From the DU rules:

"2. Who We Are: Democratic Underground is an online community for Democrats and other progressives. Members are expected to be generally supportive of progressive ideals, and to support Democratic candidates for political office."

This forum has two purposes: (1) to support progressive ideas and (2) to support (big D) Democratic candidates for political office.
----------------------

I understand that after a nominee is decided we will not be allowed to disparage the nominee, because that would constitute failing to support the Democratic candidate, and DU, as a private organization, does not wish to use its site for that purpose.

So what of posts that say "I won't vote for X in the general election if s/he wins the nomination."

Why not delete such posts starting TODAY?

Some say, "well they are not really advocating for the defeat of the Democratic nominee, because the primary is not over." I disagree with that 100%. Such statements, even before the nomination is decided, give legitimacy to the idea that it is ok to vote against the nominee just becuase your candidate didn't win. That sense of legitimacy would endure for readers of this board beyond the primary season. If people who are supporting a losing candidate perceive that a number of fellow supporters on this board intend to vote against the nominee (through their expressions of that intent prior to the nominee being decided), such people are more likely to decide to follow suit (safety in numbers). It also doesn't help that DU is implicitly seen as at least finding such sentiments acceptable. (Avoiding that is why we delete racist and sexist material).

Some may also say, "well it's just only if their candidate doesn't win. If their candidate DOES win, there is no problem. It is a conditional intent." There is still great potential for harm. If the candidate of the person currently making such statements eventually wins, then followers of the other candidate will remember such statements. The sense of legitimacy of undermining our nominee would persevere and would then affect supporters of the OTHER candidate. It might arise out of a desire to "burn" the supporters of the winner for being willing to screw THEM over, were the shoe on the other foot. Or it may arise out of a genuine lack of party loyalty, festered and legitimized by the statements.

In our partisan system, party unity in the general election is extremely important in order to advance a progressive agenda as I DON'T need to tell anyone around here, at least anyone who remembers 2000. We cannot afford to wait until a nominee is decided in order to say "NO" to people who use this bandwidth to express their intent to undermine the Democratic nominee in the voting booth.

I am not saying that such people are not "allowed" to vote however they want. Far from it. I will not be following them into the voting booth. But such people have no right to use a private message board with the purpose of PROMOTING Democratic candidates to express intent to vote against our nominee. This is not about free speech. Free speech means you can go to another website or blog and promote Ralph Nader or Mickey Mouse etc., just not this one.

I am someone who watched, from up close, as Joe Lieberman shat all over the CT Democratic party with the help of more than a few members of that party. So forgive me for feeling strongly about this. It was sickening that several DLC scumbags (elected office holders no less) went into my state to campaign against the Democratic nominee. Even the "Democratic" Speaker of the CT House campaigned against our nominee. I wonder how these people would feel if Ted Kennedy or Russ Feingold went to Louisiana, or Nebraska, or Tennessee and camapigned for the Green Party candidate? I can't imagine anything more debilitating to a political organization than an orderly primary which is not respected.

Why SHOULD those statements be deleted today?

Let's ask ourselves to balance the value of such statements of intent to vote against the nominee,(during primary season), to the goals of this site with the harm of such statements to said goals.

I see the value as non-existent: they don't inform anyone about your opinions (other than that you don't like the nominee), they don't spread substantive ideas, they even aren't really any kind of direct criticism.

I see the harm as high: they give legitimacy to voting against the nominee, even if said during the primary. The more people say it, the more others will feel it is ok to undermine the nominee, and the less united we will be in actuality.

-------------------
I am asking that statements to the effect "I will not vote for the Democratic nominee," whether a condition or reason is given or not, be alertable and deletable starting immediately. If people want to be little Liebermans, they should do so on their own time.

Thank you

[RBInMaine]

1. Failing to support Dems is against the site rules.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

6. It's against the site rules for me to delete (hide the threads) of specific individuals?

I had no idea :crazy:

[Lerkfish]

2. I say let them threaten to do so

up until the week after the nomination is determined, as skinner suggested in his recent post.

threatening to do so, I feel, at this point is just a scare tactic to get people to abandon a certain candidate, but regardless.

I think they should be allowed to display just exactly who they are and what they intend for everyone to see. Then, after that week's grace period, if they don't fall in line behind the nominee, the moderators should decide what further action to take: its their call.


IMHO

[dflprincess]

3. What do we do when the forum's two purposes are in conflict?

and you have choose between supporting progressive ideas or voting for the candiate who calls him or herself a Democrat?

Yes, I'm voting for the nominee as I hope any Supreme Court appointments made by Clinton or Obama won't be as bad as what a Republican would nominate. But it won't be easy to do it this year - especially when I had such high hopes for getting a Democrat into the White House this time.

[misanthrope]

4. That's the million dollar question**nm

**

[CTLawGuy]

11. in our system

supporting the Dem over the Republican is ALWAYS supporting progressive ideals, because our party is more likely to advance them than the Republican party.

[MagsDem]

43. in YOUR opinion

Would you have voted for George Wallace? What if FL counts and that puts Hillary over the top? Or the super delegates all decide, in a tie, to vote with Clinton? No bitching from you about how unfair that is? You'll just okay, them's the breaks?

[MagsDem]

41. I agree with you

Just because a candidate as D after his name doesn't mean he is a model of progressive values. It would be nice if that had one forum, of the many here, where anything goes. There should be a place for democrats to post to other democrats even if they don't drink the kool aid. The whole loyalty oath thing is just kind of creepy to me.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

5. I'm with you! I'm going to start deleting off my screen all those who won't vote Dem! nt

[NewHampshireDem]

7. In 3 1/2 years on DU

I've never used the 'Ignore' button until the past two weeks. Now my list is well into double-digits ... and I suspect it would be longer if I spent more time here in the GD:P forum. :P

On Edit: OMG! It's been over 4 years! Wow, time flies when you're trapped in Hell! :evilgrin:

[CTLawGuy]

9. Hope you're not talking about New Hampshire

such a nice state :)

[NewHampshireDem]

14. Nah ...

Actually, I'm in New Zealand at the moment, which is it's own unique kind of hell ... I was referring the W's Amurika ... :sigh:

[CTLawGuy]

16. I used to live in NH

I miss the winding roads and the hiking, and the lack of sales tax.

[Skip Intro]

8. I asked Skinner this very question: if I state I refuse to vote Obama in Nov, will I be in violation

of the rules. This was concerning after the nom was chosen.

His reply, no, as long as I don't advocate for a different candidate.

It's in that thread pinned to the top of this forum.

And thank God freedom of speech has some weight here.


this kinda renders the premise of your post bs, eh?

[CTLawGuy]

10. what the hell is the difference?

saying you won't vote for the nominee is advocating for another candidate (an unnamed candidate).

Anyway, thanks for supporting torture and war and the repeal of Roe v. Wade...

[DemBones DemBones]

20. If Obama is the

big winner you guys think he is, and McCain is the loser you guys think he is, you won't need all the Dems who don't want to vote for Obama, will you?

It's gonna be fun to watch this fall. :popcorn:

[Danger Mouse]

31. By saying 'fun to watch' are you actually saying you HOPE Obama loses if he is the nominee?

[donheld]

45. You really hope McCain beats Obama don't you?

Admit it.

[Pab Sungenis]

37. No, it's not.

It's not advocating ANY candidate.

As for me, I don't intend to work for Hillary's election if she gets the nomination. I will work my ass off for the Democrats in down-ticket races, but give the Presidential campaign a pass. How I vote will be between me and my conscience, as it should always be, when I enter the booth.

[Skip Intro]

40. no it's not the same - not voting for Obama doesn't equal voting for McCain, or Nader or anyone else

I won't vote for Obama in November, if he is the nom. I break no rules by saying so.

I would hate to think the width and depth of DU could be described as praising of our canddiate is the only acceptable view to post. Thank God for freedom of speech. Thank God that carries weight here.

I've been really put-off lateley by the threads that demand respect and praise for Obama, or else you're gone. WTF is that?

[Skip Intro]

42. No it's not, and I'll vote my core values when I have the chance.

If Obama is the nom, I don't think I'll have that chance.


I'll probably just write in Hillary.


I saw the same crap with the media foisting upon us the hero of 2000. And now again. I want no part of it, and I will not be manipulated by it.


I am really glad DU won't be banning people who say they refuse to vote for Obama.


For a few, it looked like this place might turn into ObamaUndergroud.


Whew!

[DemBones DemBones]

12. Did Skinner say we can say that AFTER the

convention or just now? The rules clearly allow it to be said now.

But can we say we will not vote for Clinton/Obama AFTER s/he is officially the Democratic nominee?

[LostinVA]

15. He said we can say that after, as long as we don't advocate against the nominee

[Skip Intro]

30. yes he did, let me get the link

[emilyg]

18. Good on Skinner.

That's acceptable.

[Skip Intro]

39. I agree.

[MagsDem]

44. That seems fair enough -- thanks for the clarification

[saracat]

13. This is absolute nonsense. We are a political discussion board. We are not allowed

to be negative about the nominee once we have one.Skinner has posted already about this. But we are allowed, as part of free and "democratic speech" to post our opinions on the party and its members as well as candidates. Many on DU do not like our choices. Some will vote and hold their noses.Others will write in candidates.Some won't vote for president.Those are choices that we all have.According to DU rules we cannot attract Democratic Candidates or the nominee after a primary decision. Nor can we support candidates of another party. But choosing to support neither candidate, or whether to vote , or why to vote or not is all part of the political discussion and I think it is repellent to request that such opinion be suppressed.It closes the dialog.

I suggest you don't open such threads if it disturbs you or place such folks on ignore. What you are advocating is the next step to refusing to allow criticism of any candidates because we must have "unity" and not negatively effect any campign. The concept of an election is "choice'. DU has a diversity of opinion, as does the Democratic party.That is one reason we have so many candidates and what a primary is about.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

21. Rules are rules - I won't vote for any ticket w/ Hillary on it, but I'll keep that to myself after

we pick Obama to be the nominee.

[CTLawGuy]

24. as a fellow Obama supporter

in the unlikely event Hillary is picked as the VP nominee, I hope you would reconsider.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. I couldn't vote for Obama then, I do feel that strongly (and it would pain me greatly).

[Lilith Velkor]

51. Wow, I thought I was hardcore

I cannot bring myself to vote for Obama, but I wouldn't mind one bit if he were on the ticket as VP.

I respect your feelings, though I hope you change your mind in the unlikely event Clinton is the running mate.

[CTLawGuy]

22. You need to reread what I wrote

criticism of the nominee is fine, but saying "I won't vote for the nominee" has no value on this board.

It doesn't advance what we stand for, nor does it promote any substantive political ideas. In fact, it legitimizes the notion that we should be sore losers and vote third party becuase our guy didn't win. The time to fight is in the primary, that's what the primary is there for.

Certainly I myself have voiced much criticism of past democratic nominees. But I have never (at least after the primary) said that I would vote third party.

I didn't make this system up but it is the reality of the system.

[saracat]

46. I did. I will not vote for the nominee is a value statement that has as

much "value" on this board as any other post. It is a statement that is part of the political discussion. It is part of a "protest" statement about our choice of nominee and you don't get to exercise that kind of censorship over the political discussion.It is sufficient that we end such discussion after we have a nominee.It is a bit delusional to think that DU has much influence at all on the reputation of a national campaign, either positively or negatively.

And the fact that you have never said that you would not vote third party, has no bearing on this discussion. That is personal .In any event , this wasn't so much about voting third party as about people stating they would "not vote for the nominee" in whatever fashion.It is against DU rules to advocate third party voting at any time AFAIK.

[goletian]

52. if you give up your vote or side with repubs because you dont like the dem nominee, youre no dem

no real democrat would betray their party in such a way. idealists are only as good as their logic - that is, no good. i will vote for any dem because not doing so is as good as a vote for a repub, and a vote for a repub is as good as two acts of betrayal. sad anyone would consider such a thing.

[LostinVA]

17. The irony of you quoting Rule 2 at ME is astounding

[CTLawGuy]

23. I'll quote whatever I want

at anyone who would apparently support torture, war, tax cuts for the rich, and the repeal of Roe vs. Wade, and basically all the other policies of George Bush.

[LostinVA]

29. That's not who you're quoting at -- and, you AREN'T quoting the other rule breakers on here

You know, the open Republicans posting with Republican avatars and sigs... totally against DU Rile 2.

Guess what? I'm NOT supporting who you want me to, and I never, ever will. And guess what else? I don't ahve to leave DU over it as long as I don't tell YOU not to do the same. THought Crimes aren't against the rules here yet, although some of you people want it to be.

[CTLawGuy]

32. how do you get Republican avatars on DU?

you can support whomever you want. I don't care. But on this board we support DEMOCRATS against REPUBLICANS.

I did it in 2004, when I thought our nominee was really awful (God bless him though). I voted for him anyway, though I wasn't thrilled. So, I know what it is like not to win, to be bitter. You can be damn sure I never went on here promoting Ralph Nader, or promoting writing in Howard Dean.

[emilyg]

19. Boo!

[Straight Shooter]

25. And you don't like Clinton because you think she talks down to people.

I hear this from Obama supporters quite a bit, that Hillary acts like she's everyone's mother. Yet here we have another patronizing post about how we're supposed to "behave." It really makes me wonder.

[CTLawGuy]

27. patronizing....

how dare we be asked to support the Democratic nominee when posting on this board, whomever it is... :eyes:

[Straight Shooter]

38. Yours is the umpteenth post chastising people about what they are/are not supposed to do.

It's getting old.

[Danger Mouse]

28. Skinner said that once there is a presumptive nominee...

he'll allow one week of venting along these lines.
Just one.

[CTLawGuy]

33. I know I read it

but thanks for mentioning it.

that is why I started this OP. Because I wanted to express why I thought that rule was inadequate.

The problem is the damage may already be done by then.

[leftynyc]

48. What damage?

You really think anyone gives as shit what we say on this board? Do you think we have ANY power? I have no intention of being a mindless drone no matter who the nominee is - I will vote Dem but if I see the nominee screwing up, I'll scream as loud as I like about it.

[casus belli]

54. I wouldn't be so sure...

I don't think things are beyond repair. Bad, yes. But not irreparable. I think a week will be sufficient for most people to realize the finality of what we've got and decide how they're going to handle it. Others may not be so willing to let by gones be by gones. Ultimately, I'm sure the mods will create a more civil atmosphere post election and we can start remembering what it is we like about each other again instead of having our differences thrown in our faces.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

34. That seems reasonable. Let everyone get it out of their system.

[KLee]

35. Great post :)

I pledge to vote for Hillary, if Obama doesn't win the nomination.

This country can't handle another 4 years of a continuation of the same.

[CTLawGuy]

36. me too

I did it four years ago, wasn't happy about it, but I did it.

[JVS]

47. I could understand tolerating people who say they don't know yet, but I agree on those who promise..

that they won't should be banned.

[saracat]

49. Why? As long as they keep it to themselves "after' we have a presumptive nominee?

It isn't anyone's job to 'protect' a candidate they don't support.

[casus belli]

56. True.

But you have to admit, if people feel that strongly about something, it doesn't really make sense for them to hide their opinions concerning the nominee when the majority will be supporting him just so they can have a discussion with people. There are plenty of threads where they could "hide" and not have to express an opinion one way or the other, but it's inevitable they'll run into threads where they are going to want to weigh in.

But ultimately, you're right. It shouldn't be a witch hunt for all "non-conformists". I don't think any opinion should be discounted if it is presented in a respectful, lucid manner.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

50. I'm undecided.

Whether to sit this one out (unlikely), inflict pain on my nose and vote for the Democratic candidate (unlikely), vote 3rd party (maybe), or write in someone (most likely).

"History has tried to teach us that we can't have good government under politicians. Now, to go and stick one at the very head of government couldn’t be wise." - Mark Twain

Note: I'm not advocating what anyone else do with their vote, just stating what I might do with mine.

[proud2BlibKansan]

53. I agree

Those posts should be deleted.

[grantcart]

55. 48 hours + 7days = sanity

[Florida22ndDistrict]

57. RE: "I won't vote for the nominee..."

You do understand that people can support progressive ideas, but not support your candidate right? You do understand that there are other political offices then the President of the United States of America don't you? Some may find it hard or impossible to vote for the democratic nominee for president for what ever reason but may vote for Dems for congress, and state and local government. Is it against the rules of the site to split your ticket? Must we all be brain eating zombies to join the club?

[Vinca]

58. It's sad to think a Democrat wouldn't suck it up to vote against McCain.

It's the choice between trying to end war and expanding war. I couldn't sleep at night if I didn't vote against the war.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

59. RE: It's sad to think a Democrat wouldn't suck it up to vote against McCain.

Well in my case I can't suck up the fact that I have been disenfranchised by the DNC and I can be quite stubborn about issues like that. Maybe I'm a mule rather then a donkey. At least I've been civil to this point about it. Maybe I should raid the Democratic convention and throw all of the coffee into the Colorado River. I will be voting no matter what happens come November. Lets hope that Dean and the DNC redeem themselves and figure out a way to represent the voters of Florida and Michigan soon.