General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWant to Stop Hillary? Here's a Place where You Can Donate
to that cause:
Stop Hillary!
I mean, if someone's serious about keeping Hillary Clinton from becoming President in 2016, why not go straight to the source of all anti-Hillary efforts? Bypass DU and futility and go right to the GOP website and contribute, FFS!
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Not voting for the lesser evil is not the same as voting for the greater evil, no matter what the people who tear out their hair and scream 'if you're not voting Dem, you're voting Republican!' scream.
So no, I'm not going to help the greater evil either, even if I decide not to go the lesser evil route.
riqster
(13,986 posts)R or D. Non-D = R. Fewer Dem votes = higher relative count for the Repube.
On a philosophical level, I grok what you are saying. But philosophy does not win vote counts. Math does.
Sucks, but there it is.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)to accept that math.
The more people willing to break away from accepting that binary math, the more quickly you achieve a place where it becomes untrue.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Until and unless a third party puts up superior numbers, it will remain an irrefutable fact.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Seems to me that if he hadn't pulled his 'in again/out again' dance, he would have pulled a lot more than 19% of the popular vote. You might even call him the 'spoiler' that got Clinton elected that year.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Still D or R, with spoilers lessening one side or the other.
It's sad, because I am a firm believer in President Washington's admonitions about the corrosive effects of parties. But math is math.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)And 19% is more than half-way to 34%. Get a good 3rd party type up who isn't as obviously loony as Perot was and doesn't jump in and out of the running, and you just might see that 34% of the popular vote that would pass up an evenly split D/R crowd.
riqster
(13,986 posts)And at this point, there is nothing to indicate that it is going to occur anytime soon.
I'll continue to work on candidates and GOTV. Those are two activist methods with a proven track record of success. Hoping for a miracle, not so much.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,237 posts)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. But that does not mean that DU members are required to always be completely supportive of Democrats. During the ups-and-downs of politics and policy-making, it is perfectly normal to have mixed feelings about the Democratic officials we worked hard to help elect. When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them. In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose. But when general election season begins, DU members must support Democratic nominees (EXCEPT in rare cases where were a non-Democrat is most likely to defeat the conservative alternative, or where there is no possibility of splitting the liberal vote and inadvertently throwing the election to the conservative alternative). For presidential contests, election season begins when both major-party nominees become clear. For non-presidential contests, election season begins on Labor Day. Everyone here on DU needs to work together to elect more Democrats and fewer Republicans to all levels of American government. If you are bashing, trashing, undermining, or depressing turnout for our candidates during election season, we'll assume you are rooting for the other side.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)letting people troll me into going too far out on a limb for the pleasure of seeing me banned. It's why I mostly stopped responding.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I can't see why anyone would bother with such machinations anyway. I just disagreed with your posts, and responded as such.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)vote for the best candidate, primary or general.
I have too few years left to settle for the lesser of two evils and wonder why things aren't getting any better. I won't see any significant change unless there is a revolution but can do my best to turn things around for my grandchildren.
Our system was not set up to be simply a choice between two candidates, people too lazy to study all of the candidates let others tell them who to vote for that's how we ended up with primarily a two party system. Some here think that is the law, it's not. Is Sanders and D or an R? It can be done even with the word socialist in your title.
Is electing the best possible candidate more patriotic and important than blindly supporting the Democratic or Republican party? More important than DU? Study the candidates for every election and vote for the best one, it's the only way they can win.
The same people that say a two party system is so important are the same ones that would be happy to see the Republican party go away and only have one party. The sad part is although there are two names unless you are one of the elite we basically only have one party now.
My Democratic Senators and Representative have more in common with their Republican counterparts than they do with me, always have and always will. Like Carlin said, "it's a big club and you ain't in it". Carlin was wrong on one part, it's not that big a club and they don't want it to be any bigger.
Vote your conscience, not for who an anonymous person on a message board tells you to vote.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,237 posts)right over here ------------>>>>>>>>>> http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1259
Otherwise, you're not helping the stated mission of this board.
greatlaurel
(2,004 posts)Thanks for the post. This cannot be emphasized enough!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Perot was the spoiler that gave us Clinton; but, he would have pulled enough of the vote to win in the general ... all he could have done is cut deeper into the gop vote count; thereby, benefitting Clinton more, but never enough to win.
And that's what you are calling for the Democratic Party to do?
No think you. Please don't.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)the party swinging back around to strongly support its own party platform, and its heritage of support for labour, minority rights, and the poor.
I'm not anti-Democrat. I'm anti-plutocrat.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Is done in the primaries ... and more importantly, the work that you are willing to put in up to the primaries.
Then, really you shouldn't be voting in any national, and most state-wide elections ... as all national and most state wide candidates are a part of the Plutocracy, either in class or deed.
I am far more concerned with the destruction of government and a corruption of government's role, than being "ruled by the wealthy" (which this nation has always known) ... FDR, JFK and Soros, all occupied/occupy a place in the same Plutocracy, as the Koch brothers; the only difference is their view of government and its function, with the formers viewing it as valuable for benefitting the masses and the latter wanting it to benefit themselves, only.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)'They don't even bring the cheese...
riqster
(13,986 posts)Best to save the cheese for a better vintage IMNSHO.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)The "math" is a fact. You can have your own opinions. You cannot have your own facts.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)are you willing to accept what we get for the next {unknowable} election cycles, until a critical mass of the newly convinced find that third party candidate that they can get behind.
Further, I offer the likely 1st elected/electable third-party candidate to emerge will be a libertarian, as they have been working at it since the "Paul Revolution" almost took control of the gop ... and is, now, working hard at piling off Democrats.
Vote your conscience in the primaries and the Party nominee in the general ... Period.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)I'm a Democratic Socialist these days, not a Democrat. So 'voting 'the party' for me would mean not voting for the Democrat.
As far as my vote goes, I'm more likely to vote for the Democrat if it's not Hillary, even if the socialists do put up a candidate.
I simply can't find it in me to vote for her after the racism coming from her camp in the 2008 primary
If/when she does become the Dem candidate, I'll simply stop commenting on the 2016 Pres race, though, since I prefer not to be banned from the site.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)advance your interests in any way?
In politics, when you can't win; than you work not to lose what has been gained.
And if I can forgive the racism of 2008 ... that bone-headed attempt to pick up Southern/rural whites ... surely, you can!
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)Even though I'm dubious about the utility of my vote in most races, I still exercise the franchise for which so many fought and died.
Second, I'm not big on people demanding fealty or purity to party above all. I vote probably 95%+ Democrat over the course of of my votes. If Dems don't feel that's enough 'unity' for them, and would rather drive me away for the sake of a single vote for a candidate I feel does a poor job of representing the Dem party, well, that's their choice. Drive off folks who mostly vote Dem, shrink the 'big tent', and see how well that works for the party. I'm guessing the answer to that is 'not so well'.
The problem with so many in politics is that they seem to feel the solution is to bully people into voting for specific candidates by threatening how bad 'the other guy' is, rather than offering up better candidates. As a result, we keep drifting ever rightward. And that's not good for any of us.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I'm not trying to drive off you, or anyone else that tends to vote Democratic. I, unapologetically, am absolutely trying to drive out those advocating "vote 3rd party or stay home because Democrats equal republicans."
I live in Arizona ... but for, my living in the only real purplish district, I would question the utility of my vote, as well; but, while Gibby Gifford and/or Ron Barber was/is no where near my ideal candidate, have you heard the name Jesse Kelly and/or Martha McSally? Considering the lunacy of the latter, is/was enough to stay away from the Green or Socialist candidate, that had/have no shot at winning the House seat.
I have a different take (not bullying aside), 2009 - 2010 were the most productive years, in terms of left leading (though far from perfect) legislation, even with the Blue dogs, despite most of them voting FOR the legislation. But the legislation was not good enough for the more impatient on the left. They blamed the Blue dogs for not supporting the more progressive legislation and sought to punished Democrats, in general (for, e.g., supporting the consistently, Caucus-voting, Blue dog Lincoln over the progressive Halter), and stayed home (there were 60,000+ fewer Democratic votes in the General, then in the general).
What would have happened had these voters came out in the same numbers in the General, as they did in the primaries ... Lincoln would likely have held the seat. It seems that the Left's political strategy is to "build anew", rather than "retain and build."
Chan790
(20,176 posts)It seems that the Left's political strategy is to "build anew", rather than "retain and build."
We, well, I, I do not want to speak for others...view the Blue Dogs, DLC, 3rd-way, PPI, Clintonism as Democratic cancer. You do not retain-and-build on cancerous tissue...you cut it out. It's malignant, it needs to go.
For me, everything comes back to economic issues...and Blue Dog Blanche was Democratic cancer. The next election that comes around, the Democrat will almost certainly be the left of Lincoln economically. The other "progressive legislation" is nice, it's stuff I support...but it's window-dressing for the apocalypse if we lose the big enchilada issues on economics. We should not tolerate them dragging their heels to slow the progressivism elsewhere either. The takeaway from Lincoln is 180-degrees from how you read it. It's a message to the "realist" wing to stop pushing through shitty "electable" (triangulating, centrist) nominees that we can't support in the GE.
When conservative-economics-loving, drag-weight, and quisling Democrats lose...that's Democratic chemo. We're going to purge the cancer and restore the Democratic party!
Good Riddance to Bad Democrats!
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)they don't work in real life. Yes, you cut out malignant cancers ... sometimes. Sometimes, protocol calls for letting the cancer sit, while you boost the body's immune system or treat another infection, so that the patient survives the surgery to remove the cancer.
Democrats accomplished a great deal of imperfect; but pro-liberal legislation with Blue Dogs, DLC, 3rd-way, PPI, Clintonism Democrats. When we lost a number of House Blue Dogs, DLC, 3rd-way, PPI, Clintonism Democrats in 2010, we lost seats in the House and senate and gained complete gridlock.
So it's better to push the "unelectable" general election candidate, that can't win in the general, even with the support of the "unrealist" wing; than push an "electable" candidate that will lose because the "unrealist" wing decides they can't support?
Do you see a gopish primary style problem here?
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)is pretty much what i've seen happening after voting D for thirty years. not a lot of incentive there.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I don't think so.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)See, the math reveals that not voting dem is not the same as voting republican.
riqster
(13,986 posts)You either have more D or R votes. Fewer D means more R.
Suppose (hypothetically of course) that there are 16 voters. Now compare two possibilities: (Case 1) 6 Dems vote for the Dem, 5 Reps vote for the Rep and 5 Dems do not vote; (Case 2) 6 Dems vote for the Dem, 5 Reps vote for the Rep, and 5 Dems vote for the Rep. In the first case the Democratic candidate wins a close one; in the second case the Republican candidate wins by a landslide. The only difference is that in the first case 5 Dems didn't vote for the lesser evil (the Dem) and in the second case 5 Dems did vote for the greater evil (the Rep). So clearly there is a difference between not voting for a Dem and voting for a Rep.
Obviously you are right that not voting Dem can sometimes help the Rep win. But voting Rep provides even more help to the Rep. There is a difference.
BootinUp
(47,179 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)riqster
(13,986 posts)We can quibble about degrees, but the cause and effect are easy to see.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)But I have seen many posts that suggest that there is no difference between not voting at all and voting Rep. That is false, as I hope you will agree.
And the post you originally objected to is correct. That poster said: "Not voting for the lesser evil is not the same as voting for the greater evil, no matter what the people who tear out their hair and scream 'if you're not voting Dem, you're voting Republican!' scream."
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)The post you are responding to says:
Not voting dem = 0; voting dem = 1; voting rep = -1.
See, the math reveals that not voting dem is not the same as voting republican.
And you say, "That's not how binary works".
I think you're unclear on the concept. An actual vote is binary, yes: it's either yes or no, 1 or 0, for or against. But then there's this thing called "counting", where the total number of votes is counted. And that ain't binary, it's standard arithmetic -- and it operates just as the poster laid it out.
Anyway, politics is more than just arithmetic. You don't want to see those no-shows? Then give them a compelling reason to show up.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I know a lot of people put the onus on the party, but to me, that is abdication on our part. If we don't show up, politicos can interpret that as tacit support: I'd rather take the initiative so as to be explicit.
It's of, by, and for the people; not the party.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)But realistically, we live in a country where voting is not mandatory. That being the case, those who campaign must try and get voters interested.
Poll after poll has shown that US voters are center-left on the issues (even many who self-identify as "conservatives" . Seems to me that a little more populism and a little less corporatism might be helpful in motivating voters to show up.
riqster
(13,986 posts)If they were going to give us center-left of left candidates, they'd have done it by now. Fuck 'em. I am done waiting.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)If you live in a red state, then your electoral votes will go to the Republican, regardless of who you vote for. The reverse is true for those who live in a blue state. I live in Montana, which is red, so my POTUS vote is irrelevant.
riqster
(13,986 posts)If every state has higher turnout among D voters, the Repubs have to spread their wealth over a larger area. Dr. Dean and his 50-state approach was based on that premise.
Voting is beneficial even if our candidate can't win.
ZombieHorde
(29,047 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)Trashing a candidate who is not even a candidate is weird, IMO. But that's just me. I'm going to vote in the 2016 primaries for the candidate I like best. Then, I'm going to vote in November, 2016 for the Democratic candidate. I'm not going to be trashing anyone who might be running for that nomination even before that person declares that he or she is a candidate. That's just me, though...
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)If I can achieve that even before anyone has declared, that's the best possible outcome. The longer you wait, the less time you have to change people's minds to agree with you. So why should I shoot myself in the foot, and simply wait for a fait accompli by the 'inevitable' candidate?
The time to shoot down trial balloons is when they still are trial balloons.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)you to support the primary candidate of your choice. Nobody's going to declare until then. If you have actual influence with potential candidates, however, you should start using it now.
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)But I'll be asking Bernie to run - with whatever party affiliation he chooses.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)get my vote, too. And then, in November and during the campaign, I'll be supporting the official candidate. I'm a Democrat. I vote for the Democratic candidate, and I don't work to trash anyone who might be that candidate. That's self-destructive, and I'm not that kind of guy.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)"see which one fills up faster"
How about you find some candidates and fund them yourselves if you don't like what we Democrats are serving...
Erich Bloodaxe BSN
(14,733 posts)There are just one or two I think are general election losers, so I'm hoping the primaries don't tip them the nod.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Math shows otherwise...
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)Hekate
(90,773 posts)I think you and I are about the same age. There's something about long experience and a long view.
Locally, we have the opportunity to get some good people into office; the only reason we can't keep them there is my idiot fellow Californians enacted a term limits law that keeps office-holders churning in and out.
The people who cannot accept that the math doesn't support their wishes are beginning to remind me of that one Barbie doll that was programmed to whine "Math is haaard."
Hekate
*No, my ballot is not yet filled in for 2016
warrior1
(12,325 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)xchrom
(108,903 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)I don't mind the insult, that way.
arthritisR_US
(7,291 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)It's there.
arthritisR_US
(7,291 posts)BootinUp
(47,179 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)and your op is dumb. and so is your use of the sarcasm smilie. Why so coy there, MM?
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)It is, indeed.
ETA: Thanks for kicking the thread!
JaneyVee
(19,877 posts)If you want to stop Hillary, MM posted a link to help stop Hillary. If you want to stop Hillary from being the Dem nominee than you have to present a viable alternative (which most here seem open to). Otherwise, you don't really want to stop Hillary, you just want to bash Hillary, which seems weird and obsessive to do on a Democratic forum.
All of the absolute batshit ways the Republican Party is trying to destroy America and you spend your time trashing Hillary instead.
Hillary isn't the nominee, why not focus your energy on getting a candidate you like on the ballot instead?
InAbLuEsTaTe
(24,122 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)..."MM posted a link to help stop Hillary."
He posted a link to the GOP's site.
Apart from the insulting insinuation that not liking Hillary for the 2016 Presidential race is equivalent to being for the GOP candidate -- apart from that, please explain how going over to support the GOP at this time will have ANY effect on the Democratic primaries? Because whoever will be the Democratic nominee has to go through the primaries first, and the GOP has nothing to do with that process.
Please clarify how that works.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)with the audacity to seek the office of President. I think those who seek to tamp down primary discussions and limit competition do not have the best interests of the Democratic Party in mind.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)Thanks.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Good gravy.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)The only ones saying that are the Hillary Haters!
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Any person presenting themselves as candidate or potential candidate should always be vetted and challenged and questioned. I understand some of you are John McCain types who say 'why Vet a President when you can just point and pick' but that's not me.
Demands for kindly treatment and kid gloves for people who are not even announced just means you are all going suffer greatly through what will be, needs to be and should be an actual race to win the nomination. The horn section with the fanfare has to wait for a thing called democracy.
And this habit of referring to people who back another candidate as 'haters' is a habit that screams of privilege. It is hyperbole of the sort favored by straight folks who have never really had to face any actual hate in their lives. They think it is a fun word to toss about at gatherings. It's not.
Why do you use the word 'hate' so casually to describe a Democrat who wants another nominee, prior to any candidates announcing? What is the value you see in the use of such word? Does it make you think 'this is how Rawanda did it!' or what?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Dawgs
(14,755 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)Nor would I. But, folks who are doing little but trying to trash Hillary Clinton are working on it from the wrong side. I was just giving them a little help, you know.
riqster
(13,986 posts)I think the whole thread is DUzy worthy, for the sarcasm. Nice point, too.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)People keep on not getting that on a national level, you only get center or center to slightly left for Prez. This is the US. It ain't France. It ain't even the UK.
However, when it comes to Hillary, there's a deeper problem: she's the Establishment Candidate. In my entire life, and I'm in my fifties, I've never seen the Establishment Candidate win, including in 2008, when she was the same thing that year. Being Establishment gets you precisely nowhere. As of yet, I don't see that she understands that. I mean jeez, she still keeps Mark Penn around. That's just dense.
WilliamPitt
(58,179 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)The nice big Darth Vader image is a cool touch, too.
But, I'm not your father, Will.
riqster
(13,986 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)you.
riqster
(13,986 posts)Had I gotten one 20 years ago, my heart and such would be in much better shape now. As it is, I am still able to work because of my little breathing device.
Anybody who reads this: if your doc says "sleep study", do it.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)One has had the study and now uses CPAP. The other one refuses to get the study done and is not doing well, in my estimation.
riqster
(13,986 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)Personally, I think it's at the life-threatening stage, but you can't force someone to get help.
Spirochete
(5,264 posts)I sleep with a CPAP on. I'm getting more used to it, but I do keep having dreams that I'm Lloyd Bridges...
riqster
(13,986 posts)Spirochete
(5,264 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I've been a Democrat since 1965 and I want to stop Hillary.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)Clearly, there are people who identify as Democrats who oppose her, along with a helluva lot of Republicans. I'm saying that there is already an organized effort that is dedicated to stopping Hillary. It might be more effective than daily anti-Hillary posts on DU.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)You do know that it's fairly likely that Hillary Clinton will be the official candidate in 2016, right? What then? Personally, if there is a good true progressive running in the primaries, that's where my vote will go. Then, in November, and in the election campaign after the primaries, I'll be voting for and campaigning for the Democratic Candidate. I'm not going to start by trashing any of the possible candidates. Instead, I'll promote the primary candidate I think would be a great choice.
I'm not a fan of negative campaigns. They suck, especially within a party during the primaries. They serve no good purpose at all, and only work to decrease voter turnout and increase the chances for a Republican to win. I've seen that happen too many times in legislative elections, and I will not participate in trashing primary candidates who might end up on the general election ballot. Instead, I work during the primaries FOR my favorite candidate, and FOR the candidate in the General Election.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Just sayin'.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)campaigning within the party during primary campaigns. Never have and never will.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You are slipping. At your age, slips can be troublesome. I worry.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)Despite my old age, I haven't slipped and fallen for several years now, and that's living in Minnesota, with all that ice and stuff.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)The discussion at hand concerns Hillary Clinton, and when someone points out one of the reasons they are not wild about her, you counter by saying you did not support her action in that instance. But really, so what? We're talking about her, not about you.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)candidate with whom I agreed 100%. I never expect to, either. I did not support Hillary's negative campaign against Obama. That in no way means that I would not have voted for her and campaigned for her had she been the nominee. In Presidential elections, I vote for the Democrat who is the nominee. Every time. The alternative is unthinkable to me.
How about you?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...no problem. But you seem to think that others cannot, or at least should not, have a different position.
The issue is not whether one expects to agree with a candidate 100% of the time; the issue is, where does one draw the line vis a vis whether they can support a candidate. For the poster to whom you are responding, Hillary's actions in that instance were a deal-breaker. For you, even though you did not support those actions, it was not a deal-breaker.
You both have different views on where that line is. I can respect both positions. What I cannot respect is your apparent belief that yours is the only logical, sane position. It is not.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Ah, the good old "inevitability" argument. Worked GREAT for her last time, didn't it?
It's not even 2015. It's way too early for anyone to start demanding fealty to a "presumptive" nominee. An incumbent President going for term 2 can usually make a pretty good case for being, more or less, presumptively entitled to the nomination, in most cases, but even that is not 100% given. Carter was seriously challenged by Kennedy in 1980. Sometimes the Vice President is the presumed front runner, but that's even less guaranteed. Despite being the fairly obvious choice, Al Gore in 2000, for instance, faced real primary challenges.
Beyond that.... Dukakis, Clinton in '92, Kerry in '04 and certainly not Obama in '08... none of them were automatically entitled to, or expected to be handed, the nomination. Each had to fight for it, had to make a case. That's how it works.
The idea that a nasty, drag-out, bitter primary is damaging in the general should have been put to bed for good in 2008, along with "inevitability". (and the sorts of tired beltway conventional wisdom canards like the "values voter" crap HRC has been pandering with lately) Once we have a Democratic Nominee, then it's reasonable on DU to expect Democrats to specifically support 'em.
Until then, sorry, no sale.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...you advise people to remain quiet if they don't like Hillary because she hasn't announced yet.
And on the other hand, you inform us that "she's fairly likely to be the official candidate in 2016".
So YOU get to look ahead and talk about her being the presumptive candidate, but WE get to STFU on the topic.
To be blunt: Fuck that shit.
Anyway, I'll tell you what will decrease voter turnout: another ho-hum, pro-corporate, pro-war candidate who lives in a bubble of wealth and inside-the-Beltway delusion.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Independents should start their own party if they don't like the dishes that the Democrats serve at theirs...
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)I've been a Democrat since 1965 but I didn't swear allegiance or sign a contract. I have the archaic belief that our votes belong to us, not to a party or politician.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)I am a lifelong Democrat as were both my Grandparents who were both lucky enough to have voted for FDR....My grandfather was even in the CCC's
I guarantee you if they were alive they would both support WHOEVER won the Democratic Primary.....so shall I!
As I am no Ideologue..
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Or, do you depend on the Democratic Party to supply them for you?
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)Did you vote for Reagan in 84. After all, he had the most "realistic" chance of winning?
ismnotwasm
(41,998 posts)Last edited Tue Jun 24, 2014, 04:22 PM - Edit history (1)
Now that is a what is colloquially known as 'a good one'
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)ismnotwasm
(41,998 posts)And I get to decide which ones those are, for me anyway.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)Thanks.
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)the perennial "get with whatever the party coughs up or you're a republican" lameness.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)How is it by the way? A bitter pill?
whatchamacallit
(15,558 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...equating criticism of a candidate with wanting to vote for the other party.
Some of us think it's a good idea to see where the weaknesses are, as well as the strengths. Whereas others think that if a negative is pointed out, it's tantamount to giving the election over to the other side.
Talk about a "sky is falling" mentality!
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Oh...... you did and then came over to this side.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)They called me an "anti-freeper." I've been on DU for 6 years now. Time passes. But I was always on this side.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Shall I expose your posts there?
you were a freeper.........
And now you are a 'time passer'
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)What I've been doing on DU for six years is promoting the election of Democratic candidates. You might want to look at that history. I was doing that before then, as well.
I was not a freeper. I posted on that website. There is a difference. But, you will do as you please.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Is before Obama or right when it happened. you came 'on board'
I'm not gonna post your pro long republican threads history on free republic there and then your disillusion with their lies to come over here.
but your internet history speaks for itself.
No you are not a freeper but your history shows your conservatism
I find you as a old man like me
on different paths on your search for wisdom and the truth. I really don't find you very well read but opinionated without facts that makes me feel young
By the way ..... if you don't seek knowledge and the truth then
you compromise your existence and never find the wisdom that you want
to give us and share.
Like this OP.
Its intellectually, morally dishonest that plays on childish emotions of high school heroics.
I don't dislike you but I find you even more pretentious than me.
And that is amusing. Because it reminds me what I'm not and what I am.
Anyway carry on. I do enjoy your presence on DU.
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)getting banned as "the anti-site that shall not be named" is a good thing. And from what I have read, you seem more committed; actively doing the sh!t that actually matters (or rather, talking about what you are doing that actually matters ... this IS an anonymous message board) ... as opposed to pontificating about what legislation/policies others should be doing and/or pining for that magical candidate that could swoop in, tame the gop, and MAKE Democrats support progressive legislation that hasn't been written, and make anything right ... yesterday.
Funny thing is ... I can think of one VERY, VERY, VERY popular, among DU, Democratic candidate/non-candidate, with a republican history! They regularly stump for her here, and say they'll vote for her; but they don't want you to work to support Democratic candidates/non-candidates?
Yep ... These are the DUs of our lives.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)Once the meta forum closed, where I did discuss it, I decided that eight year old stuff and earlier simply do not warrant any further discussion. There is one reference to that in my journal, which anyone can read. That's all I will say about any of that. My six years on DU tell the story of who I am and what I do.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Get Out The DEMOCRATIC Vote in 2014 and beyond.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)The rest is secondary.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)sheshe2
(83,860 posts)you noticed that too. Hmmm curious is it not?
I voted for that said candidate and I am so happy where she is! She will do amazing things there. The GOP tried everything to kneecap her.They fear her. So it makes me wonder why so many want her to leave her seat that she just gained? Hmm.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...huh? Since when is one required to give up one's Senate seat in order to run for President?
Please clarify. Otherwise, please retract your sly little innuendo that those who want her to run for President have some other, more nefarious motives.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)On Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:48 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Want to Stop Hillary? Here's a Place where You Can Donate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025144597
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Linking to a right wing site. Trolling flamebait, divisive. Take your pick. HIDE.
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Jun 24, 2014, 12:55 PM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Good for MineralMan! No way would I hide this and I hope the jury is 0 to 7 to keep. If you want to deride Hillary then you should be ready for criticism.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: The obvious sarcasm is apparently lost on the alerter.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Sometimes thick headed people need to be told what the real alternatives are.
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Obvious sarcasm to make a point about the nature of our two party system.
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: I understand the sarcastic tone. But he shouldn't have posted the link. Should be posted in a different way without the link.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I get his point even if I don't agree with it.
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)results unless it's a hide.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)Clintons haven't done well in Iowa. Hillary actually finished 3rd (though the media ignored the 2nd place finisher).
New Hampshire has been their come back state. But Sanders from next door has a good shot at winning this one.
So there are very strong odds that Hillary would start off the primary 0-2. As much as the media wants Hillary in the race, I can't imagine them not turning it into a two-candidate horse race between the winners of Iowa and New Hampshire.
That is their standard formula. And the media is nothing if not lazy. I see Hillary fading into an also-ran after New Hampshire.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)2016 and we have a slate of actual primary candidates. So far, we have none, although it certainly seems clear that Hillary is probably going to run.
ieoeja
(9,748 posts)They always seem to do that before running. Given that Warren also just published a book, the two have thus far shown identical signs of running to this point.
Sanders, O'Malley and several others have already started visiting the early primary states.
As you said, so far we none, but it certainly seems clear that several are running, including Hillary. It is just less clear regarding Hillary than most of the others.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)The Democratic Party isn't the same clown car during Presidential primaries as the GOP. Folks put their finger in the wind early, and then make a decision based on reality. Sanders would have to switch parties to become a Democrat, and O'Malley is still being very tentative, as I'd expect. So, I'd not say that either is actually running, yet. Hillary appears to be the most serious about running right now, but even she could change her mind before time to declare.
A lot is going to depend on how the 2014 election goes. If Democrats get control of the House and hold or increase their majority in the Senate, I'd bet strongly on Hillary running. If not, though, I could easily see her not wanting to have to face what Obama has faced and deciding not to run. Being President is a tough job, even in the best circumstances, and I'm not sure Hillary would take on a hostile Congress that willingly.
Announcements will not come until after the November elections, which should be the main focus right now for all of us.
GOTV 2014!
William769
(55,147 posts)Iliyah
(25,111 posts)and its called arithmetic. I'm one who do not want another 8 years of the GOP PARTY!
String Fiesta
(13 posts)will remain unheard. Your objection will only empower the Republican candidate. If your political ideology prevents you from participating in the political process, then your political ideology is flawed.
DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)String Fiesta
(13 posts)I'm sure everyone will be wondering where you are. Once they figure out why you didn't make it, they'll be sorry.
Sorry, but inaction is useless. That's quite far from being a load of shit.
Here's the thing: Nobody cares what you think. Your thoughts carry no weight. Your vote is the only thing that might carry weight.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)"Your thoughts carry no weight. Your vote is the only thing that might carry weight."
Wait, what? Our thoughts are exactly what drives us to vote how we do, and anyone's thoughts may have effects on others. I know that I have changed people's thinking before, in various arenas, and others have also changed my thinking.
On election day, I will agree it is only your vote that carries any weight. The rest of the time, the opposite is true: it is our thoughts that count. It's why we have debates and such, so that people can see the candidates' thoughts -- it helps them when deciding how they will vote.
And that is also what is wrong with the "It's simple arithmetic" arguments. Politics is a helluva lot more than "simple arithmetic". Yes, it's important to crunch numbers and look and polls and figure out strategies based on the numbers. But politics ain't physics, it is a social undertaking. Perhaps Shakespeare said it best:
There is a tide in the affairs of men.
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
The really good politicians understand that politics is not only about arithmetic.
String Fiesta
(13 posts)My point exactly.
Obviously thoughts lead to actions and consequences of those actions. When thoughts lead to inaction on election day it has negative consequences for the Democratic party.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)DeSwiss
(27,137 posts)...Hils seems to be doing a damn good job of stopping herself. She doesn't appear to need any help destroying her chances. She does that every time she opens her mouth to tell us how poor she was and how she grew up in a log cabin and read for the bar by candle light and how she had to plow 20 acres everyday before she walked 10 miles through snow and rain to school.
And of course in trying to be as ''tough as one of the boys'' she gets her war-on faster than anyone and her willingness to get troops killed for some worthy cause Washington has dreamed up is second to none!
- Nope MM, she doesn't need any help from the Republicans or the Democrats. She a one-woman wrecking crew all by herself.
HockeyMom
(14,337 posts)than Hillary Clinton.
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)I would like to see who will run in 2016, if the Congress is in republican hands due to 2014 voter resignation. Would Hillary really run then? I doubt it somehow. She has seen how a black president got and gets blocked all the time; would a woman fare better? No way! Thus she waits until the end of November. So, why quibble about this now?
Rex
(65,616 posts)They seem to have your goat, not worth it imo.
mcar
(42,372 posts)truebluegreen
(9,033 posts)neverforget
(9,436 posts)Bonobo
(29,257 posts)If you will vote for the Democrat in all cases no matter who they are or what they say or do, then there really is no point in wasting your time or brain power actually thinking for yourself about anything, is there?
Katashi_itto
(10,175 posts)sheshe2
(83,860 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)BainsBane
(53,056 posts)as voting or contributing to the GOP.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)at the national convention, of course I'll support him. I will support the Democratic candidate for President as part of my GOTV canvassing efforts. If Bernie runs, I'll also support him in Minnesota's caucus and convention system. I like Bernie Sanders.
I do not believe, however, that his primary run will be successful. That's based on my past experience with the nomination process. Unfortunately, I will be surprised if he wins as many as two primaries, and I wouldn't count on those, if I were him.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)struggle4progress
(118,330 posts)of a Clinton run as a fundraiser, hoping the old gang of ugly lunatics who goose-stepped about in their "Hitlery" costumes can be revitalized. Lazy reporters push the speculation because they can generate column inches without much effort
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)I think there's a possibility that she won't run, but I doubt she'll make that decision. I do expect her to run. How she does in the primaries is going to depend on who decides to throw a hat into the ring. I don't think Elizabeth Warren will, and I'm not sure Bernie Sanders will, at least as a Democrat. Beyond those two, I'm not seeing a lot of support for others out there who might.
My guess is that Hillary runs and gets the nomination. If so, I think she wins in 2016, for many reasons. But, it's a guess, since I have no idea what the real dynamics are at the presidential nomination level. I confine my own political activities to legislative elections in my own state and federal districts. In presidential election years, I promote the Democratic candidate during pre-election GOTV efforts, along with the Democratic legislators running in my districts.
I have essentially zero influence in the selection of the presidential candidate, but have some influence in those legislative nominations. Not much, but some, since I'm active in the DFL caucus and convention system here in MN. We also have primaries, though, so convention endorsements of candidates have only so much weight, and can be overridden by other factors.
Presidential politics is simply not my area of expertise, although I follow those races closely. The politics at that level are not accessible to me. I can get to the MN state DFL convention if I want to, but there's no chance that I'd ever make it to the national convention. Too many folks ahead of me in that process, and I'm not willing to spend the time needed to move myself into that position.
struggle4progress
(118,330 posts)she'd been in public life for thirty some years and that she had other interests she wanted to pursue. In a recent interview, she said how much she enjoyed not having much of a schedule and being able to stay at home and watch TV on a whim. She's had a long rough road from the day she was First Lady in Arkansas -- the target of constant personal attacks, year after year after year, from complaints about her hair in Arkansas to speculation about whether she had Vince Foster assassinated to the current Benghazi noise. She's smart and capable, and she grew a thick skin, but the attacks take a psychological toll
Her daughter's pregnant, and currently working with the family foundation, so there will be a strong temptation to focus on family and foundation
Campaigning is exhausting work, and occupying the White House even more so under the best of circumstances: if she ran and won, she'd be (like Reagan) 69 at inauguration, and the rule of thumb is that the President ages two years for ever year in office, so her vitality would deteriorate quickly, and she knows it. Reagan protected himself by being a hands-off President, who left everything to others and merely gave nice avuncular speeches; Clinton, being a much more goal-oriented person, and being much more ethical than Reagan, wouldn't be able to protect herself that way. And almost all the older generation in DC has been saying that the current style of politics there isn't much fun: the pleasure of working across the aisle to craft compromises isn't often available now
It's one thing to run for President if one has a real hope of doing something. But it's a completely different thing, if one expects all one's old enemies to pop from the woodwork to re-hash old attacks and expects eight years of pointless noisy obstructionism
So I really just can't see her revisiting her idea that she's spent thirty years in public life and would now like to pursue some other interests
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)And no wonder, really. I'm sure she's more rested now and has thought a lot about what she said then. I see her current activity as evidence that she is very seriously considering another run for the presidential nomination. Certainly, she is not looking like a non-candidate.
I have no doubt that she is also aware of all of the negative crap that's going to be made public if she does run. Benghazi is just the beginning. The RW will trot out everything from Vince Foster to all those vicious rumors that she is a lesbian. It will be an ugly campaign, indeed. And that's just from the right. She'll also face a lot of criticism from the other end of the political spectrum, as we're seeing here on DU even now. She knows all of that.
Yet, she appears to be firmly on the campaign trail, with a book publication and a flurry of appearances. That's not atypical of someone who is actively pursuing the possibility of a run. Along with the negatives, she would also have a lot of support for a presidential run. Strong support. If she secures the nomination, she will have the endorsement of Obama, for one, and of just about every Democrat in a leadership position. She'll have the full support of the DNC, and a ready source of campaign funds in quantities that will probably break records. So, she's facing a decision.
I don't know what she will decide. I've never met her or talked to her. I probably never will. So, I'm making no predictions. I'm just saying that she looks like a likely candidate right now, for the stage of things as they are. The 2014 mid-term elections will probably make the final decision for her. I can imagine her skipping it if the Congressional elections don't go well. The past six years have been a very, very difficult time for a Democratic President, and Obama has weathered them with his good humor and resilience intact. Hillary may decide that she doesn't want to preside over such an environment, though. I don't know.
In any case, she looks like a candidate right now. That has brought out those who do not want her as a candidate, and in their numbers. For now, though, I'm dropping back to my default GOTV position for 2014. That is far more pressing and far more timely. I can engage in threads like this one without losing my focus on that, so I do.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)..."without losing my focus on that, so I do."
Oh FFS. THIS IS YOUR THREAD. I'm "engaging in" it. You're not "engaging in" it -- YOU FUCKING STARTED IT!
Anyway. For you to acknowledge that "she looks like a candidate right now", and to pontificate at length on the topic, while at the same time suggesting that those of us who don't want her as our candidate in 2016 should STFU because she hasn't declared yet, is a remarkable display of hypocrisy.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)Had you also used italics, I'd have given it five stars.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...your posts in this thread display a remarkable level of hypocrisy.
BTW I agree on your star system. Drat. I forgot to work in italics. I'll try to do better next time.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)MineralMan
(146,325 posts)I'm at a complete loss.
Orsino
(37,428 posts)JoeyT
(6,785 posts)Anyone that doesn't support her must really be a secret Republican, and she not only deserves your vote but your money as well, peasants. Not because she's done anything whatsoever to deserve them, instead she deserves them by divine right.
Yeah, that's going to be a winning strategy. Lemme know how it works out for y'all. It didn't work so well for the last people that tried it.
Demsrule86
(68,643 posts)Those who bash Hillary or any Dem including Obama do the GOP's work for them.
beachbum bob
(10,437 posts)keep doing what you are doing Hillary bashers
remember what Nader supporters did for america in 2000
the blood is on their hands more than anyone elses
mylye2222
(2,992 posts)"Or you are with us, or you are against us"
The Hillary supporters' meme sounds very..........Rumsfeldite!